StrangeSox

Because the Senate got noticeably more progressive, liberals won on SSM ballot measures and legalizing marijuana (though that's not strictly a liberal thing, it's definitely not conservative), and because they won the Presidency pretty strongly despite Obama not being that strong of a candidate.

Ok wtf me, jenks and ss2k5 are all arguing on the same side.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) No it really isnt. Morality involves good v bad, that the action of interfering is bad or good. I am saying that the action is neither good nor bad, it just is. I am not saying that the action is right or wrong, I am saying that the action just is. The reason you cant do the action is because the other person has the right to not be interfered with, thus your action was neither good, bad, right or wrong, it just was not allowed. Im making no judgment on the actual act itself, but regardless this semantics argument isnt going to go anywhere. the assumption of this right is a moral judgement

yup

Microsoft Translates English To Mandarin Speech In Real Time

In a conversation about economic disparity in the US, yeah, I'm going to point to the people with five extra zeroes on their net worth.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) Nope not true at all. In each of those instances you caused harm to another person, thats not a moral question. "don't cause others harm" is a moral position.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) you realize there are conservatives that are pro-choice, right? Former-rep Biggert is. That's one reason why I didn't care enough to vote against her.

'Raging' online and actually doing something are not mutually exclusive. However, you continue to evade the point, which is that the ultra wealthy, those with the ability to move the markets, don't even actually have to give up anything. It would not impact their life one iota, yet you advocate that they not only can, but that they should crash the economic system.

I have seen all those reasons given by conservative media and posters on this board, including you, in the past several days as for why they lost. I hope that's truly the lesson they take away.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) I wish they documented the political positions of women who actually get abortions. I'd bet conservatives would be shocked at how many of their own go through with it. Anectdotally, I know more than a handful of conservative women, including family members, who've had an abortion. It's ok for them but not for others. That has actually been looked at before. Usually there's some special pleading about why their case is unique.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) Oh please, we do this all the time. Yeah I'd say most legislation is moral in one sense or another.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) That's a terrible analogy. It takes a lot more effort for a person to get an illegal abortion than to get illegal drugs. It means that women with the means will be able to find doctors and relatively safe, clandestine procedures while poor women are left to find a back-alley abortion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) Which leads to women performing their own gruesome surgeries... Illegalizing abortion will be just as successful as illegalizing drugs. Which is to say that it will be completely unsuccessful and cause material harm instead.

Arguing for higher tax rates on the top incomes and for economic and social policy that lessens the wealth gap in America is not shirking responsibility. You don't need to impoverish yourself in order to make these economic policy arguments, and you are being completely disingenuous when you say that. edit: further, what you are saying is simply not true. If I were to give an additional 10% of my income each year, it would have a material impact on my lifestyle and what I could or couldn't afford. This is not true of centamillionaires and billionaires.

It was a solid night for liberalism in general. If you really think it's because "blacks only voted for Obama because he's black," or that latinos only did so because they mistakenly believe the GOP's only policy is "deport 'em all," or that single women only did so because of "free contraceptives and abortions," or anything to do with the "takers" who want "stuff" and "things" unlike Traditional Americans, I'm glad.

How is she not an accomplice to the murder?

I don't know and am not going to google it at work.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) Its the usual dodge of people above me should be paying. Its lame. If you are going to expound a lifestyle you should probably be willing to live it. I am not in the top bracket but I am not opposed to my taxes rising by some marginal amount. I certainly wouldn't be a giant baby and cause millions to suffer if I had the ability. However, it is still a weak dodge in defense of privilege. People in America can still have legitimate concerns about wealth disparity in this country even if they are relatively well-off compared to other parts of the world. Saying "well what about Africa!?" only works as a weak distraction to avoid actually talking about wealth disparity in America.

If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) Its ironic to hear you rage about people taking down a system, and then to advocate for revolution under your breath. I am not unaware of the irony. I considered changing my avatar to Robespierre.

He won 8/9 "battleground" states, most by comfortable margins. The Democrats increased their lead in the Senate by adding progressive Senators. More Americans voted for Democrats for the House, but the GOP retained their advantage because of gerrymandering (e.g. PA and OH are both somewhere around 15R-5D despite more D votes overall in the state).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) It would be best for you to send most of your wealth to people in Africa. Have you done it? Oh hey this lame dodge again.

btw long-term, it's probably not "best" for the uber-wealthy to crash the system and cause widespread economic suffering. That usually doesn't end well for the "let them eat cake" crowd.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) They absolutely should do what is best for them and sell. Its not about the left wing rhetoric. It is about individual economic freedom. See, and that's s*** morals, to do what's "best" for yourself and f*** the millions that would be impacted by it. Even if not doing what's "best" for yourself won't actually affect your life. We have many freedoms to do stupid and terrible things. That doesn't mean that we should exercise them in those manners.