Ten oz

Crocheting creates tangible things that share reality equally with everyone. Anyone that performs it in the same manner will get identical results. And more to the point of this thread; what is the opposite of crocheting?

Political debates get so lost in the idea that fairness demands equal time that we freeze in place. We should not have to captulate on issues simply to ensure everyone feels like their 2 cents were treated equally. That is one of the main points of arguments for many Republicans. Equal voice on climate change, A flat or "fair" tax plan, immigrants are great they just have to do legally, and etc. They play to the concept of what they view as morally right while ignoring any of the logistics and real life costs associated. It isn't that I don't think it is possible for a Syrian refugee to to sympathize with terrorists; I just understand that there are far other lives as stake. Risk vs reward. A competent politicians seeks solutions that resolve problems. Just as a competent car mechanic repairs vehicles. Carpet bombing does resolve the issues in Syria it merely seeks to end them. Killing people ends them it does not relsolve anything. It is like a mechanic who just pulls the wheels off places a vehicle in a junk yard. Immigration - end it by building wall and hiring extra agency to guard it. Climate Change - Isn't real and either way jobs and the economy are too important for climate to be considered even if it were true. Abortion - end it Healthcare - end all government involvement Criminal Justice reform - end black lives matter Syria - Bomb it Iraq - bomb it some more Iran - bomb it too

Which is why I said it is all subjective in my first post on the matter. You are creating your own definitions to support individual points of view.

@ TAR, as you pointed out addicts get rushes of dopimane just preparing to use. What triggers our chemical responses are unique to each of us. As such what love is and how it impacts our brains is different as well. The thread asks what the opposite of love is. The question treats love as a singular thing and it isn't. Love is an emotion and emotions can be overlapping, chemically induced, manifested by mental disorders, repressed, fleeting, and etc. Love is not singular and does not have a linear opposing end that serves as it opposite.

Politics matter; has real impact on real lives. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a single mother, Syrian refugee, or illegal immigrant working 16hr days and hearing the rhetoric coming from the mouths of many of these politicians. It is despicable! People deserve dignity. Mocking the most vulnerbale amongst is no way to competently govern.

@ TAR, now try to expand that (evolutionary reward response) to this topics question about what the oppoiste of love is; can really only be done subjectively. If we mix biology into the dicussion thoroughly than anixiety becomes a possible opposite. Anxiety would be is logical opposite to a dopamine reward sensation in the brain. It is all just perspective.

The thread is asking about competent Republicans. You are saying Ted Cruz is brillant but hedging on the issue of his competency by asking for his ideology to be ignore. Take the next step and use Ted Cruz's brilliance as part of an argument that reflects his competence. Because being brilliant doesn't cut it. Tom Cruise is brillant but he sure isn't competent to be the President of the United States. The Department of Homeland Security alone has a 65 billion dollar budget and the Department of Justice has a 27 billion dollar budget. That is just looking at some of our federal law enforcement spend. Local level: LAPD has a 1.1 billion dollar budget, Dallas P.D. 450 million dollar budget, Phoenix P.D. 570 million budget and etc. It would probably take me a year to research the numbers to even create a fair estimate for how much money gets spent all told on law enforcement in this country. Hundreds of billions probably over a trillion and what do we have; 2 million convicted in prison. How could we possibly detain and deport 11 million people? Obviously we don't have the money or resources to follow through. Even if we did what would the real value be? Spend a trillion dollars to kick out 11 million people who work and contribute to our economy? It is illogical. Mention climate change and a conservative is always fast to point out that energy and the cost of goods might rise if companies have to make any accommodations. Meanwhile they pretend that trying to remove 11 million, most manual labor workers, would somehow help our economy and have no impact on the cost.

It won't cut cost that is for sure. It is very telling that the only poster here defending Ted Cruz is doing so by insisting that what Ted Cruz actually says isn't serious and isn't waht Ted Cruz would actually do.Ted Cruz is somehow showing his competence by pretending to be incompetent. It is an awfully convenient claim.

Obama doesn't want it. He has already addressed the suggestion. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/267360-wh-obama-doesnt-want-supreme-court-appointment

In 2012 when running for the Senate Ted Cruz's message on immigration mirrored what he is running on now. http://www.texastribune.org/2012/06/20/illegal-immigration-flashpoint-us-senate-race/

It is impossible to quantify the degree. Is love ones child different than love of chocolate or a sunrise? Both have a chemical reward in your brain.

Can you provide meaningful examples where Ted Cruz has legislatied counter to his rhetoric? Something to support your suggesstion.

Who is the competent Republcian on this issue and what is their proposal? You say Ted Cruz is intelligent (competent?) have you reviewed his plan; Ted Cruz's plan is to build a wall, triple the agents on the border, drones, catch everyone illegal, and send them home. In your opinion that is a competent plan? Build a wall that works. I will fulfill the promise Congress made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700 miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible. Triple the number of Border Patrol agents. Since the federal government is primarily responsible for securing the border, we must allocate sufficient human resources for the task. In 2013, I introduced legislation to triple the number of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border Increase vital aerial surveillance. To truly protect our southern border, the men and women who serve in the Border Patrol need eyes in the sky. End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. The Obama Administration has issued at least 20 executive memoranda over the course of his two terms in office that grant amnesty, ignore the law, and worsen our immigration problems. Enforce the law: Restore our commitment to enforcement and public safety and the Rule of Law by rededicating DHS to fully enforcing the law, including through deportations and returns. Add detention space for interior enforcement: Support ICE agents and their enforcement efforts by significantly increasing permanent detention capacity for illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, and give ICE leadership the flexibility to procure additional, temporary detention space from the General Services Administration and state and local law enforcement on an as-needed basis. *Edit - I forgot to link Ted Cruz's campaign site. https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

Great point! What is positive or negative, love or hate, opposite or not is all completely subjective. Philosophically the existence love as anything more than a individually unique experience can be challanged. As such conceptual opposites can vary greatly.

You could be right. However statewide level politics is a bit different than district level. George Bush and Rick Perry are former Texas Govenors and both are pro immigration reform. Current TX gov Greg Abbott is actually being criticized within Texas for not speaking out more openly against Donald Trump's hard lined immigration stance: http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/23/abbott-trump-presents-challenge-hispanics/

Some gamesmanship may be required here. This is politics after all. Obama may need to nominate someone like Sri knowing that they will be blocked then pull the nomination, giving the Senate GOP a win, and then nominate somenone like Lynch who then gets confirmed. Think Robert Bork. After Bork was rejected Anthony Kennedy got a unanimous vote.

The current Republican field of incompetents is going to be a turning point for the party in my opinion. For the sake of getting votes the Republican party pandered to various fringe conservative wings. They campaigned to the salt of the earth pull your self up by your boot strap types but then once in office partner with heads of the military industrial complex and energy conglomerates. Those fringe groups have actually started to believe the Republican party is their party. Not just the better of two evils but they actually expect their views to be strongly represented. Such has created a Republican presidential primary where the 2 lead candidates are not even Republicans; just right wing independents. This is going to force change in the Republican party. All the entrenched political observers on bothsides undertsand that Cruz and Trump are both incompetent to run the United States. I have read RNC talk about changing the primary line up in the future so that Texas or California votes first. There more diverse populations forcing moderate positions early in the nomination process. I suspect they will be a big push to get Republicans like Marco Rubio and George P. Bush out in the media selling a Republican immigration reform policy. And the establishment will fight back against the Tea Party in the midterm and try to recruit Democrats to help them primary elected Tea Party members The Republican Party is an executive party. They are not the party of the modndane day to day business of government at the House level. They need govenorships and the White House. That way they can fill court and cabinet positions. Losing the White House for multiple terms is eroding decades of work they put into the DOD, CIA, DOJ, and our federal courts. The Republican must change if it will ever get executive power back. If they don't they will lose their true base of weapons contractors, oil companies, chemical manufactures, banks, police unions, and etc. They will be left with church groups and anti government militias. So a shift is inevitable in my opinion. When a company like Haliburton is better off having a democrat like Hilary in office than either of the GOP front runners; change is coming. I believe over the next 4yrs we will see competent Republicans rise campaigning on immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and they will even acknowledge climate change selling a change in energy policy as a way to create jobs.

I started a thread a while back asking for examples of Conservative successes globally. I pointed out that most Country viewed as allies to the USA are socialist to an extend and asked for examples of governements that succeed using Conservative polices. No one made a case. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83950-examples-of-conservative-idealism-success/

Only the GOP isn't even keen on infastructure. They have been combative against the administrations infastructure proposals. The GOP have used the never built Alaskan bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina (Bridge to nowhere) to campiagn against infastructure spending for a decade. Our crumbling infastructure is actually a growing burden to business. Poor road conditions promote traffic and wear and tear to vehicles. That impacts fleet vehicles much as it does the rest of us. That is of course just the tip of the iceberg. Every from public transport to building public parks has a direct value to business attached. If it were truly all about low taxes, cheap property, and low wage as Republicans insist Wyoming would be our nations jobs leader instead of High tax, expensive property, and high waged California.

Politics change over time. That is one of the reason why Supreme Court Justices get life time appointments. It is meant to insulate them from the politics of the day to a degree. Sadly political action groups like the Federalist Society have created a method to get long term political ideology built into the system. Federalist society goes beyond political affiliation and straight into a netwroked society loyalty where specific ideology is groomed. Once part of such a society positions are dependent upon loyalty and that is an obvious conflict of interest. I am not sure how this can be resolved constitunational. The President has total discretion over whom they nominate.

Antonia Scalia was very influential. Clearance Thomas in particular seldom ever votes opposite. Without Scalia there to seed arguments we may not get many of the 4-4 rulings many assume are coming. Despite it being John Roberts court Scalia was the leader on the conservative wing. That wing is staunchly conservative without him. Thomas is silent during oral arguments so it is highly unlikely he picks up the mantle while Samual Alito generally piggy backed off of concepts presented by Scalia. I assume Roberts will now be the conservative lead and he has already shown himslef to be more moderate than was Scalia. I do not believe either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump can win the White House. Nor do they have support within the establishment of the Republican party. I suspect the Senate to initially block Obama's nominee but who wins the GOP nomination will determine for how long they block that nominee. I don't believe the GOP establishment wastes a year fighting with the White House if Trump or Cruz are the nominee; no point. If Cruz or Trump wins the primary I predict a senate compromise to break the filibuster shortly after theconvention. If it is Rubio or Bush win the Senate will fight harder and no deals get made.

This beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument assumes that opinion and not outcome impacts what's adequate. Gov't programs and benefits all have stated goals and benchmarks. What the benefit is meant to do or achieve is what determines how adequate it is. Whether or not some in the minority oppose a benefit outright as a matter of principle has no bearing on what it takes to adequately manage that benefit. Your post is an example of one of the rights many false equivalents.

I didn't mean to imply you had.

@ John Cuthber, I agree that promoting fairness is important but only one small bit of the role government is meant to play. Resources can be fairly divided but then still used up leaving everyone with nothing. Government must have an eye towards to future. Build metro systems before areas become too congested. Prevent development in certain areas to ensure future water sources or farmland. I can only imagine what might had been had my government not created the National Park system for example. It isn't just fairness. A responsible government builds infastructure: schools, museums, hospitals, parks, transportation, and etc.

Things change. We can agree on there and leave it. I do not want to derail this thread debating something off topic. Reagan was an actor. Not just in Hollywood but in the White House. Reagan was clearly not the leader on his own administration. That has been a theme amongst Republicans since. Bush never fully seemed to have control over his administration either. McCain got duped into put Palin on his ticket and running away from immigration. Same goes for Romney. Mitt had to sprint away from the politics of his past. I never got the impression during the Clinton years that Gore or whom every was actually behind the scenes pulling the strings. Bill was clearly his own man. Same goes for Obama. I don't get the impression Pelosi and Reid and sit Obama down and tell him what to say. Since Reagan the GOP and seemed more interested in a front many than a leader. Some to deliver policy but not come up with policy. They (GOP) have think tanks for that.