Fellow Obama-ites: let's be nicer to tighty righties

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I agree that posts by Bricker and Shodan and Carol Stream and others of their ilk occasionally make my urine sample come out all purple, and such posts are often not far removed from blatent trolling. (I actually harbor the thought that on the frequent and recent occasions that they have clearly crossed the line, and have admitted as much in their posts, the mods let it go, mostly on the ideological grounds I'm about to propose here.) They serve a useful purpose. Without them, we would be chattering at each other. When we ask "WTF is going on with this McCain gambit?!?!?" we would only have each other's outside guesses, but with them, we can see that some people at least claim to view bizarre and disturbing behavior as virtuous.

We need to show them, I think, a little more respect. Just a little more. Not because their views deserve respect, mind you, and not because I think they're sincerely trying to argue points they actually believe, but selfishly because their numbers are decreasing around here and we need a few token tighty-righties to argue with. Despise them if you must (I often find their arguments utterly despicable) but try to restrain your open contempt, because I think this place will be the poorer for their leaving it. As we have seen, they don't tolerate losing very well, and just now they don't have many winning arguments, so let's let up a bit, shall we?

[El_Kabong]

I agree that posts by Bricker and Shodanand Carol Stream and others of their ilk occasionally make my urine sample come out all purple, and such posts are often not far removed from blatent trolling...We need to show them, I think, a little more respect. Just a little more. Not because their views deserve respect, mind you, and not because I think they're sincerely trying to argue points they actually believe, but selfishly because their numbers are decreasing around here and we need a few token tighty-righties to argue with.

Bah. Bricker at least provides a bit of factual content on occasion amid the endless partisan noise; the rest of that crew, not so much. There is no real argument, in most cases; pretty much all I ever hear from these pixies is content-free and worthless party cheerleading and insults. If any of these flaming assholes want respect for their views, they'd better start doing something to earn it, and they've been doing a piss-poor job of it so far.

[gonzomax]

From my viewpoint this is a right leaning board. Too many start from the premise that the repubs are actually trying to make America better. I see no evidence of that. I do not draw the line where you guys do. I see too many liberals as enablers. They are too placid in the acceptance of despots like Bush. He should have been impeached then tarred and feathered in public.

[eleanorigby]

I think I'd rather be damned with faint praise than the object of the OP's attempt to be "nice". I'm sure it's meant humorously, but you have marginalized them nicely all while proclaiming your support of them. It's all so muddled here; politics get mixed up with SES, geographical regions, religion (or lack of it), hell even tasts in entertainment. I'm saying it'd be good to try, but I'm dubious as to the results.

Some thoughts:

Palin may have scored points with her base and put some life back into the GOP, but she did not show true leadership qualities. I'm so naive, I think that VPs should show statesmanship. All she really did was try to tear Obama down--she more closely resembled Rush or Ann Coulter than a leader.
I bring this up because I heard something on WBEZ yesterday on my way to work (around 0840 or so)--I cannot now find it, (specifically), and am not about to re-listen to Morning Edition just to locate it for you all. There was a gentleman on, who is powerful in the RNC (I don't recall his name, sorry), but he holds the #3 position within the RNC(?--I seem to recall the announcer saying that).

Anyway, he said something that almost made me crash the car. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that the GOP had not been doing a good job of selling its vision to the American people. That he realizes that Americans are disgusted with the way congress doesn't get along and the partisanship. He almost well nigh apologized for the state of things and said he wanted to work to get things on a better course and to actually tackle some of our more serious problems.

Now, I wasn't born yesterday, so I don't fully buy his "birds in their little nests agree" stuff, but this is the FIRST time since Bush took office that I have heard anyone of GOP power essentially admit hey, we need to do better. IOW own some of the problem.

It was incredibly refreshing. Constant disparagement (from either side) is isolating, solves nothing and actually makes real compromise difficult. I know some will come in here and say that the GOP specializes in Attack Mode. I agree. I am not a Rep in any way. But think a minute what might happen if instead of pointing fingers, pols (and constituents) actually applied themselves to working together. There will be no singing of kumbaya (and for that I give thanks), but maybe something of merit would come of it.

As to the snark here, well, sorry if what goes around comes around. After all, we are not politicians, nor do we answer to anyone except for some random Mods upon occasion. Could we be more tolerant? Probably. Could we actually talk issues instead of character (or perceived lack of it)--I'd like to think so. Time will tell. I like having conservatives here. They are puzzles to me (and I mean that without snark at all). I like puzzles. I doubt I'll ever figure them out--I like that too. I just don't want them in power. ;)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

If the OP is serious, I'd have to say that I respectfully disagree. First, I agree with gonzomax. Generally speaking, liberals have to practice supporting their ideas and principles more forcefully, not less. It is unfortunate, but we live in a society where the strength of your position is evaluated not on how cogent and articulate it is, but on how forcefully presented it is. It seems to be the case that people regard a speaker and say, "If he doesn't appear passionate about it, he must not believe all that much in it. Why should I?"

Read Glenn Greenwald's "Great American Hypocrites" and a recent post of his to get a good sense of how the thoughtful and polite strategy has been working for Democrats in the past 30 years.

Secondly, I say this in all sincerity, I don't believe that there is much to learn from these posters. They don't really put forth any well-thought out arguments. It's all tu quoque stuff, lies or thick-headed nonsense. Look at Mr. Moto's "let's talk about Sarah Palin" thread. It's nothing but a list of other, pretty much all Democratic, politicians' children who engaged in wrongdoing.

If I want to see how conservatives are reacting to stuff, there are plenty of conservative websites, including both far right nutjob stuff and places like Time Magazine's Swampland. I don't need to read Sam Stone's endlessly incorrect posts about economics (his predictions about how great the Bush economy will be sure haven't borne him out correctly), I can see all of the same nonsense anywhere.

Now, I'm not saying that I want them to leave. I don't want an echo chamber. I just don't think there's much point to trying to be nice simply to prevent that from happening. If they choose to leave, that's up to them.

(All of this of course is moot. They won't leave - they'll just post martyrdom posts about how mean everyone is and how unfairly picked on they are. It's in their constitutions to weep persecution - look at talk radio. Also, look at how long Mr. Moto's famous resignation lasted, with his shout of "hardened partisanship" over his shoulder.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I think I'd rather be damned with faint praise than the object of the OP's attempt to be "nice". I'm sure it's meant humorously, but you have marginalized them nicely all while proclaiming your support of them.

I admit, I'm not the poster-boy for gratuitous niceness, but I'm only partly kidding. Do they really want us to be as nice as I suggest? Would treating them as I propose in the OP, to prevent them from takng their football and going home to Mama, really satisfy them? I suspect not, but I am giving them a chance to say what an idiot I am and how they'd much prefer the rough-and-tumble of honest disagreement than the patronizing nicey-nice the OP sets forth.

But if that IS the price of having a fulll political spectrum, then I guess I'd rather have that than nothing. So what is it, boys? Do you want to argue your positions, and see them challenged and disputed vigorously, or do you seriously demand that your opponents restrain themselves in the patronizing manner I describe?

[Revenant Threshold]

I think I'd rather be damned with faint praise than the object of the OP's attempt to be "nice". I'm sure it's meant humorously, but you have marginalized them nicely all while proclaiming your support of them. It's all so muddled here; politics get mixed up with SES, geographical regions, religion (or lack of it), hell even tasts in entertainment. I'm saying it'd be good to try, but I'm dubious as to the results. Yeah, that was kinda my thought. You seem to have added a "not that they deserve it, of course" disclaimer onto nearly every sentence up there. It looks less like you want to be nice and more like you want people to obviously pretend to be nice.

[xenophon41]

The big rhetorical mistakes "progressives" have made over lo! these past few decades have been rooted in a conflation of two loosely overlapping approaches to argument.

There's the idea that inclusiveness and consideration of all offered viewpoints promotes participation and produces more supportable conclusions. And there's the idea that discussion can't start until "both" positions are validated.

The first idea has been proven over and over again, in politics, in business, by community organizers, and in academia, just as examples. But it's based on some assumptions which make it vulnerable to disruption: the assumptions of good faith participation by all parties, of rational self interest by all parties, and of some common ground in goals, values and desired outcomes.

The second idea is near and dear to both the touchy-feely and the more high minded sorts of liberals, both in higher proportion among the politically vocal than in the general population. It's an idea that comes from the field of psychology and is specifically useful in relationship therapy, where it has been demonstrated as an effective technique in the resolution of relationship "issues" by individuals who are committed to the relationship. This technique has only two assumptions for use: all parties want the relationship to continue and all other propositions are secondary to the relationship, including the truth value of any professed belief or the practicality of any given position.

The problem in careless application of these ideas together is obvious when you look at what's missing from the second set of assumptions.

Some of the shit posted over time by the right wing pricks mentioned in the OP, and by other equally prominent turd mongers, has not been in good faith. No, really. And they do not share a vision with you, with progressives in general, with most of your countrymen or with most of humanity. They are not committed to the relationship, and wish for a world in which you were subjugated and mute (or dead and gone). And many of their propositions -"torture is justified and useful in [ x circumstance ]", "taxation is theft", "they'll greet us as liberators"- are so repellent or devoid of available intersections with reality that they call only for swift opprobrium and dismissal, not consideration and certainly not validation as a starting point for discussion.

But I see the OP's point somewhat. Dismissal and repudiation can be done nicely, if you're talented enough I suppose. But realistically, there's more Bidens posting here than there are Obamas. I don't know that I can hold to the niceness standard. War is not peace, ignorance is not strength and freedom is not slavery.

[eleanorigby]

I admit, I'm not the poster-boy for gratuitous niceness, but I'm only partly kidding. Do they really want us to be as nice as I suggest? Would treating them as I propose in the OP, to prevent them from takng their football and going home to Mama, really satisfy them? I suspect not, but I am giving them a chance to say what an idiot I am and how they'd much prefer the rough-and-tumble of honest disagreement than the patronizing nicey-nice the OP sets forth.

But if that IS the price of having a fulll political spectrum, then I guess I'd rather have that than nothing. So what is it, boys? Do you want to argue your positions, and see them challenged and disputed vigorously, or do you seriously demand that your opponents restrain themselves in the patronizing manner I describe?

Xenophon has some really good points. I don't think any civil, honest debate can occur unless all parties bring good faith and a willingness to listen to the table. Since this is a message board primarily comprised of people who believe (either rightly or wrongly) that they are the brightest people in the room, that is not likely to happen. I confess I don't understand how character denigration and outright hypocrisy in statements made by those who claim conservative as a title can be shrugged off as "just politics", and yet the claim to not only hold the moral high ground but to have rock solid integrity can be made in all seriousness. Jon Stewart did an evisceration of this hypocrisy the other day. He has Karl Rove talking about the experience Palin has and how it's all good and sufficient. He then has Karl Rove stating how the Lt Governor of VA (with similar experience, but more of it) LACK of experience disqualifies him as a candidate and shows how the Dems (paraphrased) hate America. It's ridiculous. Here is the clip, for what it's worth. If the double standards were even admitted to, I might have more respect for the supporters of this nonsense.

howdoesthisshitstand? (http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html)

[TVeblen]

You want everybody to be nice to poor, persecuted Republicans on the board. They're picked on because they're 'conservative' and might leave if their feelings get hurt and all. Right.

The poor wilting violets don't catch shit because they're Republicans, not even the ones who respect actual conservative values slightly. They catch shit because they insist on defending the indefensible. It's a neocon thing. You kick people in the teeth repeatedly and--here's the good part--then stiffen in outrage and cry"VICTIM!" really loudly. A few artistic tears always help. Works every time.

Okay, so Rove/Shrub are corrupt, venal and screwed over the country. Maverick Johnny McCain, the whored-out little power junkie, and Creationist Barbie are right out of the same mold, but hey! Can't point out the stupidity of how well that's worked out! I personally love listening to stalwart, small-government 'conservatives' explain their right to dictate religions and morals to other, less enlightened beings. It's just a warm, gooshy feeling, y'know? All these freedom lovers and warriors for Jesus, putting themselves right out there, man, and all to make sure my insignificant little life can be guided by more enlightened souls. The burden, the burden! Oh, and handing over a considerable chunk of my paycheck to pay for, like an economy in the shitter and okay, that war thing but only liberal haters keep harping about it and shit happens, y'know? And torture. And maybe wire-tapping but those SO don't count.

Why would we want Republicans to leave and deny them a chance to yell about liberal media?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You want everybody to be nice to poor, persecuted Republicans on the board

Not really. That seems to be what THEY are requesting. I'm just finding out (or trying to) if the contemptuous condescension they're asking for is what Bricker and Co. really want.

So far, all the intelligent responses --including yours-- seem not to come from their end of the political spectrum. I wonder why that is?

[Scylla]

.

So far, all the intelligent responses --including yours-- seem not to come from their end of the political spectrum. I wonder why that is?


There's not that many of us, and I'm involved in the topic in another thread. That's one reason.

Secondly, you addressed your OP to "fellow Obama-ites" which seems to exclude us by implication.

Thirdly, when you say let's be nicer to "tighty righties" it seems somewhat disingenuous, as if I had said "Let's be more considerate to the left-wing liberal scum"

Fourth, I think you've framed your OP poorly. I don't think it's really about being nice to people on the right, or nice to people on the left.

For me, the issue is about minimum human consideration necessary to discussion. The dialect needs to be lifted beyond the "I hate you. You're a contemptible human being." level for this to occur.

It doesn't hurt my feelings. It's just childish and reflects poorly on the person engaging in it, while obliterating the possibility of a meaningful exchange.

It's hate mongering. The target, whether it is Jews, black, homosexuals, conservatives, or guys that leave the seat up in unimportant. The hate mongering itself degrades the one doing it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

when you say let's be nicer to "tighty righties" it seems somewhat disingenuous, as if I had said "Let's be more considerate to the left-wing liberal scum"


So let me get this straight: you're morally offended because I didn't refer to you and your kind more decorously? I would be less disingenuous if I had referred to you, perhaps, as "our brethren, the loyal and honorable opposition from a place less radically leftwing than ourselves"? (My own feelings about your loyalty to my country, and your ever-mutable sense of honor, aside.) You get to dictate the entire argument, up to and including what we call you, and what a discussion may and may not be about?

Face it, you have no clue what you want, from a government or from a discussion, other than you're permanently pissed off at someone, and you feel perpetually aggrieved, which gives you utter license to attack and mischaracterize anyone who dares to disagree with you. But you stand up on your hind legs anyway and whine like the oversensitive PC types you complain about and mock, and scream like a little girl when you think you're being picked on, or outnumbered.

You're not the smartest person in the room here, Scylla. You and Bricker may be accustomed to be treated with special deference because you've been able to pull that shit on other folks, but it won't wash here. You'll either have to get used to treating your opponents with deference and courtesy in order to get back some of the same, or else take a few punches. You don't get to hit me and then to protest when someone hits back.

You want nice? Then give nice. Or else STFU. Your choice, which you've made long ago.

[TVeblen]

Not really. That seems to be what THEY are requesting. I'm just finding out (or trying to) if the contemptuous condescension they're asking for is what Bricker and Co. really want.

So far, all the intelligent responses --including yours-- seem not to come from their end of the political spectrum. I wonder why that is?

See, I don't give a shit what Republicans want. No, really. If the right-wing shouters don't feel respected and loved...uh, it's because they're not. They've behaved like asses, insisting their 'side' deserves respect, just because. You know, because, all that warm fuzzy shit liberals get teary about while sipping wimpy white wines and reading Mother Jones. They're the Party of Goddamned Lincoln (except it's not mentioned a lot in the south, m'kay? ::winks::) and should be respected as such, bitches! Integrity! We're talking basic fucking decency of man to their fellow men but NOT IN ANY GAY WAY. That's right out. Decency! Responsibility! Accountability! More fucking integrity! Solid Christian faith! The honest, straightforward AMERICAN values, REPUBLICAN values that, with the help of JESUS the Lord Himself say amen!, made this the greatest fucking country on earth! Ever! So shut up about Rove and Bush and Cheney and McCain being cynical ticks attached to the backside of the body politic. Only liberals who really hate America keep bringing up that stuff.

Makes you want to weep with pride all over your lapel flag pin, doesn't it?

[VarlosZ]

This is getting to be a serious fucking problem -- not just here, I mean, but in general. Painting with a broad brush, if a conservative disagrees with you it's because you're stupid (which is ridiculous), but if a liberal disagrees with it's because you're EVIL (which is so much worse).

So to my fellow Obama-ites: Grow up, don't merely pretend to grow up.

[Scylla]

So let me get this straight: you're morally offended because I didn't refer to you and your kind more decorously?

I already said I wasn't offended. Just that the request seems somewhat disingenuous as framed.



That would seem pretty disingenuous, too.

[quote]You get to dictate the entire argument, up to and including what we call you, and what a discussion may and may not be about?

Of course not. Say what you will. You remarked that no conservatives had responded, I offered an explanation.

Face it, you have no clue what you want, from a government or from a discussion, other than you're permanently pissed off at someone, and you feel perpetually aggrieved, which gives you utter license to attack and mischaracterize anyone who dares to disagree with you.

None of those things are accurate. Creating a straw man isn't a good faith argument, IMO.

But you stand up on your hind legs anyway and whine like the oversensitive PC types you complain about and mock, and scream like a little girl when you think you're being picked on, or outnumbered.

Yawn.

You're not the smartest person in the room here, Scylla.

I think I just might be. Anyway, it's not really intelligence that's at issue here, it's what you do with it. Smart people do stupid things all the time. I just see a lot of smart and not so smart lefties behaving very badly.

You and Bricker may be accustomed to be treated with special deference because you've been able to pull that shit on other folks, but it won't wash here. You'll either have to get used to treating your opponents with deference and courtesy in order to get back some of the same, or else take a few punches. You don't get to hit me and then to protest when someone hits back.

I think you're missing the point which I addressed in the other thread. There's a line. hate-mongering is on the other side of the line. Mean, snarky, insulting, I suppose that's ok in a heated discussion, but read what was said about Bricker. Hell, read what Veb just said in the other thread. She's openly spouting hatred.

My point is that this foaming at the mouth hate-spewing isn't constructive and demeans and degrades the people doing it.

You want nice? Then give nice. Or else STFU. Your choice, which you've made long ago.

I've tried hard not to engage in hate-mongering or respond with real venom. It's just politics. I'm not looking for kissy kissy. I'm just suggesting the hate spewing is getting a little extreme

[elucidator]

How can you tell if a tighty righty is taking a dump in your bathroom? Listen at the door, there is an audible click when the rectum snips off the turd.

[Guinastasia]

I'd like to point out that Carol Stream doesn't get shit for her political/philosophical views-she gets it because she's an asshole and a fucking troll.

[Scylla]

How can you tell if a tighty righty is taking a dump in your bathroom? Listen at the door, there is an audible click when the rectum snips off the turd.

The clean cutoff means less toilet paper which is good for the environment. Go Green! Shit Republican!

[Harborwolf]

This is getting to be a serious fucking problem -- not just here, I mean, but in general. Painting with a broad brush, if a conservative disagrees with you it's because you're stupid (which is ridiculous), but if a liberal disagrees with it's because you're EVIL (which is so much worse).

So to my fellow Obama-ites: Grow up, don't merely pretend to grow up.Luckily I'm a moderate. I get to be stupid and evil.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Normally I wouldn't agree with anything Tucker Carlson says, but he was wearing a regular, non-bow tie which must've made him more intelligent. He was on C-Span the other day, and he said that the closer we get to an election, the dumber and more agressive both sides get. Could be because all the good arguments and respect have already been worn out. Could just be both sides jockeying for position. Could be that the quiet respectable types have already gotten tired of dealing with the angry jerks and have left the arguments to them. Seems to hold true though.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I've tried hard not to engage in hate-mongering or respond with real venom.

Try harder.

[Hostile Dialect]

Some ideas are simply wrong. It is absolutely not right to promote theocratic dictatorship in this country, and those who do need to be shunned. If they huff and puff and take their ball home, so much the better for the SDMB. It's thoroughly bizarre that anybody thinks Shodan or Carol Stream add any value whatsoever to the board. While you argue that there would be no conservatives left if they signed off (and I think you misspelled "Quislings", and yes, I do mean that), I might argue that if they left, more genuine conservatives might come out of the woodwork. For now, maybe they're embarrassed to be seen as agreeing with any of the three posters you named; and even if they did speak up, they'd be quickly drowned out.

Look, it's not like the US is running out of Republicans. The polls have been even for as long as I can recall, which means that about 50% of this country are either racist*, pro-tyranny or lacking an understanding of how dangerous a McSame presidency is to this country. If we want a truly open debate, we need to welcome the simply misguided--the people who just disagree with us on some number of issues and, for some reason, think that McSame offers something different from what we've had for the last eight years--and let the pro-tyranny crowd go play somewhere else.
We need not entertain every single political idea to be fair. Somebody on the far left could insist in spittle-flecked rants against all argument that everyone should forfeit all earnings over $5,000 a year to the government, and we would be right to smack them down and drive them away. No political view deserves automatic respect just for being a political opinion. If you ask me, we've been putting up with this shit for too long. We should be outraged and we should refuse to take any more.
* Surely, racists account for a small minority of people voting for McCain, but I have met a number of them myself, so you can't tell me that they're not there. As a grassroots fundraiser for the DNC, I met staunch Democrats who are voting for McCain because they can't stand the thought of a black president. Anyway, I absolutely DO NOT intend to label any of the named posters as racist; they've shown no pattern of racial discrimination. I'm just trying to account for everyone who would actually vote for McCain.

[elucidator]

Well, I'll try....

You know, the invasion of Iraq wasn't all that great an idea. Might even be regarded as, well, not very good. Lot of downside. And using the Justice Dept to further their own political ends, well, that isn't entirely the best, ya know? Cheney rising in the night to feed on the flesh of the living, that could be a life style choice, I suppose, but still....

[The Second Stone]

If they are polite and respectful, I'll try to do the same. I won't be the person to cast the first stone. But if they are jerkish trolls, well then, bring it on. And for the most part, the Republicans in public, the electeds and the radio people don't deserve any respect. They insult me and then call me an angry lefty? Screw those shitheads.

Bricker is a bit more sophisticated. His beyotch page is a trolling masterpiece. He gets my respect for wasting the time of so many lefties with minimal effort, even if he did think better of it later. Those lefties should have spent their time organizing to do precinct walking and get out the vote effort. And he did it without any significant name calling (at least not first). Count me impressed, and I wish he was one of ours. But he isn't and never will be.

[descamisado]

Bricker is a bit more sophisticated. His beyotch page is a trolling masterpiece. He gets my respect for wasting the time of so many lefties with minimal effort, even if he did think better of it later. Those lefties should have spent their time organizing to do precinct walking and get out the vote effort. And he did it without any significant name calling (at least not first). Count me impressed, and I wish he was one of ours. But he isn't and never will be.You do realize his thnking "better of it later," especially after he brought up closing the thread but didn't, was just more trolling and attention-whoring, right? And he name-called from the beginning, right in the title.

[The Second Stone]

You do realize his thnking "better of it later," especially after he brought up closing the thread but didn't, was just more trolling and attention-whoring, right? And he name-called from the beginning, right in the title.

Yes, it is a classic time waster agit-prop. I'm new here (about 6 mos lurking and posting) and I figured he was troll, but he is a higher class of troll. Bricker is to SMDB trolling what Sampiro is to SMBD writing. But there is no question about it that his level of sophistication about the whole thing, and general success means that he is too competent to be a Republican.

[RTFirefly]

They serve a useful purpose. Without them, we would be chattering at each other. When we ask "WTF is going on with this McCain gambit?!?!?" we would only have each other's outside guesses, but with them, we can see that some people at least claim to view bizarre and disturbing behavior as virtuous.

We need to show them, I think, a little more respect. Just a little more. Not because their views deserve respect, mind you, and not because I think they're sincerely trying to argue points they actually believe, but selfishly because their numbers are decreasing around here and we need a few token tighty-righties to argue with. Remember where we are: near the end of the Worst Presidency Ever.

One of two things will happen in less than two months: Obama will be elected President, or McCain will be elected President.

If Obama's elected, we'll have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, and a whole new set of debates. I suppose occasionally we'll need someone to defend the indefensible retrospectively, or defend a GOP filibuster of legislation that most of the country wants, or defend a Supreme Court decision of a sort that won't happen again if a conservative Justice retires on Obama's watch. But most of the time we'll be arguing between rational alternatives, and there'll be plenty of people on both sides.

If McCain's elected, well, we'll have bigger problems than keeping a few defenders of the indefensible posting here. Guess it's time to give a few shekels to the Obama campaign.

[eleanorigby]

I find it more that a bit rich that Scylla et al are castigating us for hate mongering and being snarky and insulting. He's one of the worst offenders! Take responsibility for your own posts. If you've added a derisory comment at the end, delete it before posting. Snark makes snark. I agree with Second Stone--I'll meet the tone of the thread. I no longer feel any compunction about letting my contempt show. When people (not individual posters, but pols and pundits) act reprehensibly, I note it. I will openly mock it and not apologize for it. But there is no reason for that to edge into personal attacks.

I think our problem here is that any one who doesn't agree with the GOP position is immediately perceived to be in attack mode or oafishly ignorant. Or something. Yes, the liberal side has done much the same, but not as much and not as often. I don't approve of Palin as a choice, not because Reps are "teh evil" but because her inexperience and lack of professionalism show; well, that and she supports positions I find disgusting such as abstinence education, the NRA and others. But when ONE liberal poster shoots off their mouth, somehow this becomes these poor benighted conservatives against the Big Bad Liberal World. It's complete BS. It's a microcosm of the national stage, where Reps scream "victim" all the while denigrating true life victims. It does make for interesting reading, though.

[Sam Stone]

You know, somewhere out in the intertubes right now there's a Republican message board having the same discussion about you - how you're obviously wrong, you don't have a clue, you're stupid, and there's nothing at all of merit in your positions.

And they're just as wrong as you are for believing it.

You need to step out of the echo chamber sometimes and listen to the other side with respect. Not just for ammo to refute them, but to seriously understand their point of view.

To do that, you have to start from a position that A) they aren't stupid, and B) they aren't evil, and C) that they honestly want the best outcome for the country, just like you do. If you can do that, you have a chance to be enlightened a little.

Do you know why I hang out on this message board, despite the constant sneering jibes and angry attacks I suffer for just making my opinion known? Because it beats the hell out of hanging out in an echo chamber, being slapped on the back by fellow travelers. You learn nothing that way.

If you can't air your ideas in front of a critical audience and defend them, perhaps they need a little work. If you want to tighten your thinking and expose your own logical flaws, don't give your thoughts to people inclined to give you an atta-boy - give your thoughts to the people disposed to picking them apart and telling you why you're wrong.

There seems to be an attitude on this board of late that the conservatives who are here are the enemy, that they're annoying gadflies who must be mocked and driven away so the right-thinking people can get back to telling each other how smart they are. That attitude comes from intellectual weakness. If you can't tolerate, with good grace, respect, and humility, people who oppose what you have to say and are willing to defend the opposing point of view, then perhaps your opinions are not as solidly grounded as you believe they are.

I believe the increase in partisanship we've seen in the internet era has to do with the Balkanization of political dialog. We all used to start by getting our information from the same sources, and we'd diverge in opinion from there. Now, we all have our own biased sources. We all used to have to debate in the same public sphere, where you had to show tolerance for the opinions of others (and hear the opinions of others). That at least forced a little healthy introspection. But now the righties run off to Free Republic and watch Fox News, and the Lefties run off to Kos and watch Keith Olbermann, and they all close themselves into their little echo chambers and work themselves into a froth.

The SDMB was always a board in the middle - a last bastion of independent debate where both sides could duke it out and find out what makes each other tick. That was an extremely valuable ground to hold - one that's increasingly rare. It's also one that has the best chance to promote the philosophy of this board, which is to fight ignorance.

Unfortunately, that role is almost gone. The right has been slowly pushed away from this board for several years, and the left's growing demographic strength and increasingly hostile attitude is accelerating the pace. Soon, it will be yet another tiresome echo chamber of the left, with everyone repeating the same arguments uncritically to each other and patting themselves on the back for being so obviously right and smart that opposing viewpoints need not even be considered.

And that's a damned shame.

[Cisco]

Look, I know we're all friends here and all, but leave me out of any group that would slap a label like Obama-ites on themselves. Think for yourselves, damn.

EDIT: Forgot to add: From my viewpoint this is a right leaning boardThis is just delusion, unless you grew up outside the US or you're joking.

[ElvisL1ves]

How about starting by being respectful to your fellow Democrats? :dubious:

[levdrakon]

At this point, the last thing I want if for Obamists to hold back. Let them put it all out there. We need to know them.

Just a glance at "new posts" and counting the political threads and sorting them by subject and bias tells me what I feel I really need to know before voting this fall.

Please, DO NOT "be nice." Let it all out. Tell us how you really think and feel.

[Sampiro]

All of the people who say they aren't voting for Obama because they don't like his supporters are very obviously just looking for an excuse. They weren't going to pull the lever for the uppity guy anyway. That said, this week, with the Palin annunciations, has been particularly heated but I think the board and real life will go back to "simmer with occasional boil" on its own.

[Sampiro]

At this point, the last thing I want if for Obamists

We prefer being called the Obamajadin. It emphasizes the Muslim connection more that Obamists.

That said, anybody who chooses an elected official based on how his supporters in a message board act rather than upon party platforms and likely policy outcomes not only does not deserve the right to vote but has absolutely nothing to add to political dialogue other than their absence. There has never been a politician of either party or any third party who didn't have assholes and saints in unequal numbers among their followers.

[Frank]

How about starting by being respectful to your fellow Democrats? :dubious:
I see no reason to be respectful to the complete idiot Democrats any more than I do the complete idiot Republicans. Just because someone is a Democrat or leftist doesn't get them a free pass from me for being a moron.

[ElvisL1ves]

Still unclear on the concept, I see.

[Frank]

Still unclear on the concept, I see.
What concept? Backing up idiots just because they happen to be of the same party? When Republicans do it, you have a hissy fit.

If I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to correct me.

[levdrakon]

We prefer being called the Obamajadin.We prefer the Obamadin. It emphasizes the Muslim connection more that Obamists.

That said, if you choose an elected official based on how his supporters in a message board act rather than upon party platforms and likely policy outcomes then you don't deserve the right to vote.Well, as you say, it's just a message board. You shouldn't take anything I or anyone else says here seriously, either.

[magellan01]

From my viewpoint this is a right leaning board.

No, no, STOP...you're doing it all wrong!!! After you light the bowl you're supposed to hand each of the eight hoses to a different person, not just stuff all eight into your mouth and and suck on them all by yourself.

Sheeze. This does explain a lot, though.

[A shameful cracka...]

A big cause of the problem is neither side wants to admit the weaknesses of their chosen side, and when someone you disagree with won't admit to what you feel is obviously true, it feels like dishonesty of the worst sort.

I don't see any of the Republicans admitting that maybe Palin is lacking relevant experience, that she has made some questionable decisions during her career, and that her faith-based governing can be divisive. Nobody on the Right is admitting that McCain has changed a lot of his positions to match those of the Bush administration in the last 8 years, or that he can seem dangerously aggressive in his foreign policy (although, appearing scarily warlike has served the Democratic party well in the past, see the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Likewise, I don't see any Democrats admitting that Obama IS light on experience, that he too has changed his position on important issues for political expediency, that he does seem out-of-touch with small-town America, and that he is far closer to being a typical politician than a "Washington Outsider". Biden is a perfect example of a career politician and he has built his long career on kissing the butt of corporate America to enrich his home state.

When we don't admit the faults of our own side, we look like either blind fanatics or idiots who can only repeat the talking points of our party's pundits, even though we all have a lot more subtlety than that.

[fisha]

You know, somewhere out in the intertubes right now there's a Republican message board having the same discussion about you - how you're obviously wrong, you don't have a clue, you're stupid, and there's nothing at all of merit in your positions.

And they're just as wrong as you are for believing it.

You need to step out of the echo chamber sometimes and listen to the other side with respect. Not just for ammo to refute them, but to seriously understand their point of view.

To do that, you have to start from a position that A) they aren't stupid, and B) they aren't evil, and C) that they honestly want the best outcome for the country, just like you do. If you can do that, you have a chance to be enlightened a little.

Do you know why I hang out on this message board, despite the constant sneering jibes and angry attacks I suffer for just making my opinion known? Because it beats the hell out of hanging out in an echo chamber, being slapped on the back by fellow travelers. You learn nothing that way.

If you can't air your ideas in front of a critical audience and defend them, perhaps they need a little work. If you want to tighten your thinking and expose your own logical flaws, don't give your thoughts to people inclined to give you an atta-boy - give your thoughts to the people disposed to picking them apart and telling you why you're wrong.

There seems to be an attitude on this board of late that the conservatives who are here are the enemy, that they're annoying gadflies who must be mocked and driven away so the right-thinking people can get back to telling each other how smart they are. That attitude comes from intellectual weakness. If you can't tolerate, with good grace, respect, and humility, people who oppose what you have to say and are willing to defend the opposing point of view, then perhaps your opinions are not as solidly grounded as you believe they are.

I believe the increase in partisanship we've seen in the internet era has to do with the Balkanization of political dialog. We all used to start by getting our information from the same sources, and we'd diverge in opinion from there. Now, we all have our own biased sources. We all used to have to debate in the same public sphere, where you had to show tolerance for the opinions of others (and hear the opinions of others). That at least forced a little healthy introspection. But now the righties run off to Free Republic and watch Fox News, and the Lefties run off to Kos and watch Keith Olbermann, and they all close themselves into their little echo chambers and work themselves into a froth.

The SDMB was always a board in the middle - a last bastion of independent debate where both sides could duke it out and find out what makes each other tick. That was an extremely valuable ground to hold - one that's increasingly rare. It's also one that has the best chance to promote the philosophy of this board, which is to fight ignorance.

Unfortunately, that role is almost gone. The right has been slowly pushed away from this board for several years, and the left's growing demographic strength and increasingly hostile attitude is accelerating the pace. Soon, it will be yet another tiresome echo chamber of the left, with everyone repeating the same arguments uncritically to each other and patting themselves on the back for being so obviously right and smart that opposing viewpoints need not even be considered.

And that's a damned shame.

Sam, thank you for saying how I feel so eloquently.

[Sampiro]

A big cause of the problem is neither side wants to admit the weaknesses of their chosen side,

That may be true, but I am more than twice as ready to admit the weaknesses of the other side, so it balances.

[Knorf]

The right has been slowly pushed away from this board for several years, and the left's growing demographic strength and increasingly hostile attitude is accelerating the pace. Soon, it will be yet another tiresome echo chamber of the left, with everyone repeating the same arguments uncritically to each other and patting themselves on the back for being so obviously right and smart that opposing viewpoints need not even be considered.
People have been saying this for 5-6 years now, and it hasn't happened. I've been around for a bit, and the board has leaned a bit left the entire time.

So, I'm not buying it.

After all, you're still here. The only conspicuous right-wing ideologues who have bailed have been the stupid ones.

Some of the stupid ones are still here. Most of the intelligent ones are still here. The board is still mostly left.

The latter does not surprise me.

[Partisan comment]People who put the seeking of truth and facts over ideology are more likely to be liberals. As Stephen Colbert put it, "facts have a well-known liberal bias.[/Partisan comment]

[Sarahfeena]

Sam, thank you for saying how I feel so eloquently. Seconded. Excellent post, Sam.

[Starving Artist]

You know, Sam, if I were inclined to grow up, I'd want to be just like you. :)

Thanks for a superb post.

[xenophon41]

Likewise, I don't see any Democrats admitting that Obama IS light on experience, that he too has changed his position on important issues for political expediency, that he does seem out-of-touch with small-town America, and that he is far closer to being a typical politician than a "Washington Outsider". Biden is a perfect example of a career politician and he has built his long career on kissing the butt of corporate America to enrich his home state.
I've got no huge problem with the rest of the quote, but what observations support the bolded opinion? What could Obama do or say to indicate to you that he's in touch with small town America?

I ask because, in my assessment, small town concerns pretty much align with those articulated by Obama in his campaign. -The solutions he proposes don't always align with small town thinking, but that doesn't say "out of touch" to me as much as "coming from a different point of view."


Sampiro - I'm so using Obamajadin. I probably won't credit you.

Knorf - I've been around for a bit also, and I agree.

[A shameful cracka...]

I've got no huge problem with the rest of the quote, but what observations support the bolded opinion? What could Obama do or say to indicate to you that he's in touch with small town America?

I ask because, in my assessment, small town concerns pretty much align with those articulated by Obama in his campaign. -The solutions he proposes don't always align with small town thinking, but that doesn't say "out of touch" to me as much as "coming from a different point of view."


Sampiro - I'm so using Obamajadin. I probably won't credit you.

Knorf - I've been around for a bit also, and I agree.

His statement that people in small town America cling to religion and guns instead of issues that should be more important to them is what I'm basing this on. He doesn't seem to realize that a lot of working-class people really feel strongly about religion and gun control, and they're not just being avoidant of their real problems. It gave the impression that he believed that if there was a good economy, good jobs, and good healthcare available to these people, religion and guns wouldn't be as important to them, which I don't think is true.

[xenophon41]

His statement that people in small town America cling to religion and guns instead of issues that should be more important to them is what I'm basing this on. He doesn't seem to realize that a lot of working-class people really feel strongly about religion and gun control, and they're not just being avoidant of their real problems. It gave the impression that he believed that if there was a good economy, good jobs, and good healthcare available to these people, religion and guns wouldn't be as important to them, which I don't think is true.
He didn't say we cling to religion and guns to avoid our real problems. He said we vote on those issues because we feel we can exert some ballot-box control over them, unlike with the economy. He was talking about how inaction by Washington on real economic issues creates cynicism and apathy regarding government, and how that's exploited through the use of "hot button" issues by equally cynical politicians.

Here's Obama's remarks in context (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html) as delivered at a fundraiser in California:

originally orated by Barack Obama
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It was an unprepared remark made to a friendly crowd of supporters attempting to explain to them why blue collar workers (and small town Americans) are tough sells on promises of economic recovery. He admitted afterward that it was poorly phrased and not meant to denigrate the sensibilities he was describing, but the Clinton and McCain campaign had a field day with it any way.

Shouldn't be a basis on which to judge the man's understanding of small towners and working stiffs.

[Sam Stone]

People have been saying this for 5-6 years now, and it hasn't happened. I've been around for a bit, and the board has leaned a bit left the entire time.

So, I'm not buying it.

Trust me, we've lost a lot of very good conservative posters.

After all, you're still here. The only conspicuous right-wing ideologues who have bailed have been the stupid ones.


Or maybe the ones that are left are just more thick-skinned or stubborn and refuse to concede the ground.

[Partisan comment]People who put the seeking of truth and facts over ideology are more likely to be liberals. As Stephen Colbert put it, "facts have a well-known liberal bias.[/Partisan comment]

The notion that the facts are all on your side is exactly the kind of close-minded dogma that I'm talking about. The minute you start believing your own press and assume that there's no question you are right is the minute you stop learning and just become another voice in the echo chamber. I'm certain that statement won't change your mind, because that partisan quip indicates that your mind is no longer capable of being changed.

I for one don't think all the facts are on my side. I think some are. I'm a libertarian-conservative because I think on balance my analysis of what works and what doesn't leads me there. But I'm not dogmatic about any single fact. I read a lot of conservative journals and books, and I'm fully aware of the power of confirmation bias. That's why I come here. When I formulate an opinion, I have a strong desire to test it against others who don't share the same beliefs to see what I may have missed.

Someone above just said that conservatives are unwilling to admit that Palin has any shortcomings. Well, that's what a combative message board does - it polarizes people. My wife and I just finished having a nice calm discussion about Governor Palin's various faults over supper. I certainly recognize them. Unfortunately, serious, reasoned discussion of them is impossible here, because I know the other side would not discuss them in good faith, or reciprocate with an honest discussion of Obama's faults so that we could bat them back and forth like adults and educate ourselves. Instead, there would be jeering and sneering and anything I offered up would be used as ammunition against me and the other side would still give no ground.

The result is that the only debate that's possible here is adversarial debate, where each side stakes out their unbending opinion and seeks to tear down the other side. It's better than nothing, but it could be so much better if everyone was willing to behave like there was at least an outside chance that they don't have all the answers and that the other side is populated by evil troglodytes who simply must be crushed at all cost.

I started out the McCain/Obama debates by declaring that I didn't really have a favorite, and that I saw lots to like in Obama and lots to dislike in McCain. But the arguments for Obama and against McCain quickly became so strident and over the top that I along with everyone else was forced to choose a side and hold my ground with the rest. It's either that, or be steamrollered.

That too is a damned shame.

It may be an unavoidable problem on a large message board. This may sound 'elitist', but far too many people hold incredibly strong political opinions based on sound bites and snippets of 'facts' they hear from their side. They are completely unable to hold a serious intellectual debate on the underlying issues or treat the subject with any kind of nuance. So perhaps it's not surprising that when challenged they just become more strident and yell louder.

The level of anger someone brings to a debate is often correlated with a weak understanding of what it is they are debating. They are insecure and have no depth to their strongly-held beliefs, and have no choice but to defend them by dismissing the other side completely. It's the internet equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going, "lalalalalala". There are people like this on both sides, and perhaps when a message board reaches a certain level of popularity you collect enough of them that they simply drown out the debate.

Just try to not be one of them.

[wring]

ohmygod xeno!!!!! HI, guy!!!!!!

[xenophon41]

Hey wring! What's shakin'? Want a nice Chardonnay while you're here?

[wring]

Hey wring! What's shakin'? Want a nice Chardonnay while you're here?absofuckinglutely!!! having one now, have the same email, still live in mid MI- let's talk!!!!

[A shameful cracka...]

It was an unprepared remark made to a friendly crowd of supporters attempting to explain to them why blue collar workers (and small town Americans) are tough sells on promises of economic recovery. He admitted afterward that it was poorly phrased and not meant to denigrate the sensibilities he was describing, but the Clinton and McCain campaign had a field day with it any way.


I don't believe those issues are sublimated frustration from having no good jobs, though. There are people who are doing quite well, with no economic frustration, who feel that these issues (immigration, gun control, religion) are the most important. I can get that these issues may be more important to these people because they are cynical about either party's ability to help their economic situation, but there are plenty of people who would vote against someone who they honestly believed would help the economy more than their opponent if that person was also for greater gun control.

[xenophon41]

...there are plenty of people who would vote against someone who they honestly believed would help the economy more than their opponent if that person was also for greater gun control.
Do you get the feeling that Obama does or doesn't understand that? I acknowledge that he disagrees with that prioritization, but I don't see any indication that he doesn't understand it.

[Guinastasia]

But now the righties run off to Free Republic and watch Fox News, and the Lefties run off to Kos and watch Keith Olbermann, and they all close themselves into their little echo chambers and work themselves into a froth.



In that the Lefties win-Olbermann is far, far better looking than anyone on Fox.

[gaffa]

I'm lucky in that I work for a lot of Republicans, in a fairly Red state (Kansas). Some of these folks I've known for 20 or more years, and we are able to have reasoned, respectful discussions and maintain our friendship. I don't know if that is possible on a text forum.

By the way, one of my friends - a wealthy physician - has come around on the need for national health care.

At least on the SDMB we get to see actual political debate, something that has vanished from TV, where people shout talking points at each other, from both the left and right.

[Starving Artist]

absofuckinglutely!!! having one now, have the same email, still live in mid MI- let's talk!!!!Hey, can I play? I'm havin' a salad and some nice Pinot Grigio as we speak.

[xenophon41]

Hope you enjoy your wine, SA. (And that it's not one of those really sweet Pinot Grigios, but one of the nice spicy, full bodied ones...)

[/non-partisan good will]

[Starving Artist]

I couldn't say, to tell you the truth. A certain woman I know who doesn't like sweet anything doesn't like it, but she didn't complain that it was too sweet.

In fact, now that I think about it, none of the women I know don't like any of the pinot grigios I've served them, and they almost always prefer the chardonnays.

Something to think about, huh?

P.S. - There's an apartment house here called The Chardonnay. It has a beautiful, sandblasted wooden sign depicting RED grapes!!!

The horror! I can hardly stand it! ;)

[/non-partisan good will right back atcha]

[Starving Artist]

Double post. Never mind.

[wring]

Hey, can I play? I'm havin' a salad and some nice Pinot Grigio as we speak.

:D you bring the brie, I'll bring the fruit.

[Starving Artist]

Yum!

Fuck all this political shit, it's Saturday night! Let's just get together as human beings and have a good time!

My salad has spinach, butter lettuce, cranberries, walnuts, chicken, feta cheese and big ol' helping of raspberry vinagrette dressing.

There's plenty for everyone!

But you have to bring your own wine! ;)

[as_u_wish]

Trust me, we've lost a lot of very good conservative posters.


Or maybe the ones that are left are just more thick-skinned or stubborn and refuse to concede the ground.



The notion that the facts are all on your side is exactly the kind of close-minded dogma that I'm talking about. The minute you start believing your own press and assume that there's no question you are right is the minute you stop learning and just become another voice in the echo chamber. I'm certain that statement won't change your mind, because that partisan quip indicates that your mind is no longer capable of being changed.

I for one don't think all the facts are on my side. I think some are. I'm a libertarian-conservative because I think on balance my analysis of what works and what doesn't leads me there. But I'm not dogmatic about any single fact. I read a lot of conservative journals and books, and I'm fully aware of the power of confirmation bias. That's why I come here. When I formulate an opinion, I have a strong desire to test it against others who don't share the same beliefs to see what I may have missed.

Someone above just said that conservatives are unwilling to admit that Palin has any shortcomings. Well, that's what a combative message board does - it polarizes people. My wife and I just finished having a nice calm discussion about Governor Palin's various faults over supper. I certainly recognize them. Unfortunately, serious, reasoned discussion of them is impossible here, because I know the other side would not discuss them in good faith, or reciprocate with an honest discussion of Obama's faults so that we could bat them back and forth like adults and educate ourselves. Instead, there would be jeering and sneering and anything I offered up would be used as ammunition against me and the other side would still give no ground.

The result is that the only debate that's possible here is adversarial debate, where each side stakes out their unbending opinion and seeks to tear down the other side. It's better than nothing, but it could be so much better if everyone was willing to behave like there was at least an outside chance that they don't have all the answers and that the other side is populated by evil troglodytes who simply must be crushed at all cost.

I started out the McCain/Obama debates by declaring that I didn't really have a favorite, and that I saw lots to like in Obama and lots to dislike in McCain. But the arguments for Obama and against McCain quickly became so strident and over the top that I along with everyone else was forced to choose a side and hold my ground with the rest. It's either that, or be steamrollered.

That too is a damned shame.

It may be an unavoidable problem on a large message board. This may sound 'elitist', but far too many people hold incredibly strong political opinions based on sound bites and snippets of 'facts' they hear from their side. They are completely unable to hold a serious intellectual debate on the underlying issues or treat the subject with any kind of nuance. So perhaps it's not surprising that when challenged they just become more strident and yell louder.

The level of anger someone brings to a debate is often correlated with a weak understanding of what it is they are debating. They are insecure and have no depth to their strongly-held beliefs, and have no choice but to defend them by dismissing the other side completely. It's the internet equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going, "lalalalalala". There are people like this on both sides, and perhaps when a message board reaches a certain level of popularity you collect enough of them that they simply drown out the debate.

Just try to not be one of them.

Another quiet voice chiming in to thank you, Sam Stone, for saying what I wish I'd said. We have much political diversity in our family. Long ago we established the ground rule that all political discusion must be carried on with civility. The moment voices are raise or it becomes personal, we stop the discussion. There's so much incivility in the political and religious discussions on this message board, that I read but don't choose to participate.

[elucidator]

Yum!

Fuck all this political shit, it's Saturday night! Let's just get together as human beings and have a good time!

My salad has spinach, butter lettuce, cranberries, walnuts, chicken, feta cheese and big ol' helping of raspberry vinagrette dressing....
I had figured on fava beans and a nice chianti....

[Darwin's Finch]

To do that, you have to start from a position that A) they aren't stupid, and B) they aren't evil, and C) that they honestly want the best outcome for the country, just like you do. If you can do that, you have a chance to be enlightened a little.

I will happily agree with A) and B). C) has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated to my satisfaction, such that I can give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

[Indistinguishable]

I will happily agree with A) and B). C) has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated to my satisfaction, such that I can give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
I'm surprised that you accept B) but not C). Are we talking about the average Joe Republican/Conservative messageboard poster? What do you think they do want?

[Darwin's Finch]

I'm surprised that you accept B) but not C). Are we talking about the average Joe Republican/Conservative messageboard poster? What do you think they do want?

It seems to me that they are more interested in their own self-interests, not what is best for the country as a whole. I don't think that makes them necessarily evil, just...selfish.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It seems to me that they are more interested in their own self-interests, not what is best for the country as a whole. I don't think that makes them necessarily evil, just...selfish.

And every once in a while, you can actually find them confirming Darwin's Finch's small point, as when Renob repeatedly (in the GD thread about taxes) insists on keeping his own personal taxes to an absolute minimum and angrily refusing to concede that he benefits, directly and indirectly, from living in a prosperous country with social programs concerned for the sick and the elderly and the poor. His idea (and I'm just using him as a convenient example of a much more widespread stance that I see around me every day) is to forget utterly the larger context in which he earns his money and to want his taxes to support only those programs that he can see directly serving his own goals, like a huge army, to prevent another country from conquering the US and confiscating his money, or federal highways, to build and maintains the roads he personally drives on. But everything else? What use is it--it doesn't do him any good (that he can see, touch, feel, on a daily basis) so he wants to pay for none of it. That's a pretty, narrow, selfish, limited viewpoint, IMO.

Anyway, I'd rather restrict that side-topic to its own thread, but am using it here as an example of a political belief that has its roots in character, not ideology.

[RTFirefly]

You know, somewhere out in the intertubes right now there's a Republican message board having the same discussion about you - how you're obviously wrong, you don't have a clue, you're stupid, and there's nothing at all of merit in your positions.

And they're just as wrong as you are for believing it. Maybe you've missed out on the past eight years?

The present Administration has done as thorough a test of the Republican approach to governing as could possibly be imagined under a two-party system. you can either believe the results, or not.

You need to step out of the echo chamber sometimes and listen to the other side with respect. Not just for ammo to refute them, but to seriously understand their point of view.

To do that, you have to start from a position that A) they aren't stupid, and B) they aren't evil, and C) that they honestly want the best outcome for the country, just like you do. If you can do that, you have a chance to be enlightened a little.

Look, the Dope isn't an echo chamber. If conservative ideas were actually better, if they'd been working the past eight years, there'd have been plenty of opportunities for you to have the best of the argument.

But the record is clear. Iraq, whatever the truth of the situation now (and "the surge worked" is true only in limited respects), has been a fucking disaster, and rather than nailing down the victory in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, we were prepping for the war in Iraq and then invading, so Afghanistan's been a 7+ year war instead of a one-year war. We had no idea about Russian troop movements toward Georgia because our spy satellites were focused on Iraq. It's been the Disaster That Keeps On Giving - like Sarah Palin, only with serious consequences.

The right-wing response to this? "But The Surge Worked." Plus the usual denigration of diplomacy. What enlightenment waits there?

And then there's the domestic disaster that caused people to realize that, regardless of the parade of happy talk from the Administration, things in Iraq must be fucked. I refer to Katrina.

This Administration fucked the preparation, the immediate response, and of course the longer-term response. The GOP response, and the response of conservatives generally, has been to defend whatever the Bush Administration was doing now, while admitting that they'd blown things earlier on. But have they even asked for an investigation? Joe Loserman, who's officially one of yours now, said while campaigning in 2006 that he'd investigate the Bush response to Katrina, but changed his mind once elected.

Again, I'm not seeing much potential for enlightenment.

'The economy' worked for some people during the Bush Administration, but the vast majority of Americans didn't get much out of it, based on median incomes, poverty rates, and all that boring stuff. The chainsawing of regulations led to the current mortgage crisis. In the long run, if we want to buy stuff from the rest of the world, we've got to produce goods and services that the rest of the world wants to purchase in return. It's hard to see how we're making progress there, but ginormous tax cuts and the mortgage bubble helped Americans maintain the illusion that they could keep buying for a few years longer.

The conservative response seems to be even bigger tax cuts, even fewer regs, and of course the privatization of Social Security. Where's the enlightenment?

Global warming is probably the biggest global threat of our times. The Bush Administration's response has been to do essentially nothing. Much of the Right's response over the past several years has consisted of denial. McCain, simultaneously being unaware that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, and having lost the thread that the primary problem is the carbon itself, rather than where it comes from, wants us to drill everywhere. (Hell, he doesn't even realize that the 'cap' part of cap-and-trade is a mandatory cap on carbon emissions.) I'm waiting for the conservative outrage, but I don't see it.

The National Review Online created a new branch of their website a couple of years back, and is still going strong, called Planet Gore (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/). Because, y'know, the only thing to do with Al's ideas on the environment is ridicule. The National Review is of course Bill Buckley's rag, the supposed intellectual heft of the right.

The one idea I can see that the right has contributed to the game is that we ought to be more open to construction of nuclear plants than the left has historically been. But you know what? The conservatives on this board have been able to win that point, because for once they had a good argument. It's not like that one got shouted down.

Heck, I'd be interested to know of any arguments of significance on this board that the lefties have won by virtue of numbers, rather than by virtue of argument. If you know of any, Sam, please bring them to my attention.

Do you know why I hang out on this message board, despite the constant sneering jibes and angry attacks I suffer for just making my opinion known? Because it beats the hell out of hanging out in an echo chamber, being slapped on the back by fellow travelers. You learn nothing that way. You know, that's why us lefties hang out here too.

But having hung out here and in the lefty blogosphere, I can tell you that there's a fair amount of debate on many lefty blogs, much more than on most righty blogs. (Hell, most significant righty blogs, like Instapundit or NRO, either don't allow comments, or, like Redstate, will kick you out for taking a left-of-center position too often.) While the level of agreement on basic principles is much higher in the lefty blogosphere than it is here, there's still a lot of vigorous debate on a host of secondary principles and particulars.

Lefties, as a rule, like to argue. This has long been one of the reasons why nobody ever expected a high degree of unity from the left for the longest time.

If you can't air your ideas in front of a critical audience and defend them, perhaps they need a little work. If you want to tighten your thinking and expose your own logical flaws, don't give your thoughts to people inclined to give you an atta-boy - give your thoughts to the people disposed to picking them apart and telling you why you're wrong. Who says we can't, or don't?

There seems to be an attitude on this board of late that the conservatives who are here are the enemy, that they're annoying gadflies who must be mocked and driven away so the right-thinking people can get back to telling each other how smart they are. That attitude comes from intellectual weakness. If you can't tolerate, with good grace, respect, and humility, people who oppose what you have to say and are willing to defend the opposing point of view, then perhaps your opinions are not as solidly grounded as you believe they are. Besides the recent Bricker threads (in which Bricker claimed that (a) the Palin threads here were somehow unreasonable (I'm still going 'huh?' on that one), and (b) on account of that, he was justified in voting against Obama because he'd failed to sufficiently enlighten his supporters, I don't see it. And he earned that pile-on.

I believe the increase in partisanship we've seen in the internet era has to do with the Balkanization of political dialog. We all used to start by getting our information from the same sources, and we'd diverge in opinion from there. Now, we all have our own biased sources. We all used to have to debate in the same public sphere, where you had to show tolerance for the opinions of others (and hear the opinions of others). That at least forced a little healthy introspection. But now the righties run off to Free Republic and watch Fox News, and the Lefties run off to Kos and watch Keith Olbermann, and they all close themselves into their little echo chambers and work themselves into a froth. I'd spend a lot more time in places like NRO, if they allowed comments, because I'd love the opportunity to respond to the stuff that Jonah and Ramesh and K-Lo and the others say, and see if they've got any answers. I'm good for debate with conservatives; that's one reason I keep coming back here. But like Atrios, I long ago got tired of hearing bullshit over the teevee, and not being able to do more than shout back at the screen. If the more 'responsible' righty sites (I ain't going to Freeperville, thanks) aren't interested in hearing opposing views, then fuck 'em.

The SDMB was always a board in the middle - a last bastion of independent debate where both sides could duke it out and find out what makes each other tick. That was an extremely valuable ground to hold - one that's increasingly rare. It's also one that has the best chance to promote the philosophy of this board, which is to fight ignorance.

Unfortunately, that role is almost gone. The right has been slowly pushed away from this board for several years, and the left's growing demographic strength and increasingly hostile attitude is accelerating the pace. Soon, it will be yet another tiresome echo chamber of the left, with everyone repeating the same arguments uncritically to each other and patting themselves on the back for being so obviously right and smart that opposing viewpoints need not even be considered.

And that's a damned shame.I think you're totally wrong here. As I see it, it's all about the failure of Bushism, and the failure of the GOP and conservatism in general to put much daylight between it and the Bush policies.

The problem has really been that the things we're debating have been artificially skewed so far to one side by the dominant presence of the Bush policies in our debates, that of course there's only a few of you on one side, and most of us on the other.

Obviously if McCain wins, and governs on what he's run on, then the current trend will continue - because insanity consists of pursuing the same failed courses of action over and over again, and expecting them to work this time. As long as we're debating Bushism or a close equivalent, it's a pretty one-sided debate. We can't help that. There's no way we can subsidize arguments that have largely been proven false by recent history.

If Obama wins, the center of debate will shift to the left, and there will be multiple sides to most debates again.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Here's a quiet thank you to RTFirefly, for making an ever so pitch perfect post, since we are now apparently doing this kind of thing.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Here's a quiet thank you to RTFirefly, for making an ever so pitch perfect post, since we are now apparently doing this kind of thing.

I second that emotion.

[xenophon41]

I thought of doing the "me too" thing, but I may have hit my quota with the nod to Knorf earlier. Excellent post though, Rufus.

[A shameful cracka...]

Do you get the feeling that Obama does or doesn't understand that? I acknowledge that he disagrees with that prioritization, but I don't see any indication that he doesn't understand it.

I just feel that, if the Democratic party gave up on, or at least tried to compromise more, on the gun control issue, they would win a lot of converts. I think this would be a wise move, as I honestly don't think the proliferation of firearms is a cause of crime problems in the USA. Nearly all crime is committed using weapons that the Democrats aren't even trying to control, the assault weapon ban is ridiculous for this reason. Few gang bangers are using rifles of any sort, and the Democrats seem to realize that going after pistols and shotguns is going to alienate even more people. Cities that have tried stricter gun control (i.e. Washington D.C. and Chicago) have higher violent crime rates than comparably sized cities with less gun control. I think it's time to admit that gun control is about as effective as the War on Drugs, and give it up. I think that if Obama said that he was no longer going to support any weapon bans and fight any attempts to reduce the availability of firearms to citizens, he would win in a landslide, then he could work on attacking the root causes of violence (War on Drugs, poor education in the inner city, and limited economic opportunities for the poor).


I honestly don't believe that Obama is going to be able to take away my guns, even if he gets two terms, and I'm going with him this time because I think the Republicans have gone too far in nominating Sarah Palin to a position where it seems likely she could become president sometime in the next few years, but I would be more enthusiastic about that choice if I didn't have fears that he might move us closer towards a situation where my children or myself might not be able to have guns in the future.

[xenophon41]

The best way to decrease violence in America is have an economic recovery which raises up the poor and middle class. I think more than just you and I understand that, a shameful cracka..., and I think Obama's counting on that.

While I agree that any "assault weapons" ban is purely cosmetic and will have no affect on real crime, I don't think it's a show stopper for most of the "undecided" demographic Obama needs to win the election. It'll definitely turn single-issue voters away from Obama, but lacking any vehemently pro-gun rights history, he would only have a small percentage of those votes in any case.

On the other hand, it's a red meat* issue for some on the left side of the aisle, so from that standpoint it energizes that section of the Democratic base. They were going to vote Obama any way, but this just makes it more likely they'll actually vote instead of staying home.

For people like me (OK with self defense and hunting, but not a gun enthusiast), it's not a factor at all.


*Or maybe tofu...

[eleanorigby]

Well said, RT.


Some pop psychology:
I have never been clear on whether it's the disagreement with their positions that bugs Republicans more or the fact that their positions are disapproved of. We(liberals) had to put up with some of their positions and decisions because of their being in power, but we never approved of those decisions. Somehow this wasn't good enough. Now that that balance of power may change, IMO, the Reps look back with some bitterness that their idyll didn't last (and didn't work). To admit this is anathema to them, so they not only play the victim card, but stay actively hostile to those whom they deign unworthy to replace them. Or something like that.
End of pop psychology.



For all his eloquence and civility here, Sam Stone(post #29) is still just pointing a finger. Where is the ownership of the conservative's part in the snark? Most of us enjoy some good snark and I don't want that to end (necessarily), but too much is too much, no matter what side it comes from. Despite the change in tone, Sam is still castigating "us" (or attempting to) from some perceived higher ground. All that he said can be as aptly applied to the conservatives here (and in RL in general)--if that is what he meant, I missed it.

[RTFirefly]

I thought of doing the "me too" thing, but I may have hit my quota with the nod to Knorf earlier. Excellent post though, Rufus.Thanks (to you, and Hentor and ETF and eleanor too!), and welcome back!

I missed the wine-and-cheese party in this thread last night, but if anyone wants to join me for coffee out on the back deck, y'all are invited! Hanna passed through yesterday and washed the world clean, and this morning, it's one of those picture-perfect mornings: sunny, clear, dry, the perfect balance of warm and cool. Everyone grab a cup of coffee, spread some cream cheese on a bagel, and keep me company. :)

[Suse]

Well said, RT.


For all his eloquence and civility here, Sam Stone(post #29) is still just pointing a finger. Where is the ownership of the conservative's part in the snark? Most of us enjoy some good snark and I don't want that to end (necessarily), but too much is too much, no matter what side it comes from. Despite the change in tone, Sam is still castigating "us" (or attempting to) from some perceived higher ground. All that he said can be as aptly applied to the conservatives here (and in RL in general)--if that is what he meant, I missed it.


That is what he said. Of course in this thread he was speaking to Obama supporters because that is the intended audience of the thread, per the title.
But he made it clear in the first two paragraphs that he was speaking of both sides.

If you want respect, if you want posters to listen to your side of the argument, you first have to give those things. I'm not seeing it from either side on this board (with Sam's posts here being the exception) ; it is more strident and obnoxious from the Obama supporters this election, though, probably because of the decided tilt to the left of the board.

[xenophon41]

If you want respect, if you want posters to listen to your side of the argument, you first have to give those things.
Here's the problem. Let's just look at what's happened on the SDMB since September of 2001. We've given consideration, as a group, to the following ideas, and some of the board's most respected left leaning members (not me) dispassionately discussed their merits and treated them as respectable and arguable concepts: the idea of nuking Afghanistan and Pakistan, the practicality and effect of decimating the population of Afghanistan in the Roman sense of that word, the idea that we should deliberately stay ignorant regarding the grievances and aspirations which generate recruits for terrorist organizations, the idea that our country should torture suspects and deny them due process, the idea that we should invade a country which had never attacked us, depose its leader and occupy its lands because we suspected they might have nerve gas and might want to develop nuclear weapons.
Fuck that shit. How we handled these ideas on the 'Dope was infinitely more thorough than they were handled in the national press, but it reflected the same legitimization of the absurd, and our country and the world have suffered greatly because of that American inability to reject stupidity and thuggishness.

My advice: If someone comes up to you holding out a dog turd and expecting you to buy it, don't take it from him and examine it for quality. Push the dangerous lunatic away and keep an eye on the sonofabitch.

[Cisco]

The problem on the SDMB (and probably this type of environment in general; I doubt it's exclusive to the straight dope), is that moderate comments get completely ignored. People have learned - consciously or not - through a reward system of being paid attention to, that the more extreme the comment, the more plentiful the responses. It doesn't matter if the responses are positive or negative, just like some kids are just as happy to get attention for doing something bad as for doing something good. There is no room for moderates here. The funny thing is that in the real world, most people are moderate. That's what kills me when people try to act like this board is an accurate representation of life offline.

[Polerius]

The problem on the SDMB (and probably this type of environment in general; I doubt it's exclusive to the straight dope), is that moderate comments get completely ignored. People have learned - consciously or not - through a reward system of being paid attention to, that the more extreme the comment, the more plentiful the responses.
Bingo!

Someone can post a careful analysis of Jewish influence in american media and get no responses.
Someone else can post "Jews control all media!", and get a ton of responses.

Maybe not the best example, but the overall point Cisco is making is correct.

It reduces the motivation of many posters to post long, well thought out, posts. If you're just talking to the wind, why post? And it increases the motivation for extreme, black-and-white, statements.

[eleanorigby]

That is what he said. Of course in this thread he was speaking to Obama supporters because that is the intended audience of the thread, per the title.
But he made it clear in the first two paragraphs that he was speaking of both sides.

If you want respect, if you want posters to listen to your side of the argument, you first have to give those things. I'm not seeing it from either side on this board (with Sam's posts here being the exception) ; it is more strident and obnoxious from the Obama supporters this election, though, probably because of the decided tilt to the left of the board.


This is all starting to sound like that old playground truism: "he can dish it out, but can't take it."

I must have missed where he said he'd take ownership of his part of the snark. I am happy to apologize if I am incorrect. I don't agree with you re the stridency. I see examples of extreme positions on both right and left because (as Cisco said), that is what plays in the press and what we are all used to. All news and all important issues do not contain controversy, nor are they all adversarial, but we are trained to think that way from years of watching the news and other media.

It was not that long ago (and for all know, it still happens today) when any criticism of Bush et al brought the automatic response from any conservative handy that "Clinton got a blow job." The lovely meme, "why do you hate America?" also got play here and on the net, as well as in the MSM. When faced with such facile equivocations and utter ridiculousness, the natural reaction is one of exasperation followed by anger. We Chardonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists can and do get angry. We'll figure out the satire later, but for now, we're mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Is there a reason, ANY reason, why we should afford you all more decency and respect now than you have ever shown for us, ever?

[Carol Stream]

We Chardonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists can and do get angry. We'll figure out the satire later, but for now, we're mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Is there a reason, ANY reason, why we should afford you all more decency and respect now than you have ever shown for us, ever?

Respect is earned, not owed. Can you explain how Chadonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists have earned respect?

[Der Trihs]

Another "Good post, RTFirefly".

And xenophon41 also makes an important point. The right wing's positions have become so absurd and so brutal that they simply don't deserve respect. Frankly, if what the Right has been doing isn't evil and incompetent, then what is ?

Over the years, the country has gone so far to the right that you really can't be right wing relative to the majority of America without at least verging on the crazy & evil end of the political spectrum.

Respect is earned, not owed. Can you explain how Chadonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists have earned respect?By being right. By pointing out that Iraq would be a disaster, that Bush was incompetent and not to be trusted, by opposing torture, and on and on.

[Carol Stream]

By being right. By pointing out that Iraq would be a disaster, that Bush was incompetent and not to be trusted, by opposing torture, and on and on.

So they think "the right way", according to you. And for that, they should be respected? Nice try.

[Guinastasia]

Respect is earned, not owed.

Which is why you have a long, hard road ahead of you, dearest.

[eleanorigby]

Respect is earned, not owed. Can you explain how Chadonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists have earned respect?



What's good for the goose is good for the gander. IOW, I can (and do) say the same about conservatives, plenty of whom drink Chardonnay, eat arugula and live on the east coast.....


Respect is indeed earned. IMO, it is not earned by taking a political position and making it into a dirty word (as Bush Sr et al did re the word liberal). It is not done by spouting words of scripture while doing that which is against all the proclaimed savior's teachings. It is not done by eviscerating the character of a war vet or by spreading smears regarding a fellow party candidate's child. Oh, but Bush Jr didn't do that, you cry--some other people did it. Yes, in his cause and with full knowledge of how despicable it was. Respect is earned. Please show me where the GOP has the moral high ground in any of this in the last oh, 12 years. Yes, both parties are guilty of such political machinations, but the GOP has sunk lower and lower in its bid to get power and hold onto it.

Respect is earned here as well. I think I'll just end it there.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Respect is earned, not owed. Can you explain how Chadonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists have earned respect?When you start believing that your straw men really exist, you've devolved into sputtering lunacy.

[Carol Stream]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. IOW, I can (and do) say the same about conservatives, plenty of whom drink Chardonnay, eat arugula and live on the east coast.....



In other words, you got nothin'.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

In other words, you got nothin'.You're a fucking tool. Who are these people you are talking about?

Nobody earns respect just by eating arugula, drinking Chardonnay or living in the East. Do you have a real question, or are you just spewing urine?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

In other words, you got nothin'.

Well, she's got my respect. You'll never get any.

[Der Trihs]

So they think "the right way", according to you. And for that, they should be respected? Nice try.No, they've been factually correct.

An as far as the moral aspect goes, opposing torture and the mass slaughter of innocents is morally superior to supporting them. You are on the side of the monsters; deal with it.

[Carol Stream]

You're a fucking tool. Who are these people you are talking about?

Read the thread, dipshit.

We Chardonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists can and do get angry. We'll figure out the satire later, but for now, we're mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Is there a reason, ANY reason, why we should afford you all more decency and respect now than you have ever shown for us, ever?

[The Second Stone]

How about we claim we are sweet to the righties, but just not do it. We can call it Compassionate Conservatism.

[elucidator]

I swear, isn't she just about the cutest thing you ever did see? Venemous, sure, but adorable!

[Carol Stream]

I swear, isn't she just about the cutest thing you ever did see? Venemous, sure, but adorable!

Apparently, you got nothin either. Tell me again why leftists should be "respected"?

Forcibly bathed, I can agree with. Respected? not so much.

[Sam Stone]

I'm going to respond to the issues pertinent to the thread, and leave off the debate about the current administration. There are other threads for that.

Look, the Dope isn't an echo chamber. If conservative ideas were actually better, if they'd been working the past eight years, there'd have been plenty of opportunities for you to have the best of the argument.

It could be possible that conservatives do think they've gotten the best of the argument, but the other side doesn't agree. That's what happens when neither side is really listening at all, but simply 'bebating' in terms of trying to probe for weakness and fire salvos at the other side. No one's arguments 'win'. It's all just bluster and sniping.

And then there's the domestic disaster that caused people to realize that, regardless of the parade of happy talk from the Administration, things in Iraq must be fucked. I refer to Katrina.

Here's a good example - the left portrays Katrina as a huge failure of the Bush Administration. The right portrays it as a failure of the state government and the mayor of New Orleans. Both sides think they have the correct set of 'facts'. Neither side is willing to give ground. Why? Because the Katrina disaster is too valuable of a political weapon for either side to let go of.

The truth of the matter is that Katrina exposed a host of problems that are not all partisan, or even mostly partisan. Neglect of the levees, poor evacuation planning, poor coordination between the feds and the state government at the lower administration levels, some questions over whether the division of responsibilities between FEMA and the states are the correct ones, etc. You can also find plenty of partisan blame - the governor of Louisiana screwed up big time, Mayor Nagin screwed up big time, "Heckuva Job Brownie" screwed up big time.

But once again, adopting the nuanced stance which is that disaster planning is difficult and the people in charge of it are elected officials without real traning in the area and that too much of it is controlled and dictated by political needs instead of engineering and solid management principles would strip either side of the ability to play the 'gotcha!' game. So we ignore the real facts, and stand on our talking points. Or as Stephen Colbert likes to call it, "truthiness".


This Administration fucked the preparation, the immediate response, and of course the longer-term response.

And Nagin and the governor, both Democrats, failed to call for a timely evacuation, failed to employ the buses they had available for the purpose, and failed to properly stock their disaster gathering point with supplies. The Louisiana state government AND the feds failed to protect the levees. Lots of blame to go around.

You did know that the current disaster plan calls on the the states and municipalities to be responsible for the ordered evaculation of the population, and FEMA with the responsibility for bringing in federal waypoints with supples and coordinating the federal disaster response and rescue operations, right? And that those stations were actually set up and ready, but the population couldn't get to them because they weren't properly evacuated from the disaster area?

The other thing that has to be said is that this was a disaster of epic proportions that strained the system in many ways. There weren't enough resources to rescue everyone in New Orleans in part because there were many, many other areas that didn't make the news as much which were also hit hard and which were calling for those same resources. If anything, maybe it just showed that some disasters are so big that you simply can't control all of it. But since that's a non-partisan answer, no one likes it.

'The economy' worked for some people during the Bush Administration, but the vast majority of Americans didn't get much out of it, based on median incomes, poverty rates, and all that boring stuff. The chainsawing of regulations led to the current mortgage crisis. In the long run, if we want to buy stuff from the rest of the world, we've got to produce goods and services that the rest of the world wants to purchase in return. It's hard to see how we're making progress there, but ginormous tax cuts and the mortgage bubble helped Americans maintain the illusion that they could keep buying for a few years longer.

There's some truth to that, but there's also the fact that Bush took power just as the dot-com boom melted down, and globalization is presenting challenges that again aren't really partisan. And the fact is, he presided over 8 years without a recession and with pretty god economic growth. House prices are still higher than they were four years ago. While incomes are flat, benefits have risen.

Also, I'm not sure flat incomes are a partisan issue. A good part of the problem has been illegal immigration, which puts a downward pressure on wages at the low end, and the elimination of some very high-wage manufacturing jobs. You could equally make the case that those jobs went away because of democrat policies and excessive union power which made corporations less competitive. Conservatives would also make the case that high business taxes make it harder to compete and push jobs overseas.

The conservative response seems to be even bigger tax cuts, even fewer regs, and of course the privatization of Social Security. Where's the enlightenment? There's plenty if you're willing to listen. And plenty of things Republicans have done too. You don't have a monopoly on the truth.

Global warming is probably the biggest global threat of our times.

This is a highly debatable point, even for people like me who agree that global climate change is partly manmade. There's nothing in the IPCC report that justifies such a sweeping claim. But again, if you're going to stand by that as an obvious fact that can not be debated, you stack the playing field by then being able to show anything other than a total crash program to avoid it is yet another sign of Republican foolishness.

The Bush Administration's response has been to do essentially nothing.

And that seems to be the response of just about every other government on the planet, too. This is an issue that really makes my point - the true debate is very complex, having to do with poorly understood science, risk/reward ratios, proper discount rates for future warming damage, opportunity costs in choosing where to spend your money, and the realities of trying to control a world market in a fungible commodity. But we can't have that debate, so each side picks the kind of truthiness that supports its dogmatic stance, the common ground gets erased, and it becomes yet another way to continue the partisan sniping.

The one idea I can see that the right has contributed to the game is that we ought to be more open to construction of nuclear plants than the left has historically been. But you know what? The conservatives on this board have been able to win that point, because for once they had a good argument. It's not like that one got shouted down.

That's a good example. There are sometimes common goals that bring both sides together.


Heck, I'd be interested to know of any arguments of significance on this board that the lefties have won by virtue of numbers, rather than by virtue of argument. If you know of any, Sam, please bring them to my attention.

You know, that's why us lefties hang out here too.

I tried very carefully to not claim that this was a 'righties vs lefties' argument. I was pointing out the forces that cause both sides of the debate to shut down. 'Righties' are every bit as guilty of it. I even admitted my own complicity, when I said that I was capable of giving all kinds of ground in a debate to my wife, because we trust each other to be honest and reasonable and consider each other's points of view, than I can or will here, where I know it will only be used against me and the other side will not reciprocate. That happens on both sides.


But having hung out here and in the lefty blogosphere, I can tell you that there's a fair amount of debate on many lefty blogs, much more than on most righty blogs. (Hell, most significant righty blogs, like Instapundit or NRO, either don't allow comments, or, like Redstate, will kick you out for taking a left-of-center position too often.) While the level of agreement on basic principles is much higher in the lefty blogosphere than it is here, there's still a lot of vigorous debate on a host of secondary principles and particulars.

...

I'd spend a lot more time in places like NRO, if they allowed comments, because I'd love the opportunity to respond to the stuff that Jonah and Ramesh and K-Lo and the others say, and see if they've got any answers. I'm good for debate with conservatives; that's one reason I keep coming back here. But like Atrios, I long ago got tired of hearing bullshit over the teevee, and not being able to do more than shout back at the screen. If the more 'responsible' righty sites (I ain't going to Freeperville, thanks) aren't interested in hearing opposing views, then fuck 'em.

A few of these boards on the right attempted to have open discussion forums, but they rapidly got spammed by Democrats shouting at them. Maybe it's just because Democrats are more numerous on the web, or because they're angrier, or simply because the Republicans are the ones who have been in power, and therefore are on the defensive.


The problem has really been that the things we're debating have been artificially skewed so far to one side by the dominant presence of the Bush policies in our debates, that of course there's only a few of you on one side, and most of us on the other.

Obviously if McCain wins, and governs on what he's run on, then the current trend will continue - because insanity consists of pursuing the same failed courses of action over and over again, and expecting them to work this time. As long as we're debating Bushism or a close equivalent, it's a pretty one-sided debate. We can't help that. There's no way we can subsidize arguments that have largely been proven false by recent history.

If Obama wins, the center of debate will shift to the left, and there will be multiple sides to most debates again.

I think you're on track of a good point here. I think the left has been a little more strident and angry than the right simply because the right has been in power, and therefore on the defensive. If Obama is elected, the left will be forced into the mode of having to defend his mistakes (and all presidents make mistakes), and the right will become more energized.

And it's always easier to claim the mantle of truth when its' theoretical. It's easier to pick at the party in power and claim your ideas are obviously better when there's no way to test it. It's much harder to be the one constantly defending policies which, in the real world, are never so perfect that the opposition can't find plenty of legitimate gripes against them. So if Obama is elected, maybe the positions will reverse. We'll see.

[levdrakon]

Is there a reason, ANY reason, why we should afford you all more decency and respect now than you have ever shown for us, ever?Who is this "we," white man? Two wrongs don't make a right? Don't stoop to their level and prove yourself to be no better?

I'm Dem, and not pleased with my fellow Dems and how they are acting. I'll vote for the big O because I want to, not because Dems like to start a jillion threads bashing McCain and mostly just patting each other on the back and saying "good one! Heh, heh, did you watch Stewart and Colbert last night? They rocked! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Who is this "we," white man? Two wrongs don't make a right? Don't stoop to their level and prove yourself to be no better?

I'm Dem, and not pleased with my fellow Dems and how they are acting. I'll vote for the big O because I want to, not because Dems like to start a jillion threads bashing McCain and mostly just patting each other on the back and saying "good one! Heh, heh, did you watch Stewart and Colbert last night? They rocked! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"

They didn't rock?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Read the thread, dipshit.I read what you quoted. It doesn't tell me who the fuck you are talking about. Do you even have any idea?

I see you've switched to "leftists". Who the fuck are leftists?

If you mean, like blue states, I would point out that blue states, relative to red states, are net contributors to federal revenues, while red states are net consumers. Why don't you fucking freeloaders quit sucking the federal teat?

[Carol Stream]

I read what you quoted. It doesn't tell me who the fuck you are talking about. Do you even have any idea?

I see you've switched to "leftists". Who the fuck are leftists?

If you mean, like blue states, I would point out that blue states, relative to red states, are net contributors to federal revenues, while red states are net consumers. Why don't you fucking freeloaders quit sucking the federal teat?

Ok, Elitists then. They deserve respect why?

[Suse]

Who is this "we," white man? Two wrongs don't make a right? Don't stoop to their level and prove yourself to be no better?

I'm Dem, and not pleased with my fellow Dems and how they are acting. I'll vote for the big O because I want to, not because Dems like to start a jillion threads bashing McCain and mostly just patting each other on the back and saying "good one! Heh, heh, did you watch Stewart and Colbert last night? They rocked! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"


Exactly.

[Der Trihs]

Ok, Elitists then. They deserve respect why?As I said, because they've been right and your side wrong. Factually, practically, and morally.

Your side has pretty much become the living embodiment of the old joke, "Watch him very carefully. Then do the exact opposite, and you'll never be wrong."

[Carol Stream]

As I said, because they've been right and your side wrong. Factually, practically, and morally.

Your side has pretty much become the living embodiment of the old joke, "Watch him very carefully. Then do the exact opposite, and you'll never be wrong."

That's surprising coming from you. Elitists deserve respect because they "know better"? What happened to the usual "Power to the People" and "Screw the Man" rhetoric you usually spout?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Who is this "we," white man? Two wrongs don't make a right? Don't stoop to their level and prove yourself to be no better?

I'm Dem, and not pleased with my fellow Dems and how they are acting. I'll vote for the big O because I want to, not because Dems like to start a jillion threads bashing McCain and mostly just patting each other on the back and saying "good one! Heh, heh, did you watch Stewart and Colbert last night? They rocked! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"

And to follow up on 'They didn't rock?", I need to know if you expect the Dems to open up a jillion threads talking about McCain actually being not so bad and ripping each other a new asshole.

"Hey, RTFirefly, fuck off with your links to polls showing Obama leading in battleground states! And Shayna, who needs your big-assed providing of cites for what you claim about Obama? Just keep your fucking leftie mouths shut tight okay--I'm trying to watch a ballgame here."

Is this what you expect Democrats to do here? Why?

[Der Trihs]

That's surprising coming from you. Elitists deserve respect because they "know better"? What happened to the usual "Power to the People" and "Screw the Man" rhetoric you usually spout?This has nothing to do with elitism, and everything to do with being right. Facts are facts, and an "elitist" who opposes torture and mass murder is taking a morally superior position to someone who supports them, elitist or not.

And I have no idea where you got the idea that I think much of the American people.

[Carol Stream]

And I have no idea where you got the idea that I think much of the American people.

Why don't you leave?

[Hostile Dialect]

Why are you people still feeding the troll?

[xenophon41]

This has nothing to do with elitism, and everything to do with being right. Facts are facts, and an "elitist" who opposes torture and mass murder is taking a morally superior position to someone who supports them, elitist or not.

And I have no idea where you got the idea that I think much of the American people.

Well I think highly of the countrymen I know, but unlike our future first lady, I'm not proud of my country. But I'd like to be proud again.

To repeat what I said upthread:

originally posted by xeno:

We've given consideration, as a group, to... the idea of nuking Afghanistan and Pakistan, the practicality and effect of decimating the population of Afghanistan in the Roman sense of that word, the idea that we should deliberately stay ignorant regarding the grievances and aspirations which generate recruits for terrorist organizations, the idea that our country should torture suspects and deny them due process, the idea that we should invade a country which had never attacked us, depose its leader and occupy its lands because we suspected they might have nerve gas and might want to develop nuclear weapons.
Those are immoral and foolish ideas which, once entertained as "rational" are toxic not only to civil debate but to civil liberties. They have no place in intelligent political discourse and shame on this country for receiving them without evident ridicule or irony.

When will we return to liberty in this country? Surely not until we hang -figuratively or literally- the purveyors of this poison.

[levdrakon]

And to follow up on 'They didn't rock?", I need to know if you expect the Dems to open up a jillion threads talking about McCain actually being not so bad and ripping each other a new asshole.

"Hey, RTFirefly, fuck off with your links to polls showing Obama leading in battleground states! And Shayna, who needs your big-assed providing of cites for what you claim about Obama? Just keep your fucking leftie mouths shut tight okay--I'm trying to watch a ballgame here."

Is this what you expect Democrats to do here? Why?Or, they could just keep their stupid mouths shut, yes.

I'm sick of being told I'm stupid for listening to what democrats say on a silly message board because, you know, it's just a silly message board. Because, you know, even though this is a silly message board you are on that silly message board telling me not to listen to what people say on silly message boards but I am supposed to listen to your silly message to me on the silly message board on which I am not supposed to pay any attention because it is a silly message board.

Let the monkeys fling their poo all over the damn place and ignore it, because, you know, it's just a message board.

It's not a respectable board dedicated to acting like adults and fighting ignorance or anything.

If I agree, I should listen. If I don't agree, I should ignore it because it's just a silly message board and I should vote your way anyway or I'm "unfit to be a voter."

Place cracks me up sometimes.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Or, they could just keep their stupid mouths shut, yes.



You want people on a message board to shut their mouths? Wouldn't that be a silence board?

[RTFirefly]

Why are you people still feeding the troll?It's a mystery to me.

[Clothahump]

Fellow Obama-ites: let's be nicer to tighty righties
I love it.

Way to go,PRR. I guess you've never learned that ad hominem attacks are an open admission that what was said originally was correct. Since you can't refute it, you attack the messenger. Thank you for openly admitting that the conservative viewpoint is correct.

[Der Trihs]

I love it.

Way to go,PRR. I guess you've never learned that ad hominem attacks are an open admission that what was said originally was correct. Since you can't refute it, you attack the messenger. Thank you for openly admitting that the conservative viewpoint is correct.Hardly. Is calling Nazis scum an admission they were correct ? Calling someone names . . . means you've called them names. Nothing more.

And the "conservative" viewpoint, as exemplified by the ones in power has been a dismal failure on all levels. Hardly "correct".

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Respect is earned, not owed. Can you explain how Chadonnay sipping, arugula eating, East coast elitists have earned respect?

By not being Carol Stream. A dreadfully low bar, I know, but there it is.

[Carol Stream]

By not being Carol Stream. A dreadfully low bar, I know, but there it is.

Way to answer the question. Why do you suppose that eleanor rigby thinks she deserves respect?

[Sam Stone]

Well, for a second there I thought some actual communication might take place. Those of you on the right and left engaging in this silly sniping, thanks for doing what you do best and destroying any possibility to find common ground. Good work.

RTFirefly: Thanks for trying. I do appreciate it.

[tomndebb]

There seems to be an attitude on this board of late that the conservatives who are here are the enemy, that they're annoying gadflies who must be mocked and driven away so the right-thinking people can get back to telling each other how smart they are. That attitude comes from intellectual weakness. If you can't tolerate, with good grace, respect, and humility, people who oppose what you have to say and are willing to defend the opposing point of view, then perhaps your opinions are not as solidly grounded as you believe they are.I would tend to agree with this statement, noting however, that among a number of "conservative" posters, too, hatred and scorn has been the hallmark of their posts--and continues so to this day. Look at all the posters in the threads related to this thread's theme who bring up the matter of being called traitor or fool for having opposed the Iraq invasion in 2002 and early 2003. There are still Right leaning posters who continue to post along those lines. Back in the days of the Clinton impeachment proceedings, there were a lot more Right wing posters and they included many who were every bit as stupid/hateful as the stupid/hateful Lefties posting today. D'you know when I noticed the disappearance of Right leaning posters? When the amount of information that Bush and Company had lied us into Iraq and then thoroughly mismanaged the occupation began to become overwhelming. I do NOT think that they were driven off by TRUTH, but I do think that they simply could not face either defending the indefensible or admitting previous errors. (Several Right-leaning posters who remain actually have posted that they have had to change their opinion of Bush and his policies. A few of the Right leaning posters who remain continue to be as stupid/hateful as several of the more obnoxious Left leaning posters.)

I believe the increase in partisanship we've seen in the internet era has to do with the Balkanization of political dialog. We all used to start by getting our information from the same sources, and we'd diverge in opinion from there. Now, we all have our own biased sources. We all used to have to debate in the same public sphere, where you had to show tolerance for the opinions of others (and hear the opinions of others). That at least forced a little healthy introspection. But now the righties run off to Free Republic and watch Fox News, and the Lefties run off to Kos and watch Keith Olbermann, and they all close themselves into their little echo chambers and work themselves into a froth.This, I believe, is very accurate.
Unfortunately, that role is almost gone. The right has been slowly pushed away from this board for several years, and the left's growing demographic strength and increasingly hostile attitude is accelerating the pace. Soon, it will be yet another tiresome echo chamber of the left, with everyone repeating the same arguments uncritically to each other and patting themselves on the back for being so obviously right and smart that opposing viewpoints need not even be considered.

And that's a damned shame.I would mostly agree with this, except that I would note that there was not nearly as much pushing from the Left as pushing from the news. As I noted, I think it just got difficult for some posters to deal with the news from Baghdad and Washington. This is not to say that all felt that way or that the Left had TRUTH on its side, only that after crying (or watching quietly as fellow believers cried) "traitor," "fool," "Islamist apologist," or whatever for so long, they found it difficult to continue posting in this forum. (I suspect that RTFirefly's position might confirm your beliefs, but I am not really saying exactly the same thing that he is; I do not claim that eight years of "evil" chased away Right leaning posters, only that there were a few topics that were so prevalent in which the Bush claims were so spectacularly wrong that it made ongoing participation difficult.)

I have no love for the screamers on the Left (and if you vist the periodic Pit threads in my honor, you will find posts from that crowd very much in evidence), but I am having a difficult time swallowing the claims that the Right was simply "chased away."

The notion that the facts are all on your side is exactly the kind of close-minded dogma that I'm talking about. The minute you start believing your own press and assume that there's no question you are right is the minute you stop learning and just become another voice in the echo chamber.Very true.
Unfortunately, serious, reasoned discussion of them is impossible here, because I know the other side would not discuss them in good faith, or reciprocate with an honest discussion of Obama's faults so that we could bat them back and forth like adults and educate ourselves. Instead, there would be jeering and sneering and anything I offered up would be used as ammunition against me and the other side would still give no ground.bolding mine
Contains truth, but is not strictly true. It is more difficult, of course, but the conversation can still be carried forth simply by ignoring the shrillest, silliest voices. There is already one poster in GD (frequently associated with the Left, but actually a bit of an odd duck that hates both ends of the political spectrum but rails against the Right because they currently hold the White House and the Supreme Court), who is generally ignored by all but the newest posters. That poster is so shrill and so obviously unconnected to reality that most folks simply do not respond to the poster's submissions. There are a couple of posters on the Left and Right whom I do not engage except to correct clear errors of fact. It can be difficult to do that, but it is not impossible.

[tomndebb]

I began composing the previous post just after the second post of Sam Stone's to which I responded and had not yet seen the nonsense involving the stone throwers before I hit Submit.

[eleanorigby]

Way to answer the question. Why do you suppose that eleanor rigby thinks she deserves respect?

I am actually going to address this retarded comment. Two things:

First of all, I don't "think I deserve respect", I know I deserve respect. Furthermore, I know I am respected, both here and in RL for my actions, my character and my role in my community, my family and my job.

Secondly, I don't deserve respect for drinking Chardonnay (which I don't like and can't spell), arugula (ditto) and for living on the east coast. I don't live there. It was a humorous remark made lightheartedly with my real point (when have the conservatives here ever shown us respect? Hell, when have the conservatives in RL shown liberals respect?) being not humorous in the least. I mistakenly thought that the mix of the two would be obvious. How wrong I was.

I am interested (mildly) in knowing why you think I think I deserve respect. I'm curious by nature, so I'll play. Why do you think "I think I deserve respect"?

levdrakon--I cannot speak for other Dems or liberals here, but for myself I will say that being castigated however civilly in the Pit for the very behavior that is not only rampant but endemic by the so called injuried party broke the back of my patience and forbearance. Enough is enough. Take the mote out of your eye and all that is what I say to this tempest in teapot.

Very well posted tomndeb. I agree that the polarization gets us nowhere*, but I am still waiting for some personal ownership from the conservative side that perhaps they have been extreme in their vocalizations and insults. I do not see why this is all one sided. Yes, they may be outnumbered, but they make up for that in vociferousness. I don't normally take part in political debates because I get angry and start to snipe. I am not "one of the usual suspects" when it comes to derailments of issues threads. But this whole airing of grievances has tried me sorely.


*which begs the question: where do we want to go? What is the goal of political threads? Scoring points off your opponent? Fighting ignorance? Providing a another POV? All 3? None of the above? Surely the end goal decides the tone and content. I'm not at all sure that any poster here has started a political thread with strictly information and education of all in mind. I'd like to see some of those kind of threads.

[ElvisL1ves]

It could be possible that conservatives do think they've gotten the best of the argument, but the other side doesn't agree.80% of Americans think the country is "on the wrong track".

That's what happens when neither side is really listening at all, but simply 'bebating' in terms of trying to probe for weakness and fire salvos at the other side. No one's arguments 'win'. It's all just bluster and sniping.No, "bluster and sniping" comes from people who don't have the facts on their sides. The problem isn't failure to listen to what you have to say, it's that what you have to say is bullshit.

Facts do have a real existence, outside the realm of simple debate - even what that debate is, from at least one side, simple denial of facts and assertion of fantasy. The contentiousness you personally so often encounter here isn't "both sides refusing to listen", it's your refusing to listen. You may find it comforting to say, as you so often do, that you're being picked on for being "conservative", but you're not - people are trying to fight your ignorance, and you're refusing.

\Here's a good example - the left portrays Katrina as a huge failure of the Bush Administration. The right portrays it as a failure of the state government and the mayor of New Orleans. Both sides think they have the correct set of 'facts'. Neither side is willing to give ground. Why? Because the Katrina disaster is too valuable of a political weapon for either side to let go of. Utter horseshit. Yes, Katrina was a human disaster. The failure/refusal of the Bush Administration to do anything of significance to help rebuild NO is the fault of the Bush Administration.

Some of us believe in assessing responsibility where it belongs, even when it falls on ourselves. You have never, ever done that - it's always some fucking excuse to foist off responsibility on somebody else.

How's that search for Saddam's WMD's coming? You remember, the ones you spent literally years insisting were there, only to back off to some lame story about how "everyone" thought they were there, and they could have been there, and things just happen, let's move on? Those? That's just one example of how you still have not been able to accept the concept of fact.

No more of this "Well, both 'sides' do it" from you. Learn to accept responsibility for your actions and statements. Learn what reality means. Accept that there is a reality. Or accept that your utter lack of credibility here is totally the result of your own actions and statements, not "the other side's".

There's some truth to that, but there's also the fact that Bush took power just as the dot-com boom melted down, and globalization is presenting challenges that again aren't really partisan.And yet, at the time, you were crowing about how the recession was Clinton's fault, due to some business cycle theory, and that Bush's brilliant economic plans would lead the country to new heights of prosperity, etc. You may not wish to remember that load of horseshit, but there are those of us who do. So can you explain your change of mind here, if in fact that is what it is, and not merely another reality-free attempt to have something that appears to be a "debate"?

\And the fact is, he presided over 8 years without a recession and with pretty god economic growth. House prices are still higher than they were four years ago. While incomes are flat, benefits have risen.God Almighty, you're serious!

When come back, bring facts. Not lies. "Without a recession"? You're really serious.

There's plenty if you're willing to listen. And plenty of things Republicans have done too. You don't have a monopoly on the truth.When you can present something that is the truth, as a result of a legitimate truth-finding process and not your usual simple partisan talking points, you can say that. You have not, and obviously just don't give a damn.

And that seems to be the response of just about every other government on the planet, too.Remember the Kyoto Treaty? You were strongly against that at the time, remember? It was going to be economically disastrous, remember? yet "just about every other government on the planet" is going ahead with it.

Fact, Sam, facts. Your Saint Ronald used to call them "stupid things". He was wrong. The facts aren't what's stupid.

This is an issue that really makes my point - the true debate is very complex, having to do with poorly understood scienceAnother common talking point. A fine excuse to continue doing nothing. But still another of your inveterate lies.

I tried very carefully to not claim that this was a 'righties vs lefties' argument.If you had, that would be a first for you. But you didn't. You have spouted the usual righty talking points that conveniently let the righties and the government they have created off the hook for any responsibility for their actions or positions.

I was pointing out the forces that cause both sides of the debate to shut down.If you were discussing matters that really were one opinion vs. another, you might have a point. But those matters are all fact vs. fantasy. They are not equivalent. Fact wins. Deniers of fact lose. You lose.

I think the left has been a little more strident and angry than the right simply because the right has been in power, and therefore on the defensive. You don't fucking get that, either. People who care about their country and the world are angry at those who have fucked it up so heavily in so many ways, and refused to accept their responsibility for it. It is not about power, but about the utter misuse of that power. Something you are utterly unable to grasp, as all the last eight years have shown. And that inability to let your ignorance be fought is your own fault, nobody else's.

If Obama is elected, the left will be forced into the mode of having to defend his mistakes (and all presidents make mistakes), and the right will become more energized.It is not possible to conceive of Obama, or anyone for that matter, screwing up so totally. Nor is it possible for anyone but a tighty righty like yourself dismissing the monstrosity of this administration as "mistakes", as if they were contained, small, disconnected events in an essentially-decent whole. Yet that's all you are capable of admitting, and it's doubtful you even agree fully.

And it's always easier to claim the mantle of truth when its' theoretical. It's easier to pick at the party in power and claim your ideas are obviously better when there's no way to test it.We have "tested your ideas" for almost 8 years now. The results have been disastrous. That's not "theoretical".

It's much harder to be the one constantly defending policies which, in the real world, are never so perfect that the opposition can't find plenty of legitimate gripes against them. So if Obama is elected, maybe the positions will reverse. We'll see.Aggressive war, economic disintegration, torture, environmental destruction, etc. are just "not so perfect"?


Grow the fuck up. Or at least get the fuck out of your comfortable little cocoon up there. Get some clue about how this "reality" stuff works, what a "fact" is, what "responsibility" is. Or keep being a laughingstock. Your choice;.

[Trans Fat Og]

I have something to say here but it will have to wait for tomorrow. Posting this now is a substitute for the "SUBSCRIBE" option. - "Jack" :)

[ElvisL1ves]

We're all on tenterhooks, Jack.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I love it.

Way to go,PRR. I guess you've never learned that ad hominem attacks are an open admission that what was said originally was correct. Since you can't refute it, you attack the messenger. Thank you for openly admitting that the conservative viewpoint is correct.


I'm sorry, you'll have to help me out here, please--where's the ad hominem attack in the snippet you quoted? I think I understand you, or what you're trying to suggest, but I'd like a little clarification before I answer. Thanks.

[ElvisL1ves]

It's the part where you showed him he was wrong, and he couldn't immediately find a Fox/RNC talking point to refute it. That's the excuse Sam generally uses too - he won't admit being proven to be full of shit no matter the evidence; he'll just claim he's being "personally attacked". Even Bricker and Shodan will just shut up.

[eleanorigby]

It's much harder to be the one constantly defending policies which, in the real world, are never so perfect that the opposition can't find plenty of legitimate gripes against them. So if Obama is elected, maybe the positions will reverse. We'll see.

This is incredibly disingenuous. Of course the positions will reverse to some extent. We all of us(Americans) should question our leaders and pay attention to their actions and words. Who here expects them not to? Of course the world is not perfect and any oppositional group can and will find legitimate gripes against any current administration. I am not sure what you are saying with this remark: do you think it doesn't apply to Dems re Bush et al? Do you think we don't remember the evisceration of Clinton and the smears etc? Have you ever thought that having Bush(or McCain or Ashcroft or Gonzalez or Rumsfeld or Cheney)held up as good examples of moral leadership could be galling to those of us who have moral compasses?

My question is this: how do you defend policies such as those at Abu Graib? How do you defend refusing to even talk to other global leaders? How do you defend dismissing and redacting studies by your own administration of choice regarding climate change? How do you look your children in the eye and say "I helped cripple your generation with debt for an unnecessary war that caused more problems than it solved."? How?

[ElvisL1ves]

How? He already said. In effect, "Well, nobody's perfect."

[Carol Stream]

IFirst of all, I don't "think I deserve respect", I know I deserve respect. .

How do you figure? Pls explain.

[eleanorigby]

How do you figure? Pls explain.

I've always wanted to say this: my post is my cite. If anything, the onus is on you for asking why I deserve respect. Why do any of us? Why do you? (that one could be tricky.....)

[eleanorigby]

How? He already said. In effect, "Well, nobody's perfect."

And then there is that whole Jesus thing that the social conservatives are always on about--that whole turn the other cheek bit. Oh, wait--that only works when it's YOUR cheek they've been slapping. Silly me.

[levdrakon]

[conspiracy theorist hat] Rebuplicans seem well behaved this time around. I wonder why that is? Maybe because they've had 8 years to fuck things up and they're tired. 30 seconds after O takes office Fox News can light up blaming Dems for everything and demanding "why can't they do anything?!?" Given the average American's attention span, this will play perfectly into the Repubicans' hands, and we'll hand them the office back in four years, while Dems take it in the shorts for four years.[/CTH]

[Carol Stream]

I've always wanted to say this: my post is my cite. If anything, the onus is on you for asking why I deserve respect. Why do any of us? Why do you? (that one could be tricky.....)

wrong. you said you deserve respect. Why?

[elucidator]

Well, have you been immortalized in a Beatles song, Little Miss Snarky Pants?

[eleanorigby]

wrong. you said you deserve respect. Why?

I said I'd play, but this isn't play. This is trolling. Reread my post(s) in reply to yours. And move on from there.


Lucy--not many people keep their face in a jar by the door, but mine is here and ready! (well, if you were dead, you'd need a spare face, too!). ;)

[SmartAleq]

wrong. you said you deserve respect. Why?

It's okay, Rigs, I got this one.

*Ahem*

Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.

[RTFirefly]

It could be possible that conservatives do think they've gotten the best of the argument, but the other side doesn't agree. That's what happens when neither side is really listening at all, but simply 'bebating' in terms of trying to probe for weakness and fire salvos at the other side. No one's arguments 'win'. It's all just bluster and sniping. And here I thought the probing for weakness in someone else's argument, and firing salvos through the holes, required actually reading and understanding their argument. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

Here's a good example - the left portrays Katrina as a huge failure of the Bush Administration. The right portrays it as a failure of the state government and the mayor of New Orleans. Both sides think they have the correct set of 'facts'. Neither side is willing to give ground. Why? Because the Katrina disaster is too valuable of a political weapon for either side to let go of. You know, there have been dozens of major hurricanes since I've been old enough to pay attention. Katrina's the first one where conservatives apparently expected the state to handle the response by itself.

There were several hurricanes in Florida the previous year. FEMA was all over those like white on rice.

The truth of the matter is that Katrina exposed a host of problems that are not all partisan, or even mostly partisan....<snip>...But once again, adopting the nuanced stance which is that disaster planning is difficult and the people in charge of it are elected officials without real traning in the area and that too much of it is controlled and dictated by political needs instead of engineering and solid management principles would strip either side of the ability to play the 'gotcha!' game. No, this is why we have FEMA: precisely because you can't expect the mayor of a city, or a county executive, to be an expert on disaster preparation and relief.
So we ignore the real facts, and stand on our talking points. Or as Stephen Colbert likes to call it, "truthiness". Speak for yourself, bucko. Mayor Nagin simply didn't have the capability for an emergency response: his city was under water. This is what we have the Feds for. And the Feds twiddled their thumbs while people died. Every day, we were lied to about aid getting into New Orleans, and after every day, it turned out that aid had been blocked from reaching Orleans Parish. (I'm still pissed at the Red Cross for going along with that charade, but that's another issue.) Instead, the Feds were worried about looters, not lives, and weren't anywhere to be seen when people tried to cross the bridge out of New Orleans, and were turned back at gunpoint by some latter-day Jim Clark.
And Nagin and the governor, both Democrats, failed to call for a timely evacuation, failed to employ the buses they had available for the purpose, and failed to properly stock their disaster gathering point with supplies. By comparison with other hurricane evacuations, the New Orleans evacuation was remarkably thorough. Funny how you guys always apply a different standard to Katrina.

You did know that the current disaster plan calls on the the states and municipalities to be responsible for the ordered evaculation of the population, and FEMA with the responsibility for bringing in federal waypoints with supples and coordinating the federal disaster response and rescue operations, right? And that those stations were actually set up and ready, but the population couldn't get to them because they weren't properly evacuated from the disaster area? This is a new one to me, and I was up to my ears in the debates we had over Katrina three years ago.

Cite, please.

The other thing that has to be said is that this was a disaster of epic proportions that strained the system in many ways. There weren't enough resources to rescue everyone in New Orleans in part because there were many, many other areas that didn't make the news as much which were also hit hard and which were calling for those same resources. If anything, maybe it just showed that some disasters are so big that you simply can't control all of it. But since that's a non-partisan answer, no one likes it. You're losing a debate with yourself, Sam. It can't be the locals' fault to a substantial degree and too big a disaster for even the Feds to adequately cope with.

The fact remains that, for day after day after day, no aid reached Orleans Parish. The Red Cross was kept out (but they were willing to take my online donation to help the NOLA people needing immediate relief anyway). People died because no aid reached them.

And - oh yeah - your side has really fought for investigations that would settle some of the debates, right? Yeh, riiiiight.

And we haven't even mentioned the long-term response to Katrina. I've been to NOLA twice since Katrina. The Bushies say tens of billions have been spent on rebuilding New Orleans. Downtown and the French Quarter look fine. The vast middle of Orleans Parish where most of the people live, or rather, lived - much of it still looks like a disaster area. And I'm not even talking about the Lower Ninth, which is to New Orleans like Downwind was to Thieves' World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves_World).

There's some truth to that, but there's also the fact that Bush took power just as the dot-com boom melted down, and globalization is presenting challenges that again aren't really partisan. But the response to globalization differs by party, thanks. And the gains of the past several years all went to the top of the economic pyramid. And the fact is, he presided over 8 years without a recessionFalse. and with pretty god economic growth. WTF does it matter if 'the economy' grows, but only a few benefit?

House prices are still higher than they were four years ago.Two things: first of all, they're dropping more or less continuously right now. If you've fallen off a cliff and are in free fall, the fact that you're still higher up than while you were making the climb up the mountain isn't worth much. Second, if there are few sales, it's hard to judge what the price of a home is. A year ago, I had a pretty good idea of what my home could sell for; now I've got a pretty vague idea at best, because houses simply aren't selling around here. I have no idea whether my home is worth $40,000 less than a year ago, or $90,000 less. While incomes are flat, benefits have risen. Have you been reading Robert J. ("not Paul - hell, not even an economist") Samuelson? A coupla points in this part of your post seem like they came from his most recent column, and this is one of them. Maybe the monetary value of benefits has risen, but the main benefit is health insurance, and most workers are getting less of it, even as its monetary share of their 'benefits' goes up. So it's not an increase in benefits.

Also, I'm not sure flat incomes are a partisan issue. A good part of the problem has been illegal immigration, which puts a downward pressure on wages at the low end, and the elimination of some very high-wage manufacturing jobs. Damn, you really have been reading Samuelson. It's like you're reading his column back to me. At least you didn't explicitly make his idiotic 1997-2007, tech-bubble-doesn't-count, housing-bubble-does argument - I guess I closed the door on that one in advance.You could equally make the case that those jobs went away because of democrat policies and excessive union power which made corporations less competitive. "Excessive union power"? During the Bush Administration??

Gimme a break.

Now, I could make the argument that illegal immigration has been depressing wages because, whenever the illegal workers try to unionize, the employers call DHS, which raids the workplace and sends 'em back to Mexico.

Conservatives would also make the case that high business taxes make it harder to compete and push jobs overseas. Business taxes in the U.S. as a share of GDP are pretty much in line with those of the other advanced democracies.
There's plenty if you're willing to listen. And plenty of things Republicans have done too. You don't have a monopoly on the truth. But I do have a monopoly on the fact that all the economic gains during the Bush Administration went to a very small sliver at the top of the pyramid. That wasn't nearly the case during the Clinton years, despite all the tales of dot-com billionaires.

You can make whatever excuses you want for it, but it's still there.

This is a highly debatable point, even for people like me who agree that global climate change is partly manmade. There's nothing in the IPCC report that justifies such a sweeping claim. Oh, really? Does it say that if we keep on relying on carbon fuels for electricity and transportation, that in fifty years, the consequences will be more on the level of inconvenience?

But again, if you're going to stand by that as an obvious fact that can not be debated, you stack the playing field by then being able to show anything other than a total crash program to avoid it is yet another sign of Republican foolishness. Really? I don't see how that follows.

What does follow is that, as a consequence of eight years' procrastination, our response will have to be considerably quicker off the mark than it would have been if we'd started earlier.

And that seems to be the response of just about every other government on the planet, too. Oh really? You mean like our European allies with their excellent public transportation systems and high gasoline taxes? How's that 'doing nothing'? Plus there's Kyoto. Sure, most nations didn't meet their targets, but are they standing still?

Not to mention, there is the little matter of the U.S., with something like 4.5% of the world's population, generating more like 1/4 of its carbon. Maybe we should, like, take the lead? Certainly conservatives expect us to lead the way in the world in other respects.

This is an issue that really makes my point - the true debate is very complex, having to do with poorly understood science,OK, but we do understand (a) that AGW is real, risk/reward ratios, proper discount rates for future warming damage,and (b)while there are a range of possibilities, we don't really know what's going to happen, and the downside risks are really quite spectacular.
opportunity costs in choosing where to spend your money, and the realities of trying to control a world market in a fungible commodity. But we can't have that debate, so each side picks the kind of truthiness that supports its dogmatic stance, the common ground gets erased, and it becomes yet another way to continue the partisan sniping. Does anyone who knows what they're talking about with respect to global climate change really believe that we should take a wait-and-see approach? Maybe a gadfly or two, but that's about it.

That's what we're talking about. The GOP has been busy denying, and delaying. It's one thing to differ on degree of response, but the conservative tack has been to play stallball for as long as possible.

That's what you're defending, and all the 'science is poorly understood' and 'opportunity costs' and all that won't change that fact one bit.

Meanwhile, we're at a point where the consequences of global warming are becoming all too dramatically visible.

That's a good example. There are sometimes common goals that bring both sides together. It demonstrates that conservatives can win arguments on this board when the facts are on their side. (I don't see the shared goal: conservatives simply want more nuclear power, just like they want to drill. It's hard to find conservatives who give a shit about global warming.)

I tried very carefully to not claim that this was a 'righties vs lefties' argument. I was pointing out the forces that cause both sides of the debate to shut down. 'Righties' are every bit as guilty of it. I even admitted my own complicity, when I said that I was capable of giving all kinds of ground in a debate to my wife, because we trust each other to be honest and reasonable and consider each other's points of view, than I can or will here, where I know it will only be used against me and the other side will not reciprocate. This part doesn't even make sense to me - you have it backwards. Claiming less ground in an argument means your claim on the ground you do claim is at least as strong as it was before - usually stronger, because you can prove a weaker claim with the same facts that won't sustain a stronger claim.

A few of these boards on the right attempted to have open discussion forums, but they rapidly got spammed by Democrats shouting at them. The problem of trolls and hostile commentators is one encountered by sites on both sides. Don't ask me why Republicans and conservatives find it an obstacle that can't be overcome. Maybe all the good tech geeks are libruls? ;) Maybe it's just because Democrats are more numerous on the web,Possibly. or because they're angrier,I doubt it. Anger levels often don't have anything to do with reality. Last week, Republicans wanted to be angry about lefties and/or the media attacking Bristol Palin, and chose to be so, regardless of the absence of any such attacks to point to. And a large part of the motivation for the conservative disregard of global warming seems to be about pissing off the left.
or simply because the Republicans are the ones who have been in power, and therefore are on the defensive. Can't say I've noticed much of that defensiveness out there, until just the past two years.

I think you're on track of a good point here. I think the left has been a little more strident and angry than the rightI disagree. The right was a bunch of sore winners in 2005, and they're still as pissed as ever, now that they see their hold on power going down the tubes.

simply because the right has been in power, and therefore on the defensive. No, we're angry because conservatives have been in power for eight years, and the consequences of their particular areas of action and inaction has been remarkably destructive. We're angry about Iraq, New Orleans, the absence of action on global warming, the way the U.S. economy seems to be only benefiting a few at the top, how the U.S. is the only major developed nation without universal health care, despite spending a much bigger share of GDP on health care/insurance than anyone else, we're angry that the right keeps on trying to 'fix' a Social Security system that isn't broken. We're angry that income from not working is taxed at lower rates than many people pay on income they work for. We're angry about people getting tortured to death in the name of America, because they drove their cab to the wrong place. We're angry that we've turned into a surveillance state. And it's vitally important to us to start fixing some of these things.

If Obama is elected, the left will be forced into the mode of having to defend his mistakes (and all presidents make mistakes), and the right will become more energized. No, we aren't like you: if Obama makes mistakes, why should we defend them? We weren't exactly quiet when Clinton did things we didn't like; there just weren't blogs yet.

Obama's far from an ideal candidate, and he's going to hear from many of us when he lets the home team down. But he's still infinitely better than McCain.

And it's always easier to claim the mantle of truth when its' theoretical. What's theoretical about the things I just said we lefties are angry about? They're all quite real. It's easier to pick at the party in power and claim your ideas are obviously better when there's no way to test it. You know, some things don't need testing. Not invading Iraq would have been far less disastrous than invading Iraq. Having people who knew their shit running FEMA and DHS (like I said, Chertoff is still there) would have been infinitely preferable to having people who didn't know jack shit in those jobs. The threat to Social Security is actuarially measurable, and only rates a wait-and-see: the trust fund is supposed to run out in 41 years; when was it supposed to last for 45 years? (Never, IIRC.) A whole bunch of countries have universal health care already (including your own), and that actually helps them contain health care costs much better than we do. The Clinton tax hikes didn't hurt the economy, and the Bush tax cuts haven't helped it very much, but have helped rich people a whole bunch.

Some stuff is in plain fucking sight.

It's much harder to be the one constantly defending policies which, in the real world, are never so perfect that the opposition can't find plenty of legitimate gripes against them. Yeah, that's the Bush years: not perfect enough to keep liberals from finding a few things to carp about.

We're in completely different realities here.

[Carol Stream]

It's okay, Rigs, I got this one.

*Ahem*

Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.

So once again, no answer. There is no reason to "respect" someone's opinions, just because s/he spouts them on a message board.

[eleanorigby]

Thankee kindly Ms Smarty, but it's about what I expected. It's like shooting fish in a barrel: it passes the time, but where is the challenge?

[RTFirefly]

Well, for a second there I thought some actual communication might take place. Those of you on the right and left engaging in this silly sniping, thanks for doing what you do best and destroying any possibility to find common ground. Good work.

RTFirefly: Thanks for trying. I do appreciate it.Are you sure you want to thank me? ;)

Anyway, I think communication is good. I'll admit to thinking that common ground between defenders of Bushism or any close equivalent, and those of us out here in the real world, is going to be restricted to fairly minor issues. The philosophical chasm between Bush-McCain Republicans and the rest of us is vast. I fully expect the Senate GOP to try to filibuster anything important that Obama tries to get through Congress, just the way they demolished ClintonCare 14 years ago - not because they thought it wouldn't work, but because they were afraid it would.

[ElvisL1ves]

And here I thought the probing for weakness in someone else's argument, and firing salvos through the holes, required actually reading and understanding their argument. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?You haven't always been conscientious about that yourself, to put it as kindly as possible, ya know?:dubious:

[Sam Stone]

Are you sure you want to thank me? ;)

Absolutely. Your came back with reasoned arguments offered in good faith. Even if we're on completely different planets and can never agree, the attempt is worthwhile.

I'll respond to your longer message after I've put my daughter to bed.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I for one am quite content to have a reasoned discussion of issues, and will respond as such when I see it. As I've said in other recent threads, however, presently conservatives offer lies or half-truths so often that I can't at all trust them.

Wasn't it you, Sam, who recently tried to offer Sarah Palin's veto as evidence of her views regarding same sex marriage? When it turned out that she specifically disavowed supporting same sex marriage, and had only vetoed the bill because she had been told it was unconstitutional? (This was right on the heels of having to put down a story proffered by another conservative poster that Sarah Palin's teleprompter had failed, and she winged her speech. Pure, unadulterated horseshit.)

So, in terms of reasonable debate, I would request starting with discontinuing spreading of falsehoods and half-truths.

[Frank]

You haven't always been conscientious about that yourself, to put it as kindly as possible, ya know?:dubious:
This is the respecting fellow Democrats thing you were talking about, isn't it? ;)

[ElvisL1ves]

This is the respecting fellow Democrats thing you were talking about, isn't it? ;)I am indeed urging that to occur more frequently with that reminder, yes.

If you had some other point in mind, please expound.

[Frank]

I am indeed urging that to occur more frequently with that reminder, yes.

If you had some other point in mind, please expound.
He's talking to a Republican, isn't he? When you put in your plea for intra-party civility?

When has he disagreed with you except on the Clinton/Obama race for the nomination? Why are you still spitting fire at Obama supporters?

I swear, it seems to me that you hope Obama loses so that Clinton can run in 2012.

[ElvisL1ves]

He's talking to a Republican, isn't he? When you put in your plea for intra-party civility?Damn, bud, that's lame of you. It's become typical of you, yes, but that makes it all the more lame.

When has he disagreed with you except on the Clinton/Obama race for the nomination?"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?":rolleyes:

Why are you still spitting fire at Obama supporters?Freud called that "projection". :rolleyes:

I swear, it seems to me that you hope Obama loses so that Clinton can run in 2012.You're letting your own hatred rule your judgment. That is so absolutely, carelessly, hatefully false that you have no standing whatever to discuss "intra-party civility". You don't even know what it is.

Go have a cup of warm milk and ask Mommy to tuck you into bed now.

[Scylla]

. I fully expect the Senate GOP to try to filibuster anything important that Obama tries to get through Congress, just the way they demolished ClintonCare 14 years ago - not because they thought it wouldn't work, but because they were afraid it would.

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? To define terms I'm thinking "worked" means high level of care, more efficient economically than the current system, and covers everybody?

Why would be afraid that it might do that?

[Hostile Dialect]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? To define terms I'm thinking "worked" means high level of care, more efficient economically than the current system, and covers everybody?

Why would be afraid that it might do that?

Good question. Why have Republicans spent more money on a misguided (at best) war effort than it would cost to give every American working health insurance?

[Frank]

Why would be afraid that it might do that?
The insurance companies, Scylla, and the lobbyists for the insurance companies.

Well, civility was nice while it lasted, eh? :)

[ElvisL1ves]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? To define terms I'm thinking "worked" means high level of care, more efficient economically than the current system, and covers everybody?You've never heard about the Evil of "Socialized Medicine"? How it would cost us our freedom and independence? That shit is how Reagan got started in politics, as you may know. The pitch today is more about "government can't do anything right" (as they've vigorously tried to demonstrate in this administration), and the evils not of Socialism but of Bureaucracy. As if that argument works on anyone who's had to deal with an HMO claim!

Anybody know offhand what the AMA's political contributions have been over the years? How much they've spent to make sure their members' incomes are never limited?

[Zebra]

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.








That's what you say after you win the election.

[GIGObuster]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? To define terms I'm thinking "worked" means high level of care, more efficient economically than the current system, and covers everybody?

Why would be afraid that it might do that?
Because it would be the end of political contribution money from the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries?

Less cynically, I do think once more industries do realize that they are being had (Small business owners are unfairly burdened with less chances to offer good health care to good workers that then go to work only for big companies) that then we will see universal health care being implemented.

I don't have a cite, but I do think also that many foreign companies that would set shop in America are not coming because of the extra cost of the health care, a cost that they do not have to deal with in other countries, and I do think one of the factors for sending American jobs overseas is the high cost of health care.

[Der Trihs]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.

[Frank]

Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.
Oh for pete's sake. This is nonsense, even for you.

Follow the money.

[Guinastasia]

Der Trihs, did Republicans also used to steal your lunch money on your way to school when you were a kid? Did they give you wedgies and throw your school books in the sewer drains?

[Carol Stream]

Der Trihs, did Republicans also used to steal your lunch money on your way to school when you were a kid? Did they give you wedgies and throw your school books in the sewer drains?

Me too!

[Der Trihs]

Der Trihs, did Republicans also used to steal your lunch money on your way to school when you were a kid? Did they give you wedgies and throw your school books in the sewer drains?I expect that the kids who threw rocks at me and set my locker on fire grew up to be Republicans, yes. They simply expanded the scale of their malice.

[Cisco]

Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.

Der Trihs, honestly, I want you to reflect for a moment. Do you think there is anyway possible that there could be some projecting or blame-reassignment going on here? Really, please answer truthfully.

[elucidator]

Trouble is, DT, your premise borders on the theological, or mythical. You are positing evil as an existential reality, a discrete quality not to be confused with mere stupidity or callous indifference. Such evil exists, to be sure, but rarely is it ever embodied with that sort of purity. Hitler. Stalin, Pol Pot, Carrot Top, a handful of others....

The planning and execution of the Iraq War was an exercise in stupidity and arrogance, not malice. They thought, and still think, that they were doing the right thing. Malice is the essential component of evil.

The effect is the same, of course, so if you regard this as a pointless abstraction, I couldn't disagree.

[Starving Artist]

Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.You are such a fucking idiot that it virtually defies belief!

It's hard to believe people have to share the surface of this planet with the likes of you.

[Sevastopol]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? To define terms I'm thinking "worked" means high level of care, more efficient economically than the current system, and covers everybody?

Why would be afraid that it might do that? Like so many things, there is a good analogy with the Creationists. Do they really fear Armageddon (or penis) will ensue if children are taught the scientifically respectable age of the earth and associated parts. No they do not. It is the flagship issue for biblical inerrancy. Why if those parts of the bible are not literally true, then how many are the possibilites for other rules to be misguided.

Similarly: Brute evidence of an effective public health system will toll the death of current Republicanism. I fear for and pity Brainglutton and the like, who will get no sleep; being inundated with a constant din of apologies and confessions of bad character from the many voices here seeking to thwart a public health system.

[Sevastopol]

...
The planning and execution of the Iraq War was an exercise in stupidity and arrogance, not malice. They thought, and still think, that they were doing the right thing. Malice is the essential component of evil.

... I don't believe this to be true. The plan accommodated a lust for revenge, involving the death of innocents. Denied their blood, the constituency would otherwise know betrayal.

[RTFirefly]

You haven't always been conscientious about that yourself, to put it as kindly as possible, ya know?:dubious:Please to provide examples?

[RTFirefly]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked? To define terms I'm thinking "worked" means high level of care, more efficient economically than the current system, and covers everybody?

Why would be afraid that it might do that?Because it might win the loyalty of a good chunk of the electorate towards the party responsible for passing it.

[RTFirefly]

Because it might win the loyalty of a good chunk of the electorate towards the party responsible for passing it.From the PBS timeline: (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html)
December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party.

[xenophon41]

Malice is the essential component of evil.
Malice has a twin named "Callous Disregard" (aka "Depraved Indifference"). You don't see that in this case?

[eleanorigby]

Malice has a twin named "Callous Disregard" (aka "Depraved Indifference"). You don't see that in this case?

What is that quote? For evil to be done all that is essential is for good men to stand and do nothing? Something like that. So, I don't think evil needs even depraved indifference, just inertia and ennui.






I do find it odd that conservatives complain about social programs, but seem to use them an awful lot. I know a very right wing guy who considers social security to be socialism, but you'll pry his check from his cold, dead hands. Why do they hate the very things that benefit them? :confused: (I realize not all conservatives are like this, but I am asking).
His young daughter got pregnant; he wanted her to get an abortion, she didn't. Instead of coming to terms with the father of the baby and the father's parents (who refuse to support said baby), he has said to me that he is going to let the state go after said father. I truly don't get this. And yet he is rabid about his property taxes; livid about his FICA etc. Bitter any limitation put on his gun access etc. Baffling.

[Nancarrow]

Just a glance at "new posts" and counting the political threads and sorting them by subject and bias tells me what I feel I really need to know before voting this fall.



This should become known as "The Bricker Fallacy". Anyway, whatever one calls it, you just made it.

[elucidator]

Malice has a twin named "Callous Disregard" (aka "Depraved Indifference"). You don't see that in this case?
Its a fine point, to be sure, and not one I'd invest a lot into. By my lights, malice is an essential component of evil. That judgement is not result-based, very well-intentioned people can produce hideous results.

But just as you suggest, callous indifference and/or arrogant stupidity are the greatest engines of malign consequence in our world. To me, evil requires specific mallicious intent, but I grant you that this is a pedantic, even trivial, distinction.

ER:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke

[eleanorigby]

Thanks.

[magellan01]

Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.

As a rule, I try not to waste my time, but I'd like to make an exception here. Dude, you need help. Seriously. And I'm not talking an hour every other week with your local shrink. You need Vienna-level help. You need to pack some steamer trunks and just move yourself over there and into some Institute for Something or Other and make yourself comfortable. Maybe they can help. Maybe you're just an imbecile too angry for help to penetrate. You might want to give it a shot, though. nothing to lose really. Other than delusions and insane world view.

[elucidator]

Might want to consider a "buddy deal", you know, a "twofer" discount. Just sayin', is all.

[Starving Artist]

I do find it odd that conservatives complain about social programs, but seem to use them an awful lot. I know a very right wing guy who considers social security to be socialism, but you'll pry his check from his cold, dead hands.This is most likely because after having been forced to pay into it all his working life, he is determined to get as much of that back as possible.

Many conservatives use social programs they object to because they've because they've been forced to pay taxes to support them. However, if they had had the opportunity to vote to keep them from being created in the first place they most likely would have.

[elucidator]

Well, that's all right then, so long as their sternly self-sufficient values haven't been corrupted by the liberal nanny state.

[magellan01]

Might want to consider a "buddy deal", you know, a "twofer" discount. Just sayin', is all.

Right after you get that help for has-been comics who never were.

[Maeglin]

This is most likely because after having been forced to pay into it all his working life, he is determined to get as much of that back as possible.

Many conservatives use social programs they object to because they've because they've been forced to pay taxes to support them. However, if they had had the opportunity to vote to keep them from being created in the first place they most likely would have.

Amazingly enough, this is not true. States that benefit the most from the federal purse are the least likely to vote for such programs.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

There are a lot of red states on the top of the list who paid nothing for the benefits they receive. Yet somehow, this does not stop them from helping themselves to the wealth generated by blue states. Imagine that.

[Sarahfeena]

This is most likely because after having been forced to pay into it all his working life, he is determined to get as much of that back as possible.

Many conservatives use social programs they object to because they've because they've been forced to pay taxes to support them. However, if they had had the opportunity to vote to keep them from being created in the first place they most likely would have. I think this is especially true about Social Security, which is a program that's meant for everyone who pays in, not only for the needy. I remember a local talk radio personality who referred to older people as "selfish seniors" in regards to their attitudes towards their social security checks. She was offended because these folks had other income (from their own investments or pensions), and still want their SS checks. I can see their POV, though. This was positioned to them their whole lives as a program they would pay into, and then it would pay back to them upon retirement. If it was meant to be something else, they should have been told that. And a lot of them resented having to pay into it anyway, because they WERE investing their own money, and would have had more to invest if it weren't for that system. So, I can't blame anyone for having that attitude towards SS, especially in that generation.

On the other hand, I'm going on the assumption that I won't be getting any SS back, and consider it a donation to the older people who need it right now.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

This is most likely because after having been forced to pay into it all his working life, he is determined to get as much of that back as possible.A reasonable justification, to be sure.Many conservatives use social programs they object to because they've because they've been forced to pay taxes to support them. However, if they had had the opportunity to vote to keep them from being created in the first place they most likely would have.Wasn't Reagan a conservative - perhaps the archetypal modern conservative? If so, your characterization doesn't fit his 1983 increase of payroll taxes for the Social Security program. An increase, by the way, that led to the Social Security surplus that another conservative, George W. Bush, tried to imply was imaginary.

[VarlosZ]

Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.
I've asked you this before, but I want to take another crack at it:

Most posters here strongly disagree with a libertarian approach, but they all argue that libertarians are simply mistaken, even foolish -- except for you, who says that libertarians are sociopaths who just want to get government out of the way so that they can take advantage of other people. Most posters here strongly disagree with the war in Iraq, and many even think there's an ethical obstacle to joining the U.S. military in the context of that war -- but you're the only one (or nearly the only one) who says that all American servicemen are murderers. Most posters in this forum, probably, are atheists, and many of them like to criticize religion in general, and Christianity in particular -- but you're one of a small, vocal handful which maintains that Christianity (and, in fact, Christians) are just plain evil. That's all that comes to mind right now, but I don't doubt that a cursory search would turn up additional topics in which you're right and the other side is malicious.

And now, in a completely unsurprising development, Republicans are cartoonish, mustache-twirling villains who like to gloat over the suffering of others.


So I'm really curious: why is it that, on so many issues, those who disagree with you are evil, instead of merely mistaken? Why is it that other people's errors are driven by spite or greed, while yours are in good faith?

[Guinastasia]

I expect that the kids who threw rocks at me and set my locker on fire grew up to be Republicans, yes. They simply expanded the scale of their malice.

If you are truly typing that with a straight face, and this is not hyperbole (and considering your posting history, I would be surprised if it WERE), you need some serious help.
If you ARE, serious, then shut the fuck up. STOP MAKING THE REST OF US LOOK BAD, YOU FUCKING CRETIN!!! You're basically the Ann Coulter of the left.

I'm really starting to suspect that you're a right-winger trying to make the left look bad. Because you are truly the exact picture that every asshole on Fox News paints of your typical liberal.

[Shayna]

Amazingly enough, this is not true. States that benefit the most from the federal purse are the least likely to vote for such programs.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

There are a lot of red states on the top of the list who paid nothing for the benefits they receive. Yet somehow, this does not stop them from helping themselves to the wealth generated by blue states. Imagine that.
Federal Dollars Received
State Per Dollar of Taxes Paid Rank
Alaska $1.84 3
New York $0.79 42
Illinois $0.75 45

[Hentor the Barbarian]

On the other hand, I'm going on the assumption that I won't be getting any SS back, and consider it a donation to the older people who need it right now.Why in the world would you assume that? The most recent Trustee Report (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/VI_LRact_bal.html#102806) had an overall 75 year projection of -1.70% of taxable payroll. That's the best prediction for Social Security since 1993. Even at the worst case scenario, with no changes made, you're still going to get SS back. Are you planning on retiring in more than 75 years from today?

This whole SS-is-bankrupt storyis just another example of misleading and outright false information coming from conservatives (particularly George W. Bush). How can a civilized debate be held when one side consistently lies? (Note: I'm not suggesting that Sarafeenah is lying here, just that she has apparently bought into the lies of the right.)

[elucidator]

Right after you get that help for has-been comics who never were.

Son, you know as much about funny as the Pope knows about pussy.

[Guinastasia]

Son, you know as much about funny as the Pope knows about pussy.

Actually, I read somewhere that His Holiness was a cat-lover...only no pets are allowed in the Vatican apartments, so his cats are with his brother now.

(Okay, I definitely need to lay off the cat/pussy jokes)

[Sarahfeena]

Why in the world would you assume that? The most recent Trustee Report (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/VI_LRact_bal.html#102806) had an overall 75 year projection of -1.70% of taxable payroll. That's the best prediction for Social Security since 1993. Even at the worst case scenario, with no changes made, you're still going to get SS back. Are you planning on retiring in more than 75 years from today?

This whole SS-is-bankrupt storyis just another example of misleading and outright false information coming from conservatives (particularly George W. Bush). How can a civilized debate be held when one side consistently lies? (Note: I'm not suggesting that Sarafeenah is lying here, just that she has apparently bought into the lies of the right.) I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I shouldn't have said that I'm assuming that I won't, I should have said that I'm operating under the assumption that I won't. That is, I'm making my own investments that will (hopefully) make SS unnecessary for me, so that if something should happen (and you never know, it might), I won't be relying on it.

[eleanorigby]

Well, ok, I guess I can buy that argument, but how does that principle apply to something like universal health care? We can lower the cost for all, it's there when you need it, you pay into it and use it as needed..... seems the same as socsec to me.



I am supposedly a Boomer (not really) and so I consider socsec a non-starter for me. I was born in 1962, so by my retirement age (unless that ends up being my death date), the coffer will be empty for sure. I have never relied solely on socsec for my retirement, but even the old 401k ain't growing like it used to. :(


No worries. I've got my refrigerator box and my underpass all picked out. I am only partly joking.

[RTFirefly]

I'm going on the assumption that I won't be getting any SS back, and consider it a donation to the older people who need it right now. Why? The CBO currently projects that the SS Trust Fund will be solvent through 2049. In 1995, the projected insolvency date was 2031: SS trust fund insolvency is five years further away today than it was in 1995. If that trend keeps up, we'll never get there. But even if the trust fund runs out of money in 2049, payroll taxes will still finance a benefit from then on that, adjusted for inflation, will be greater than what retirees are getting now.

So don't believe the Chicken Littles. This is one sky that ain't falling.

[Sarahfeena]

Why? The CBO currently projects that the SS Trust Fund will be solvent through 2049. In 1995, the projected insolvency date was 2031: SS trust fund insolvency is five years further away today than it was in 1995. If that trend keeps up, we'll never get there. But even if the trust fund runs out of money in 2049, payroll taxes will still finance a benefit from then on that, adjusted for inflation, will be greater than what retirees are getting now.

So don't believe the Chicken Littles. This is one sky that ain't falling. It's got nothing to do with the data, it has to do with my philosophy of life. I don't invest all my money in one place, and I don't rely on anyone to take care of me but myself.

[buttonjockey308]

Seconded. Excellent post, Sam.

Thirded, or fourthed, or whatever.

[buttonjockey308]

This whole SS-is-bankrupt storyis just another example of misleading and outright false information coming from conservatives (particularly George W. Bush). How can a civilized debate be held when one side consistently lies? (Note: I'm not suggesting that Sarafeenah is lying here, just that she has apparently bought into the lies of the right.)

Yeah but, the system of today paying for yesterday is one that depends on things outside of government control. Sure, it's kind of worked, but the fact that anyone is talking about it like Bush does means that the system in and of itself needs, as the immigration and tax laws/codes do, a major overhaul. They may stay solvent, but what happens when because of (using a current example) Fannie and Freddie, the country needs a bump in the pocketbook? There's no guarantee that they won't dip into SS to get what they need.

It works, but it needs fixed.

[Starving Artist]

A reasonable justification, to be sure.Wasn't Reagan a conservative - perhaps the archetypal modern conservative? If so, your characterization doesn't fit his 1983 increase of payroll taxes for the Social Security program.I would imagine it's because he was the president of all the people and not just Republicans, and given that the system was already in place and clearly wasn't going anywhere, additional funding was needed to keep it solvent.

[RTFirefly]

It's got nothing to do with the data, it has to do with my philosophy of life. I don't invest all my money in one place, and I don't rely on anyone to take care of me but myself.Whatever.

[Sarahfeena]

Whatever. Well, you asked.

[Scylla]

It appears I have about three different answers to my question of why Republicans would fear a succesful universal health care program.

suggests money. A successful healthcare program would damage or destroy the health insurance industry, halting the flow of money from the Insurance coffers to Republican pockets.

For this to be a motive it would need to be a significant amount of money we are talking about. According to this cite, it's not:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/Health_Insurance.asp

$514,033 from 1999 to present. 37% of this went to Republicans 18% to Democrats. The democrats would have something to fear under this theory, though the Republicans would fear it twice as much.

The average contribution is about $592 with $815 average to Republicans and $606 to Democrats. An alternate view as to the Rebpublicans having twice as much to fear might be simply that it's cheaper to buy off a Democrat. :D

At any rate, unless [b]Frank is postulating some other source of funds than what I've assumed here, my thinking is that these moneys do not constitute a significant motive. I'll await further clarification.


The second is that Republicans simply enjoy evil. Der Tris is the author of this one. I note with admiration that it was dealt with suffiiciently.


RTF puts forth the theory that a succesful program would make Republicans look bad since they didn't offer it. He cites a link to a timeline from a program called "The System" which suggests that Bill Kristol wrote a memo to this effect suggesting Republicans needed to kill it before its success could eat into their base.

Due diligence suggests that reading this memo for ourselves is preferential to accepting a synopsis from a third party. Mistakes, and biases may alter the facts. In this case that seems to be doubly advisable as the cite appears to demonstrate a bias, at least to me, in the way it simply gushes over Clinton.

" September 22, 1993 - Bill Clinton, delivers his health care speech to a joint session of Congress. Despite an initial snafu with the wrong text being loaded onto the TelePrompTer, the speech is a smash. The President's delivery is superb, powerful, and compelling. Response is overwhelmingly favorable."

Maybe that's just me. Anyway, there can be no harm in reading the memo for ourselves.

I was not able to match dates precisely with the timeline. This fits several of the particulars, and may be it. Anyway this is what I found for the "memo."

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v2n1/kristol.html

"A simple, green-eyeshade criticism of the president’s health care plan--on the grounds that it’s numbers don’t add up (they don’t), or that it costs too much (it does), or that it will kill jobs and disrupt the economy (it will)--is fine as far as it goes, but it is not enough. Such opposition can only win concessions on the way to a "least bad" compromise.

But passage of the Clinton health care plan in any form would be disastrous. It would guarantee an unprecedented federal intrusion into the American economy. Its success would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas. And, not least, it would destroy the present breadth and quality of the American health care system, the world’s finest."

Here Kristol's arguments seem to be other than as described in the timeline. Perhaps though this is not the memo referred to in the timeline but something sanitized for distribution after the fact. I put a good faith effort into finding something else, but this is what I came up that fits closest.

If someone can find a different earlier memo, that supports the Timeline's assertions that would lend support to the thesis RTF has espoused. Without such support it appears contradicted by what Kristol wrote in what I've cited.

[Scylla]

Ohh. I forgot to mention... The republicans need not have "killed" Clintons health care plan for fear that it might work. They could simply have pretended that it was their idea all along, in the best tradittion of politicians everywhere.

[magellan01]

Son, you know as much about funny as the Pope knows about pussy.

Thank you for making my point. But even if it were true, I'm not the one he thinks he's a comedian. So the thing you think you are, the thing you've longed to be, the thing you try to be, you are not.

That's gotta be rough. Just, but rough.

[ElvisL1ves]

Please to provide examples?
I have, many times - but, since the problem at hand is your refusal to fucking "read and understand" posts (the fault you see only in others), the futility of the attempt is depressingly obvious.

You have no more fucking clue about what the subject even is than does Frank or his groupie Carol.

[Frank]

At any rate, unless Frank is postulating some other source of funds than what I've assumed here, my thinking is that these moneys do not constitute a significant motive. I'll await further clarification.
The insurance companies would lose (or lessen, depending on what system we finally adopt) their income, the lobbyists would lose (or lessen) their income. Their contributions to political parties didn't even cross my mind.

[Frank]

I have, many times - but, since the problem at hand is your refusal to fucking "read and understand" posts (the fault you see only in others), the futility of the attempt is depressingly obvious.

You have no more fucking clue about what the subject even is than does Frank or his groupie Carol.
I've asked you twice to explicitly state what you feel the subject is. To date, you haven't.

[Scylla]

The insurance companies would lose (or lessen, depending on what system we finally adopt) their income, the lobbyists would lose (or lessen) their income. Their contributions to political parties didn't even cross my mind.

Do these lobbyists primarily only work with Republicans?

[Trans Fat Og]

... Why is it that other people's errors are driven by spite or greed, while yours are in good faith?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

What? ERRORS?! In the context of talking about DER TRIS?! :dubious:

WHAT ERRORS?!!! Did you miss the memo about his personal infallibility?

;)

- "Jack"

[elucidator]

Do these lobbyists primarily only work with Republicans?

Tom DeLay, (R-Undead)? K Street Project? Ring any bells? If you were absent that day, you can borrow my notes....

[Lord Ashtar]

Why would Republicans be afraid of a universal healthcare plan that worked?Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.
Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.

[E-Sabbath]

Scylla, what about Nixon's universal health plan? Substantially the same as Hillary's.

[Scylla]

Scylla, what about Nixon's universal health plan? Substantially the same as Hillary's.

I don't know anything about Nixon's plan. Sorry.

[xenophon41]

Scylla, what about Nixon's universal health plan? Substantially the same as Hillary's.
This is intriguing. I was around then (preteen and teen during Tricky Dick's turn at the wheel), but I missed that one. Can you provide some history for the young 'uns? I'll nod sagely along and pretend I know what you're talking about...

[Der Trihs]

And now, in a completely unsurprising development, Republicans are cartoonish, mustache-twirling villains who like to gloat over the suffering of others.


So I'm really curious: why is it that, on so many issues, those who disagree with you are evil, instead of merely mistaken? Why is it that other people's errors are driven by spite or greed, while yours are in good faith?Because I'm not the one supporting conquest and torture ? Because I find it implausible that the Republicans are so consistently morally on the wrong side by mistake ? Because I don't believe in the American myth that no matter how it looks, it's simply unthinkable that they are doing bad things because they enjoy it ? And because if I'm not that certain that the other side is wrong, I don't bother to post about it ?

And I'll stop regarding Republicans as cartoonish villains, when they stop acting like cartoonish villains.

[RTFirefly]

I have, many times - but, since the problem at hand is your refusal to fucking "read and understand" posts (the fault you see only in others), the futility of the attempt is depressingly obvious. Apparently criticizing me isn't futile. Just providing a cite is.

That nicely defines the difference between valid criticism, and throwing your own shit.

[RTFirefly]

RTF puts forth the theory that a succesful program would make Republicans look bad since they didn't offer it. He cites a link to a timeline from a program called "The System" which suggests that Bill Kristol wrote a memo to this effect suggesting Republicans needed to kill it before its success could eat into their base.

Due diligence suggests that reading this memo for ourselves is preferential to accepting a synopsis from a third party. Mistakes, and biases may alter the facts. In this case that seems to be doubly advisable as the cite appears to demonstrate a bias, at least to me, in the way it simply gushes over Clinton.

" September 22, 1993 - Bill Clinton, delivers his health care speech to a joint session of Congress. Despite an initial snafu with the wrong text being loaded onto the TelePrompTer, the speech is a smash. The President's delivery is superb, powerful, and compelling. Response is overwhelmingly favorable." So you're saying that because PBS concluded that Clinton's speech was very good, they may have lied about the Kristol memo?

Look, I provided a cite from a source generally accepted as legitimate. You want to debunk the legitimacy of PBS as a source, go to it. Back in the early days of the board, I started a thread for the express purpose of debunking WorldNetDaily as a trustworthy cite. I recommend the same approach. Otherwise, it's a cite.

If you don't accept that, then you are welcome to your point of view, but we have nothing further to discuss in this thread, because debate here does rely on accepting the standard sources as legit cites unless a problem can be demonstrated. A very positive review of a speech by a man widely recognized as a superb speechmaker hardly calls into question the accuracy of the facts they report.

Here Kristol's arguments seem to be other than as described in the timeline. Perhaps though this is not the memo referred to in the timeline but something sanitized for distribution after the fact. Well, yeah.

If someone can find a different earlier memo, that supports the Timeline's assertions that would lend support to the thesis RTF has espoused. Without such support it appears contradicted by what Kristol wrote in what I've cited.To summarize your argument:

1) If the linked piece was the memo PBS refers to, there'd be a contradiction.
2) There's no evidence that that's the case.
Therefore: we must assume a contradiction until proved otherwise.

Unfortunately, Scylla, that's the quality of your arguments in general these days.

[Scylla]

RTF:

Your cite does not meet reasonable stamdards. It is several times removed from being a primary source. What you have linked to is a timeline which is a synopsis of a tv show that allegedly provides the gist of a memo.

If one is going to say that a memo says something, You need to show the memo.

I have provided a primary source from that time period, on the subject, and by the author which contradicts your cite.

This is of much firmer provenance than a timeline synopsis of a tv show providing a summary.

[Scylla]

oh and nice try. My argument is with the weakness of the content of your specific cite as contrasted to first hand material not with PBS in general as a source.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

oh and nice try. My argument is with the weakness of the content of your specific cite as contrasted to first hand material not with PBS in general as a source.Because you can't lay your hands on the original, and because you found a different memo from Kristol on the internet, you claim it doesn't exist?

This memo is referenced and quoted from all over the internet. References to it lead back to the Johnson & Broder book, The System. The onus is on you to find at the very least some indication from Kristol denying that he ever wrote it, not to randomly pull something from the net and talk about provenance.

This is just like leading someone into a discussion of the displacement of a swift boat and the navigability of Cambodian rivers.

You're a fucknut.

[Scylla]

since it's all over the Internet, and cited and quoted widely you should have no problem finding a link to it.

That's great news. Can't wait to read it. Should be very enlightening.

May I please have a link to the text of this memo?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

since it's all over the Internet, and cited and quoted widely you should have no problem finding a link to it.

That's great news. Can't wait to read it. Should be very enlightening.

May I please have a link to the text of this memo?Why should there be a PDF of the memo on the internet? That would require that a memo from the early 90's was scanned and put on the web. Why should it be so?

That just doesn't make a lick of fucking sense. You should be able to at least make a logical argument, but apparently you cannot.

Do you at least have a cite for Kristol saying he never wrote it? It's referenced in his fucking Wikipedia page, so he's aware of the assertion.

What a fucking dipshit you are.

[RTFirefly]

RTF:

Your cite does not meet reasonable stamdards. It is several times removed from being a primary source. What you have linked to is a timeline which is a synopsis of a tv show that allegedly provides the gist of a memo. Presumably the timeline was put together by the same people who put together the show, and saw the memo. So the 'several times' remove is your hypothesis, not fact. The PBS timeline is a secondary source, not a primary source. BFD.

If one is going to say that a memo says something, You need to show the memo. Newspaper stories refer to documents all the time that they can't actually publish because they're confidential.

I produced a good cite. You don't like it. Tough.

I have provided a primary source from that time period, on the subject, and by the author which contradicts your cite. How? Just by saying something different?

You're right - someone involved in politics would NEVER contradict themselves. Never. Couldn't happen.

Your logical capabilities seem to be in a downward spiral.

[RTFirefly]

That's one tighty righty it's a waste of time being nice to.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Appreciate your trying, though, Artie. I think that when you treat someone like Scylla with a certain amount of respect, as you just did, and he shits all over himself, as he just did, you neatly sidesttep the whole crybaby "Them libruls are so mean!! That's why I done what I done! Wah Wah Wah," response.

Job well done, I say.

[Scylla]

Why should there be a PDF of the memo on the internet? That would require that a memo from the early 90's was scanned and put on the web. Why should it be so?

That just doesn't make a lick of fucking sense. You should be able to at least make a logical argument, but apparently you cannot.

Do you at least have a cite for Kristol saying he never wrote it? It's referenced in his fucking Wikipedia page, so he's aware of the assertion.

What a fucking dipshit you are.

I asked for the text not a Pdf. You said it was widely quoted. What's the big deal?

I saw the wikipedia page. The part about the memo does not have a reference or footnote. I looked. Anybody can edit wikipedia.

[Darth Sensitive]

Malice. The Republicans are largely a collection of sadistic bastards who gloat over the suffering of others. There is nothing they hate more than something that might help others, or give them pleasure. In their eyes sex is bad, mercy is bad, compassion is bad, tolerance is bad, good medical care is bad. In their eyes war is good, ignorance is good, malice is good, hate is good, greed is good, war is good, pain and death ( in others ) is good. They oppose that which helps others, and support that which hurts others.

When you finally snap and go on a killing spree, remember:

suicide, then murder.

Dumbass.

[Scylla]

Presumably the timeline was put together by the same people who put together the show, and saw the memo. So the 'several times' remove is your hypothesis, not fact. The PBS timeline is a secondary source, not a primary source..... spiral.

"presumably?"

It's secondhand if your presumptions are correct. No reason to think they should be. They might just as well have interviewed somebody who claims to have seen the memo.

Your "good cite" is only good if your presumptions are good.

Ignoring the insults and digs, the fact is that your cite is very weak and not up to the standard that is generally accepted on these boards.

[smiling bandit]

When you finally snap and go on a killing spree, remember:

suicide, then murder.

Dumbass.

I've somtimes wondered what life would be like if I actually were as evil as he generally proposes. Then I realize that not even Stalin's befouled hate-child by Hitler, raised in the very bowels of Hell by fallen angels, and introduced to the blackest of black evils by the tormented souls of all the damned, could actually be as evil as DT makes out.

[RTFirefly]

"presumably?" There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. But no, I haven't actually talked with the people who worked on this 15 years ago.

Ignoring the insults and digs, the fact is that your cite is very weak and not up to the standard that is generally accepted on these boards.In your fevered imagination.

[RTFirefly]

Appreciate your trying, though, Artie. I think that when you treat someone like Scylla with a certain amount of respect, as you just did, and he shits all over himself, as he just did, you neatly sidesttep the whole crybaby "Them libruls are so mean!! That's why I done what I done! Wah Wah Wah," response.

Job well done, I say.Thanks, PRR. It was a worthy effort on your part to try to get some discussion going here. But I think our best bet is to wait and see where we are after the election.

[Scylla]

If an impartial third party such as frank or tomndeb were to back you up and say that my request for something better than a secondhand (at best) summarization on a timeline from a tv show is unreasonable, than I would concede provided you would concede if they feel I am correct and either retract or substantiate your cite.

Provided either is willing, would you accept their conclusion as final?

[Trans Fat Og]

Because I'm not the one supporting conquest and torture ? Because I find it implausible that the Republicans are so consistently morally on the wrong side by mistake ? Because I don't believe in the American myth that no matter how it looks, it's simply unthinkable that they are doing bad things because they enjoy it ? And because if I'm not that certain that the other side is wrong, I don't bother to post about it ?

And I'll stop regarding Republicans as cartoonish villains, when they stop acting like cartoonish villains.{Twirls mustache}[Snidely Whiplash voice]

In your dreams, liberal do-gooder!

{Turns to Nell} Please, honey, not now! You know I love you equal to life itself, and I'm crazy about the way you come sit on my lap, but not when I'm posting.

[/voice]

-"Jack" :D

(Edited to extend "voice" down to include aside to Nell. Sheeesh!)

[RTFirefly]

If an impartial third party such as frank or tomndeb were to back you up and say that my request for something better than a secondhand (at best) summarization on a timeline from a tv show is unreasonable, than I would concede provided you would concede if they feel I am correct and either retract or substantiate your cite.

Provided either is willing, would you accept their conclusion as final?If you want to toss that to Frank or tom~ or whoever, go right ahead. But frankly, I don't care.

What we're debating is a throwaway line on the end of a post of mine from two pages back. For some reason, it's mattered intensely to you. I've long since stopped caring about it, except to call bullshit on your bullshit. Having done that, I'm taking this as a MP&HG-style "All right, we'll call it a draw." Cue coconuts.

[ElvisL1ves]

I've asked you twice to explicitly state what you feel the subject is. To date, you haven't.
The subject has been blatantly apparent to everyone else in this thread, Whether your incomprehension, and yours alone, is the result of your refusal or merely your inability is no one's problem but your own.

Do try a bit harder to keep up in the future, will you? There's a good lad.

[xenophon41]

The subject has been blatantly apparent to everyone else in this thread, Whether your incomprehension, and yours alone, is the result of your refusal or merely your inability is no one's problem but your own.

Do try a bit harder to keep up in the future, will you? There's a good lad.
Mmmm.... nope. No, I have no friggin' clue what you're on about either. Your "subject" smells like bullshit to me.

A real cite would be useful, had you one available.

[tomndebb]

If you want to toss that to Frank or tom~ or whoever, go right ahead. But frankly, I don't care.
That works for me. :D

::: sigh :::

Scylla is correct that the synopsis of a timeline presented in a TV presentation is not a primary source.

I have no idea what Mr. Kristol circulated on December 3, 1993.

His January Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal might be pretty much exactly what he said in December.
Alternatively, he might have taken his December memo, added some genuine talking points (about the destructive nature of the plan from his POV) and discarded some of the deliberately partisan instructions regarding how and why to savage the plan.

In either case, I see no reason to believe that Mr. Kristol did not actually believe the talking points in the WSJ piece, so even if he was much more cynical in his December letter, it would not quite indicate that the sole reason he (or the Republicans) wanted to kill the plan was to take over Congress--OTOH, a memo from Mr. Kristol suggesting that defeating the plan would be a great political victory for the GOP is very much in keeping with his rhetoric over the last 20+ years.

[elucidator]

So......he's a witch?

[Scylla]

Checks in the mail to Tomndeb ;)


I await RTFs gracious capitulation.

[RTFirefly]

That works for me. :D Ditto.

Scylla is correct that the synopsis of a timeline presented in a TV presentation is not a primary source. Indeed - I concurred with that back at post 214. I'd hate to have anyone think I didn't know the difference between primary and secondary sources.

Having cleared that up, I think it's bedtime. Thanks for stopping by, tom.

[RTFirefly]

I await RTFs gracious capitulation.:coconut sound effects receding:

[RTFirefly]

So......he's a witch?Kristol?

Absolutely. Burn him!

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Checks in the mail to Tomndeb ;)


I await RTFs gracious capitulation.Why don't you and Tomndebb both take Haynes Johnson & David Broder's 1997 book The System (http://www.amazon.com/System-American-Politics-Breaking-Point/dp/0316111457) and jam pages 233 and 234 up your asses.

From page 233: On December 2, just a few days before that conversation in Rockefeller’s office, William Kristol, a leading conservative operative whose opinions carried great weight, had privately circulated to Republicans in Congress what came to be a celebrated strategy document. Barely forty, Kristol had carved out a remarkable role for himself as a staff man who could marshal support from elected officials simply by the power of his ideas.Bolding mine to highlight that you are fucking ignorant of this "celebrated strategy document." Dumbass.

From page 234:Operating now from a conservative think tank, the Project for the Republican Future, Kristol wrote that congressional Republicans should work to “kill” – not amend – the Clinton plan. His resaons were Machiavellian. Clinton’s health plan presented a clear danger to the Republican future; its passage would (as Democrats had earlier advised Clinton) give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote. “It will re-legitimize middle-class dependence for ‘security’ on government spending and regulation,” Kristol wrote. “It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.”This kind of bullshit nitpickery aimed solely at distraction is just another reason why there's no point whatsoever at being nicer to tighty-righties.

[Scylla]

Why don't you and Tomndebb both take Haynes Johnson & David Broder's 1997 book The System (http://www.amazon.com/System-American-Politics-Breaking-Point/dp/0316111457) and jam pages 233 and 234 up your asses.


From page 233: Bolding mine to highlight that you are fucking ignorant of this "celebrated strategy document." Dumbass.



From page 234:This kind of bullshit nitpickery aimed solely at distraction is just another reason why there's no point whatsoever at being nicer to tighty-righties.[/QUOTE]


I haven't denied the existence of any document. I've merely asked to read it.

I suppose congratulations are in order though. You've uncovered plagiarism. This appears to be the uncited source which is quoted verbatim in wikipedia without proper attribution. Since you found it, the honor goes to you to correct it, if you wish to take it.

You may not have noticed but you've done a great job of making my case for me. By asking to view the text rather than accepting a synopsis we've uncovered a truly circular cite.

Rtf posted a link to a timeline. That timeline is based on a tv show. That Tv show is apparently based on a book. Somebody copied a piece of the book into wikipedia.

While it may seem like we have several cites, what we actually have is the same one being repeated.

If your book or something displayed a copy of the document, or even the text of it, that would be something. All that we have, all that we ever had was somebody's impression of what it said. This is why it's important to seek primary sources.

Haynes Johnson is also the author of "Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years," so it's not exactly a nonpartisan author were dealing with.

You've demonstrated that I was right not to trust it simply because it was on PBS. This was not PBS reporting facts, but PBS airing a show based on this book.

If say, Ann Coulter were to get a TV show made out of one of her books wherein she summarizes a document without giving the full text, and I was to link to a synopsis of this show, would you accept what that link said as fact?

Johnson is no Coulter, to be sure, but that is what you are in essence asking me to do.

You've done a great job. You've found what appears to be the original source, here. All the other cites seem to be referencing this. There appears to be no evidence that this "celebrated strategy document" exists outside of this one reference, which is kind of interesting, don't you think?

I would never have seen this or been able to tie it up so neatly were it not for you finding the wikipedia quote and this book. You've done a great job, and you deserve the credit.

Thank you.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Haynes Johnson is also the author of "Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years," so it's not exactly a nonpartisan author were dealing with.Weren't there two authors, shit for brains? Oh yeah, that uber liberal ... David Broder. I'm sure he participated in making up stuff from this memo to smear a conservative.

I also realize that you must not know what plagiarism means. All of the quotes and discussion of the material properly cite its author - Bill Kristol. That fact is easily understood in at least one of the instances you cite because it's on the Bill Kristol wikipedia page.

[Scylla]

Weren't there two authors, shit for brains? Oh yeah, that uber liberal ... David Broder. I'm sure he participated in making up stuff from this memo to smear a conservative.

Broder is not an "uber liberal," but I think you will find few that would say he's not a liberal. Most cites consider him liberal. Do I need to produce them for you?

I also realize that you must not know what plagiarism means. All of the quotes and discussion of the material properly cite its author - Bill Kristol. That fact is easily understood in at least one of the instances you cite because it's on the Bill Kristol wikipedia page.

The "quotes" are sentence fragments. They are the same in the Wikipedia article and in the Amazon outtake from the book you provided. The nonquoted language proceeding and following the quoted sentence fragments is virtually identical. It is a large enough piece that we are talking about that it should be attributed.

If you pull the wikipedia article up in one window, and what you quoted from Amazon in another you will see that they are for all intents and purposes, the same.

Try it. You see?

Now, since the book predates the wikipedia article, we can one of two assumptions.

1. The book and Wikipedia represent an astounding coincidence wherein they both independantly chose the same sentence fragments from the strategy memo, and the exact same language to describe that memo i.e. "celebrated ("legendary" in Wikipedia) strategy document," etc.

2. One is copied without attribution from the other.


No. no. no Don't hit reply yet. Look them both up. You're not going to, are you. Ok. I'll do it for you.

Here's what you quoted from amazon:

"On December 2, just a few days before that conversation in Rockefeller’s office, William Kristol, a leading conservative operative whose opinions carried great weight, had privately circulated to Republicans in Congress what came to be a celebrated strategy document. Barely forty, Kristol had carved out a remarkable role for himself as a staff man who could marshal support from elected officials simply by the power of his ideas.....

....Operating now from a conservative think tank, the Project for the Republican Future, Kristol wrote that congressional Republicans should work to “kill” – not amend – the Clinton plan. His resaons were Machiavellian. Clinton’s health plan presented a clear danger to the Republican future; its passage would (as Democrats had earlier advised Clinton) give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote. “It will re-legitimize middle-class dependence for ‘security’ on government spending and regulation,” Kristol wrote. “It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.”

Here's what's in Wikipedia:

"Kristol first made his mark as leader of the Project for the Republican Future, a conservative think tank, and rose to fame as a conservative opinion maker during the battle over the Clinton health care plan.
In the first of what would become legendary strategy memos circulated among Republican policymakers, Kristol said the party should "kill," not amend or compromise on, the Clinton health care plan. The success of the Clinton proposal, he warned, would “re-legitimize middle-class dependence for ‘security’ on government spending and regulation,” and “revive ... the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.”

Do you see?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So, your argument has been that the timeline on PBS was wrong, then it was that it was not a primary source (or "provenance", i.e. that RTFirefly didn't produce his copy of the memo), then that it may not even have existed (because you found a different memo on the internet that said different things), and now that there is plagiarism going on.

If Johnson and Broder made up the quotes from a nonexistent memo, then you might have a point about the PBS timeline and its characterization of the memo. If they didn't, you've got no point. Are you claiming they did?

So what was your point again (timeline, provenance, existence, plagiarism)? Did you ever have one? Do you ever have one?

[Scylla]

So, your argument has been that the timeline on PBS was wrong. then it was that it was not a primary source (or "provenance", i.e. that RTFirefly didn't produce his copy of the memo), then that it may not even have existed (because you found a different memo on the internet that said different things), and now that there is plagiarism going on.

If Johnson and Broder made up the quotes from a nonexistent memo, then you might have a point about the PBS timeline and its characterization of the memo. If they didn't, you've got no point. Are you claiming they did?

So what was your point again (timeline, provenance, existence, plagiarism)? Did you ever have one? Do you ever have one?

Hostile, insulting and stupid isn't a winning combination. I've been patient and answered your previous questions and issues at length. It's tedious doing so over and over and over again, when most people would just get it the first time.

If you're just playing stupid, and seeing how much of a jerk you can be while stringing me along, then congratulations, you win. The jokes on me. You've succeeded and you can be proud of your accomplishment.

If you really are this stupid, it's not my fault and you have no right to ask me to go to all the effort of explaining this to you in such a way that you can get it if you are going to be hostile and insulting while I do it. You should be nice and appreciative of the effort.

Either way, that's enough.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

If you're just playing stupid, and seeing how much of a jerk you can be while stringing me along, then congratulations, you win. The jokes on me. You've succeeded and you can be proud of your accomplishment.Yes, I'm the one leading a merry chase around the internet, talking about provenance and demanding original copies of 15 year old documents, finding random Kristol articles to cast doubt on the existence of another one (when Kristol himself apparently never has) and talking fatuously about plagiarism.

I'd forgotten that I used to refer to this kind of nonsense as a Scylla-jism. Thanks for reminding me.

[elucidator]

Truth be told, I could have gone on quite happily without being reminded of that repulsive (albeit spunky) bit of drollery.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Truth be told, I could have gone on quite happily without being reminded of that repulsive (albeit spunky) bit of drollery.Aww! Here I thought of it as some of my best work. Back to the drawing board I suppose.

[RTFirefly]

I await RTFs gracious capitulation.I'm sorry - I thought you were being facetious. Apparently I was wrong.

Our argument turned on whether PBS is, in general, a respectable cite. Tom didn't say anything about this. Instead, he said the PBS story wasn't a primary source, a fact that we were already in agreement on.

I can only wonder what your email/PM/whatever to tom actually said. I've got a hunch you may have misrepresented the issue.