badgenome said:
I don't agree. I think partisanship has driven people to actually become caricatures of their ideologies. The primary driving force in partisan politics seems to be spite, and as partisans increasingly define themselves more by what they are not rather than by what they are, they come to resemble what the other side thinks them to be rather than whatever it is they originally were. When someone accuses me of arguing in bad faith because everything I say is a smokescreen for the fact that I really just want people to starve to death, I'm at a loss as to why you think he doesn't deserve to be mocked. |
The reality is, whatever views you have, have consequences. When you argue that there should be cuts, and propose no solution for this, you are supporting the consequences of such actions. This can result in premature death. It is the fallout of your beliefs. This is reality. Maybe you don't really like the idea of these consequences if you directly did them, but take them as the price of your beliefs. People argue things aren't perfect as a mask for a lot of things that can be done better, but choose not to.
And with this, then it is asked to show otherwise. I did ask you to show otherwise, AT LEAST, showing what Paul Ryan has proposed, as a way to get people trained sufficiently, since he said you teach to fish, rather than just feed fish (to them. My point for posting was NOT to say Paul Ryan was feeding fish, but show that he told a woman who is on welfare and working poor, she can make it if she just had enough talent). If you don't propose any way, or argue for it, you show you really don't care, and haven't given much thought. You propose a belling of cats, rather than anything else. It is down to rationalization level, the way Paul Ryan is. Show otherwise for Paul Ryan. The Bishops in his own church havet taken him to task over his policies on the poor (and his glorification of Ayn Rand):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-17/catholic-bishops-paul-ryan-budget/54361480/1
