Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jim11
- Start date
drummer
Footballguy
Saying you can afford to lose just means you have a serious problem.
ETA: there is a huge irony here as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
ceo3west
Footballguy
So Boehner has been sitting on a bipartisan immigration bill for 500 days that has the majority of both the house and the senate, but wont put it up for vote. And now he says Obama has poisoned the well for reform. Fact is that this guy hasn't had control of his caucus for 4 years and has blamed his own inaction on Obama the whole time. Anyone who believes anything he says at this point is a moron.
As much as I agree that Obama could have waited to work with the new Congress, why haven't the House passed a bill?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Why haven't they passed the Senate bill? I'd hope it's because they realize that's a terrible bill.
Why haven't they passed any bill at all? Because they're politicians, and therefore worthless.
What does that have to do with anything? That is the process to create law in this country and it needs to be followed.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because the conservative base of the Republican Party will never agree to any bill which gives illegal immigrants the right to stay here. Never . It's that simple.
tommyboy
Footballguy
why do liberals/independents have such a problem with understanding what the opposing party wants and the reasons why?
Its not that simple. Conservative base is split in two on this issue, because some of them want lax borders for cheap labor and some of them want the laws on the books enforced. Neither of those two things has anything to do with whether or not "the base" wants to give rights to illegals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/poll-gop-immigration-111258.html
Its not that simple. Conservative base is split in two on this issue, because some of them want lax borders for cheap labor and some of them want the laws on the books enforced. Neither of those two things has anything to do with whether or not "the base" wants to give rights to illegals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/poll-gop-immigration-111258.html
timschochet
Footballguy
Many conservatives here seem convinced that I am a diehard liberal, despite my denials, mostly because I attack the Tea Party so much. But I don't attack the Tea Party because of their ideology; I attack them because of their rigidity and refusal to legislate or compromise, which has more done so much to poison the political atmosphere in the last 6 years. No, Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for this poison; they've made mistakes, and deserve much criticism, but the main and overwhelming cause of most of our political problems now is the Tea Party conservative base of the GOP.
This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.
And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.
This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.
And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.
Koya
Footballguy
I don't necessarily disagree. That said, it's sadly clear that some care more about party positions and ideology than people. Not just this topic, but it certainly resonates here perhaps moreso than anywhere.
Let's face it, humans are nationalistic and xenophobic by nature... an ugly head that's been reared throughout history. But doesn't make it any easier to watch.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Of course it seems wrong to you, because you refuse to acknowledge that the Tea Party has gone off the deep end on this issue, like so many others. You view these discussions as partisan arguments, left vs. right, and I keep trying to tell you that the Tea Party is something different. There is no Democratic party equivalent.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
So, in short, liberals tend to view the world thru emotion and feel goody-ness.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's in the sig of every post I write. No need of you to emphasize it.
But it's my honest opinion. I regard you and tommyboy and even jon mx to be thoughtful conservatives. As such, you've lost control of your political party: it's now being dominated by the non-thinkers among you.
tommyboy
Footballguy
blah blah blah
the reason we think you're a liberal is because you ARE a liberal, you're just in total denial about it. Almost all of your links come from liberal websites, your first reaction on most issues is the liberal approved one, and you don't have a very good grasp on what conservatives want. All of this, this overwhelming amount of data you've provided us for the last several years, is why we call you what you are.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Sensible people have signatures turned off.
I'm not a Republican. I haven't lost control.
timschochet
Footballguy
As far as tommyboy's earlier point: yes there are Republicans, connected to the Chamber of Commerce, who would like to see continued lax border controls and generally support giving illegals a path to citizenship. But these are establishment Republicans: they represent the business/establishment wing of the Republican party. This is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and their big donors. They've run the GOP for decades and nominally still do. As them in private, and I'd bet they'd tell you that they detest all the Tea Party nuts.
I was not speaking of these kinds of Republicans in my criticism. In fact, I am usually pretty sympathetic to them.
I was not speaking of these kinds of Republicans in my criticism. In fact, I am usually pretty sympathetic to them.
Koya
Footballguy
liberals or Liberals? Big difference in this conversation.
The former, imo, all people should strive for. To take a liberal approach to life (lower case) is to retain an open mind, to at least attempt not to prejudge and to look for new approaches to even old problems. You can do that and be L or C, imo, though ironically, the more Liberal or Conservative you happen to be, likely the less liberal you are. And, imo, that's a huge disadvantage in terms of governing and trying to do what is best for the nation rather than you own ideological agenda.
Now, to the latter, I would suggest that many Liberals recognize the pain and hardship of other human beings and wish to have the gov't play a larger role in tending to those issues and needs. While I don't agree with their means, it's hard to argue with someone who has a bleeding heart because they want others to not suffer, or have a better chance at a decent life etc.
For those who are Conservative, politically, if you feel the same level and caring as do the bleeding hearts, and do so for all (not just those like you, who believe in what you believe in, etc), but simply don't believe that the gov't is the way to provide for their overall welfare (no pun intended), that's one thing.
I sadly get the feeling that on the left, many are less interested in really helping others and want simply to push either a left leaning ideology that others must follow, or to cater to certain large interests on the left and preserve that power. On the right, I get the feeling that, especially for those who are "different" there really is a lack of actually caring.
In this way, both the L's and the C's are hardly liberal and really just selfishly looking to preserve THEIR slice of the pie and THEIR preferred morals and values at the expense of others ability to live according to the individual, not the group think.
The former, imo, all people should strive for. To take a liberal approach to life (lower case) is to retain an open mind, to at least attempt not to prejudge and to look for new approaches to even old problems. You can do that and be L or C, imo, though ironically, the more Liberal or Conservative you happen to be, likely the less liberal you are. And, imo, that's a huge disadvantage in terms of governing and trying to do what is best for the nation rather than you own ideological agenda.
Now, to the latter, I would suggest that many Liberals recognize the pain and hardship of other human beings and wish to have the gov't play a larger role in tending to those issues and needs. While I don't agree with their means, it's hard to argue with someone who has a bleeding heart because they want others to not suffer, or have a better chance at a decent life etc.
For those who are Conservative, politically, if you feel the same level and caring as do the bleeding hearts, and do so for all (not just those like you, who believe in what you believe in, etc), but simply don't believe that the gov't is the way to provide for their overall welfare (no pun intended), that's one thing.
I sadly get the feeling that on the left, many are less interested in really helping others and want simply to push either a left leaning ideology that others must follow, or to cater to certain large interests on the left and preserve that power. On the right, I get the feeling that, especially for those who are "different" there really is a lack of actually caring.
In this way, both the L's and the C's are hardly liberal and really just selfishly looking to preserve THEIR slice of the pie and THEIR preferred morals and values at the expense of others ability to live according to the individual, not the group think.
Of course there are. There are gay rights groups. There are abortion rights groups. There are Civil rights groups. There are teach unions. All these type of groups are rigid and will not compromise one inch on their issues and they all have significant power in the Democratic organization.Of course it seems wrong to you, because you refuse to acknowledge that the Tea Party has gone off the deep end on this issue, like so many others. You view these discussions as partisan arguments, left vs. right, and I keep trying to tell you that the Tea Party is something different. There is no Democratic party equivalent.
Koya
Footballguy
Oof, not even going to bother clicking the link with that garbage - and I am not refuting the "data" and "conclusions" expressed in this post.
That said:
1. Understanding or not understanding someone else's morality and rationale for certain positions <> openmindedness
2. Openmindedness is the ability to entertain ideas that you might not have previously thought possible, feasible, acceptable or right. As such, and as I stated above
3. Hardcore Liberals AND Conservatives alike are a lot more of one another in their inability to accept compromise or entertain new approaches and solutions and whenever I see someone just blanket one or the other as "wrong" or "closeminded" as just stated here by JMX (and constantly from my father from the Lib side of the coin) that tells me they are so utterly biased and closeminded as to have no say in who else may or may not be so.
Or, to be succinct, when a Lib decries all Conservatives or vice versa, it just reduces what, if any, value your voice and opinions may have. Does no good, lets you entrench on one side while the alternative view entrenches on theirs, and neither of you really provide much constructive benefit to the whole, at all.
That said:
1. Understanding or not understanding someone else's morality and rationale for certain positions <> openmindedness
2. Openmindedness is the ability to entertain ideas that you might not have previously thought possible, feasible, acceptable or right. As such, and as I stated above
3. Hardcore Liberals AND Conservatives alike are a lot more of one another in their inability to accept compromise or entertain new approaches and solutions and whenever I see someone just blanket one or the other as "wrong" or "closeminded" as just stated here by JMX (and constantly from my father from the Lib side of the coin) that tells me they are so utterly biased and closeminded as to have no say in who else may or may not be so.
Or, to be succinct, when a Lib decries all Conservatives or vice versa, it just reduces what, if any, value your voice and opinions may have. Does no good, lets you entrench on one side while the alternative view entrenches on theirs, and neither of you really provide much constructive benefit to the whole, at all.
Koya
Footballguy
At least this post provides some logical options, agree or disagree, regardless.
That said, we have, as a nation, created a grey market for labor for which many industries rely. It's not so simple as to say "well, we basically ignored these laws for years and, worse yet, essentially encouraged immigrants to take root without documentation to fill this grey market need" and then one day say, oh... wait, all those laws and #### we've ignored for years, tomorrow we are going to fully enforce.
I mean, let's be real about this and not pretend its so simple. Because, it's not.
Sand
Footballguy
Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Haidt is not a liberal . If he was, then there should be plenty of criticism of his writings from the right, which I can't seem to find, and see below from his Wiki entryl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
Criticism[edit]
Haidt has been criticized by the “new atheists,” such as Sam Harris, who argued that Haidt’s defense of religion ends up justifying human sacrifice and superstition.[23]Haidt has also been criticized by some authors on the political left. Social psychologist John Jost wrote that Haidt “mocks the liberal vision of a tolerant, pluralistic, civil society, but, ironically, this is precisely where he wants to end up.”[24] The journalist Chris Hedges wrote a scathing review of The Righteous Mind in which he accused Haidt of supporting “social Darwinism” and right-wing social policies.[25] In his response, Haidt noted many inaccuracies in Hedges' reading of the book, most notably that Hedges took quotations from conservatives and inappropriately attributed them to Haidt.[26]
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty typical of liberal hack jobs. If this thread is any indication, Haidt was dead-on accurate about the left's inability to understand and characterized the right. Idiotic statements from Todd Andrews can be Exhibit A. Tim's ability to completely misrepresent the views of the right can be Exhibit B.
The epitome of being closed-minded is not understanding or even trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
squistion
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
haidt is a liberal, that's what your link says.
you can see from his twitter feed, https://twitter.com/jonhaidt
he definitely leans lib, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some
"conservative" ideas either.
which just proves the point someone was saying in another thread that most of us fall along a spectrum of lib/con and are clustered in the middle.
Last edited by a moderator:
He was open-minded to have his research lead him to conclusions which conflicted with his ideology, so in that regard he is was very un-liberal.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
No it doesn't and these tweets hardly seem from a liberal:
Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt · Oct 29
Liberals deny science, too (when its about gender or other sacred issues) http://wapo.st/131PbDj via @chriscmooney
Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt · Oct 8
Sam Harris correctly calls out liberals for fearing to criticize muslims. Ben Affleck freaks out: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself … @samharrisorg
Haidt was a self professed liberal before doing the research. Now he is much more open-minded in his thinking but still is liberal leaning. The point that he was a liberal was really not that critical to the point I was making. All that I was conveying is that Haidt research is respected and has been favorably reviewed in places such as the New York Times. He is hardly a right-wing hack who can be dismissed as some loon as several were doing in this thread.
Koya
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Those tweets don't seem like they would come from a liberal hack. But they could easily be authored by a non-hack liberal.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Oh well....a well-written and respected book with ideas in it worthy of discussion turns into a character assassination instead of a civil discussion because the conclusions fail to line up with their beliefs. What else is new. Ironically, it is pretty much the type of mindset which the book criticizes, but correctly predicts.
bigbottom
Footballguy
I'm not sure if my post prompted this. I was agreeing with you (or at least disagreeing with the argument against your position). Did you not understand my post?
No, you did not prompt that. I realized you semi-agreed with me, but you still considered the guy a hack, at least that is my take. Perhaps, but his research is worthy of reading and discussing. It gives good insight into the thinking of different political perspectives.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Let me put this another way, since it appears that my post was too confusing or ambiguous.
Neither of those tweets suggest anything that would be necessarily inconsistent with liberal idealogy. What they are, however, is critical of liberals. That is why I noted that the tweets don't seem like they would come from someone who is a liberal hack (i.e., can't ever say anything bad about their side or good about the other side). They could, however, very easily be tweeted by a liberal who is not a hack and is merely making an observation about liberals (or at least certain liberals) with respect to two particular issues.
bigbottom
Footballguy
You misunderstood my post. In fact, my point was quite the opposite - to the extent he's liberal, those tweets are evidence that he is not a liberal hack. I have no idea who the guy is, so I don't have an informed opinion on the issue. I was merely taking issue with the conclusion that just because he tweeted specific criticisms of liberals, that was evidence that he wasn't liberal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
What character assassination? The guy said that the fact that Libs may not understand they Conservative counterparts, that means they are not openminded. How can anyone be expected to invest time in reading more into something that has such a glaring red flag at its surface?jon_mx said:
Koya
Footballguy
can't argue here. although let's be honest, the science thing is so out of whack with the denial of essential facts from the staunch right, it makes the point a bit less impactful. But the Libs, just as their ideological brethren on the right, are all too happy to use lies, damn lies and statistics for pushing their ideology. I won't deny that.bigbottom said:
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}