constitutional amendment ploys

[dairygirl4u2c]

before you vote, if you read this soon enough, think about it being a democrat who is doing that. think about it being either way. think objectively.
specifrically don't vote as if i'm saying president bush is doing this. i'm not saying he has. he surely has i'd like to think other motive other than riling people up to vote for repubs.

also ignore that "about gays" thing inthe titleas it hasnothing to do with the question hypothetically.

Edited June 10, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Rick777]

Who are you? Are you Catholic?How old are you?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i like your questions. it's a good way to size someone up in order to realize if they are old enough to reason with. tho even some older people are but the younger ones especially i mean.

ex catholic. early twenties. actually, i'm undecided but that still makes me ex. my concerns are far too technical in historical record to discuss on phatmass. the internet does not provide the material for discussion and i'd have to be a teacher or write out the books just to begin to discuss the issues i have. it's sorta an intellectual ploy i have given myself in order to not look into the issues for more discussion. but i will one day look into them which i haven't because i fear it will take talking with professors historians and scholars and such. and to those who say that i should look into them if it's my soul on the line etc, i would say they should knowenough to look into them but apparently they have not had the right critical thinking to look into them and given that they do not have gthat and that research takes time i'd recommend they not judge. sure you say you have enopug hevidence to stake you faith, and you probably do reasonably, but there's always room for more research.

see, if you were a psychiatist, you would be eating up what i just rambled...

Edited June 10, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Rick777]

If only I was.

[heavenseeker]

i would have to say no only because a topic like that should not be used as a use of politicat gains. now if they truly wanted to pass a law about it then they should try to get it passed.

[Jaime]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1002031' date='Jun 10 2006, 12:17 AM']
i like your questions. it's a good way to size someone up in order to realize if they are old enough to reason with. tho even some older people are but the younger ones especially i mean.

ex catholic. early twenties. actually, i'm undecided but that still makes me ex. my concerns are far too technical in historical record to discuss on phatmass. the internet does not provide the material for discussion and i'd have to be a teacher or write out the books just to begin to discuss the issues i have. it's sorta an intellectual ploy i have given myself in order to not look into the issues for more discussion. but i will one day look into them which i haven't because i fear it will take talking with professors historians and scholars and such. and to those who say that i should look into them if it's my soul on the line etc, i would say they should knowenough to look into them but apparently they have not had the right critical thinking to look into them and given that they do not have gthat and that research takes time i'd recommend they not judge. sure you say you have enopug hevidence to stake you faith, and you probably do reasonably, but there's always room for more research.

see, if you were a psychiatist, you would be eating up what i just rambled...
[/quote]


or a psychologist


and with a spoon! :

And btw I'm a huge fan of Dairygirl's polls

[Socrates]

I would say the poll is problematic, because it involves judging the heart and soul of the politician involved (be it Bush or anyone else). The question should be, "Should one support such an amendment?"
In that case the answer would be a resounding "yes."
An amendment preventing homosexual "marriages" from being recognized and supported by the state is objectively a good measure.

Proposing such a measure would be immoral only if the politician in question was being blatantly dishonest (if he had absolutely no intention of actually supporting such an amendment). It is not wrong to propose a law if it has little or no chance of passing. Proposing such a law can give moral support to a principle, and encourage others to actually work to get it passed. Personally, I think Bush should use the "Bully Pulpit" more often regarding life and moral issues. If nobody even voices support for something, how could it ever actually get passed?

For the liberals here, forget about the "gay" issue, and try replacing it with an amendment outlawing slavery in antebellum America or something. Would it be wrong for a politician to propose an amendment outlawing slavery if there seemed at the time no chance of it actually being passed?

Edited June 11, 2006 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

good and interesting points, thanks soc. definitely food for thought.

i'd tend to take the absolute and say that even with the guy trying to outlaw slavery it is wrong, just because he's abusing the system. not that the system is inherently good, but we have established it to provide a good, so our establishment of it as imperative makes it good. definitely wrong if there are other issues worth discussiong than the slavery issue, but i'm not considering that in the poll so i won't here.

one begins to wonder, so what if the amendment was hitler banning blondes or what if it was someone trying to outlaw slavery. does the actual amendment matter if it's really just a means to get people to vote? is that justifying the means? only if if there are other things worth voting on, but if there wasn't then it'd be okay because the means are not evil?

there's probably a better question i could have asked.

Edited June 11, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1002695' date='Jun 10 2006, 05:16 PM']
good and interesting points, thanks soc. definitely food for thought.

i'd tend to take the absolute and say that even with the guy trying to outlaw slavery it is wrong, just because he's abusing the system. not that the system is inherently good, but we have established it to provide a good, so our establishment of it as imperative makes it good. definitely wrong if there are other issues worth discussiong than the slavery issue, but i'm not considering that in the poll so i won't here.

one begins to wonder, so what if the amendment was hitler banning blondes or what if it was someone trying to outlaw slavery. does the actual amendment matter if it's really just a means to get people to vote? is that justifying the means? only if if there are other things worth voting on, but if there wasn't then it'd be okay because the means are not evil?

there's probably a better question i could have asked.
[/quote]
So are you saying only laws that are likely to succeed should ever be proposed?
Your example with the slavery amendment proposal being "definitely wrong if there are other issues worth discussiong than the slavery issue" seems highly problematic to say the least. One could always come up with other issues worth discussing. That doesn't mean the slavery issue should not be discussed. If everybody simply remains silent on something, and proposed no action, then nothing could ever be accomplished politically!

Or do you mean to say it is wrong if the politician is concerened [b]only[/b] with getting votes?
As I said earlier, it would be wrong only if the politician in reality had no intention of actually supporting the measure. Of course something done for the rightness of the cause is more morally meritorious than what is done just to win votes. But let's be honest here; what politician has ever done anything without having anyone's votes at all in mind?
The liberals here supposedly outraged at Bush's "playing politics" show little outrage when liberal Democrats do things to win support from their constituency.

[dairygirl4u2c]

* If everybody simply remains silent on something, and proposed no action, then nothing could ever be accomplished politically!*

There are surely gray areas which can be pushed and obviously those things that will pass should be. My point is in regards to issues that clearly will not pass.

Your second paragraph is thought provoking. I'd almost agree with it. I would definitely agree the politican should do it if it was a close call. Then everything you said would be right. but if the measure had next to no chance of winning, then what's the point?

The politican can begin using "just" causes (not sure that it's just if it's not even close to going to win) simply to achieve his ends? A politician can try to persuade corporations to build coalitions in order to end world hunger, knowing he will not achieve his results, and knowing his work will give him great publicity? Sure, if there's a reasonable chance of ending hunger that way, and of coruse we all agree the votes are on mind if we are honest, then the politician was through and through sound. And of course the politician wants to end hunger, he's not doing it just for the votes per se, but he knows it ain't gonna happen. so ultimately it is just for the votes. That sounds like what most would agree is a typical phony politician to me.

Edited June 11, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1002716' date='Jun 10 2006, 05:52 PM']
* If everybody simply remains silent on something, and proposed no action, then nothing could ever be accomplished politically!*

There are surely gray areas which can be pushed and obviously those things that will pass should be. My point is in regards to issues that clearly will not pass.

Your second paragraph is thought provoking. I'd almost agree with it. I would definitely agree the politican should do it if it was a close call. Then everything you said would be right. but if the measure had next to no chance of winning, then what's the point?

The politican can begin using "just" causes (not sure that it's just if it's not even close to going to win) simply to achieve his ends? A politician can try to persuade corporations to build coalitions in order to end world hunger, knowing he will not achieve his results, and knowing his work will give him great publicity? Of course the politician wants to end hunger, he's not doing it just for the votes, but he knows it ain't gonna happen. That sounds like what most would agree is a typical phony politician to me.
[/quote]
The moral rightness or wrongness of such things would depend on the sincerity of the politician's inner intentions, which is something we cannot always judge.
I think more politicians should have the courage to make politically unpopular stands.

I think it's interesting that if a politician proposes something politically popular, he is hailed for his "leadership," but if he does something politically unpopular, he is condemned for "pandering."

Edited June 11, 2006 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

*I think it's interesting that if a politician proposed something politically popular, he is hailed for his "leadership," but if he does something politically unpopular, he is condemned for "pandering."*

I agree it's a peculiar phenomena. This general statement I agree with too.

*I think more politicians should have the courage to make politically unpopular stands.*

I agree with this too.
As for the Bush situation or these other factors we are discussiing (it's kinda hard to keep straight the hypotheticals and where we are going), I'm not so sure it's a politically unpopular stand. Sure, the issue is divisive, so it's just as popular as it is unpopular. In my scenario, which may extend to Bush, the reason's are for gaining votes, so it can hardly be said to be unpopular or at least an altruistic thing.

*The moral rightness or wrongness of such things would depend on the sincerity of the politician's inner intentions, which is something we cannot always judge.*
Sure, we cannot judge the interior of the leader. If ending world hunger failed horribly once, and he wanted to try again, who know, he may be looking for a second chance. But if it's obvious it's not gonna happen, while we may not question his interior life, we surely could question his aptitude. Either he's got low aptitude in that situation, or he's being a phony politician for the votes, which my world hunger scenario I believe best illustrates the ill intent involved.

Edited June 11, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I guess the best way to show how it'd be wrong to do that is to say that he's feigning an attempt at something. I thikn it should be stressed more how the ban failed before and how the senators ahve shown that they are against it. It's like a lie.

Before I said he was abusing hte system, but what I just said better expresses what I had in mind when saying that.

Edited June 11, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c