Okay, I’ll bite.
Why would people want to show what utter fools they are by supporting such an unnuanced position as “black is black”?
Couldn’t imagine John Kerry coming out and saying that, at any rate.
It’s an analogy, Roger. Do try to understand my point, rather than picking silly holes in something that’s only illustrative.
Airman isn’t really a conservative. Nor is he persecuted. He doesn’t pretend to be, either.
Brutus and Shodan, on the other hand, are textbook cases.
Hardly. In terms of economic policy, very much so; European economics will always retain some of the socialist bent of the postwar settlement. In social terms, however, the Clinton administration did what the Executive Branch is supposed to do- let the courts decide what was right. Bush has been, or is attempting to be, a force for change- a preemptive strike on gay marriage, appointments with the aim of a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and so forth.
Regardless of whether Clinton was to the right of Europe, in any case, you have to admit Bush has steered the nation a long way right of anyplace we’ve been in the last thirty years.
No, there’s plenty of reasoned debate on the SDMB. And I will agree that there’s some liberal bashing among some of the more strident conservatives here. But, man, don’t even try to pretend that it compares with the wholesale Bush-hating threads, some of which are legit, others of which are pointless masturbation.
Good for you. I’m glad. Too bad you’re not the norm. Then again, remember what I said about the “denial”? The whole rest of your post is exactly that, an attempt to deflect or alter the US definition of liberalism, which for our purposes in this thread is the only definition that matters, since it is about the US election.
You’re absolutely right. But I have to ask you a few questions, to which I will supply my answers for you to think about. First: Where do I live? Hint: It’s not Europe. Second question: What is this thread about? The US elections. Not the EU elections, the US elections. We are using the frame of reference of the United States. That’s not egoism, that’s fact. Therefore, the definition of liberalism anywhere but here is irrelevant. Third question: How did the poll that this thread is discussing turn out, anyway? Landslide for Kerry. Do you really think that that’s even remotely possibleanywhere but here or maybe the Democratic Underground? It’s certainly not the case with the electorate. Therefore, would you agree that it is reasonable to surmise that with even with the relatively small number of conservatives not voting for Bush such as myself skewing the numbers even further that this place has an exceptional liberal majority?
This board is absolutely Ameri-centric. It’s based in America, the politics being discussed are with few exceptions American, and again, the poll in question is preicated upon the US elections. Therefore, by definition European politics don’t count. If we were talking about the UK elections do you think that my opinion would carry any weight? No. And why should it?
Don’t compare apples and oranges.
And are the results far out of the mainstream? Absolutely. “Political reality” is dependent upon results, not wishes. Do I wish Badnarik would get more votes than Bush? Oh, God yes. Is it possible? Not even if Bush dies a week before the election and runs as a dead man. It is not realistic to think that Badnarik will outpoll Bush, and it is not realistic to believe that Kerry will win in a landslide. That’s “political reality” for you.
And that shows how narrow your mindset is, and it also shows how your kind thinks that any comment that isn’t a Kerry blowjob supports Bush. Please show me where in this thread I have boosted Bush. Please show me where I have supported the Bush administration. Hell, go back a month if you like. Two months, even. Please show me where in this thread I have slammed Kerry. Please show me where I have done anything but address the fact that the SDMB is a liberal-oriented board. I already know that you can’t, so take your lies and ram them up your ass. You are so unable to see past the end of your own nose that you didn’t even bother to read the thread that I started because of people like you with your lame-o assertions.
Since you obviously missed it the first time, here it is for you to read.
Not that it’ll change your mind or anything. Go bark up someone else’s tree, because you have me all wrong. As usual.
Needless to say, the above post was me. We really need to get another computer. Or I need to pay attention, which.
I’ll suggest its use in the UK but, as others have said, this is not just a “US vs. UK” issue, not even a “US vs. Europe” issue - rather it is a "US vs. the rest of the entire industrialised democratic world" issue.
Classical liberalism is a well defined political philosophy characterised by minimal governmental interference in people’s affairs. Socially this clearly relates to a “permissive” culture allowing all kinds of “vices”: one can do whatsoever one pleases so long as one does not coerce another.
Economically, this is a little more tricky. Neoliberals, who have much in common with Libertarians, hold that the government should interfere with people economically as minimally as socially: ie. privatise many or most institutions currently funded by taxation, which constitutes “government interference” in itself: this can be said to be a right wing position, economically. (Note also that, even more confusingly, the word “Libertarian” has different connotations in Europe also!)
However, in the US, the Democrats are traditionally characterised as the party committed to maintaining publically funded programs since they feel that such “liberal” economic policies would have highly undesirable consequences, especially for the poor and, ultimately, for democracy. This is what is meant by “leftist”.
Now, for some reason, the Democrats are called “liberal” in the US regardless of whether the context is social (in which it is arguably accurate) or economic (in which it makes no sense whatsoever, unless one argues that it represents democratic government addressing the economic coercion engendered by capitalism - and I have never heard such an argument made here). This, I suspect, is because “liberal” has become a term of ridicule amongst the vastly authoritarian right wing media curiously only found in the industrialised democratic world in the US (and perhaps also Israel, but even that is comparatively far-leftist economically).
The Democrats, in the opinion of this alien, should say time and again: *We are not economically liberal. We consider that government has a role to play in preventing the economic coercion engendered by liberal economics, where a few plutocrats can take and hoard so many slices of pizza that many are left only with the box, which they must live in. We recognise that oppressive taxation is a form of tyranny. We also recognise that regressive taxation, or no taxation at all, is a form of tyranny.
We say again: We are not liberals. We are democrats*.
Thanks for that, SM. Presumably, Democrats and Socialists (in the UK - you’re one, as I recall) would support *progressive * taxation? Indeed, wouldn’t many Republicans (US)/Conservatives (UK)?
Gad, this is some funny shit.
I specified “major” legislation.
From the first bills Kerry sponsored that came back from the search:
Notice that the only one that actually passed is the one about Jackie Robinson.
Oh, this is ground-breaking stuff, this is. No doubt the Republic would have come crashing down around our ears if Jackie Robinson didn’t get his gold medal. 
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, and bye the bye, your counts of the number of earth-shatteringly important bills introduced by Sen. Kerry might be a wee bit inflated.
“Vote for John Kerry - he’s fighting for our tuna”.
Regards,
Shodan
So a senator who has sponsored leglislation (not every bill is the Civil rights Act–oops, I forgot, the Pubbies opposed that one) ans has served on important committees, including chairing the Foreign Relations committee, is not as fit for office as a failed businessman and former coke addict who started a war based on deliberate lies and whose subordinate okayed torture of Iraqi civilians.
You Pubbies are a disgrace. But then what can we expect from people who accuse an an Iraqi war vet of “weakening the war on terror” by supporting John Kerry. In Norfolk, VA, a mailing from the Republican candidate for 2nd congreessional district seat accused David Ashe, the Democratic candidate, of wavering on the war on terror by supporting Kerry, who the mailing said opposing more money for the troops, a blatant lie of course. Ashe recently returned from Iraq, where had been called up from the reserves to serve in Iraq.
You can get the details from a PDF file at http:www.jrnl.com, Tuesday, pg. 6.
You Pubbies lie and trash the reputations of anyone who opposes your regime, even to the extenet of smearing men who served their nation honorably while you president coverd his privileged white ass by keepoing the skies safe for Texas, a committment he didn’t even fisnish.
You are contemptible.
I’ve never denied the presence of those Bush-hating threads. If you look, you’ll see that i participate in relatively few of them, because i tend to agree that a lot of them either pick on petty things, or just rehash the same criticisms over and over again, which i think is pointless.
What i don’t understand is why you feel the need to constantly whine about them. Just ignore the fucking things. Hell, there’s a rant about telemarketers every week, and usually one about bad drivers, as well as about gay marriage. Each forum’s page lists the thread titles, so you don’t have to open the ones you think are silly. And if you do open a political thread, and find that it’s just “pointless masturbation,” then close the thing again and don’t give people the satisfaction of seeing how much it gets on your tits. If the people who start such threads are, as you seem to suspect, doing it just to get you angry, then the best response you have is just to ignore the threads.
What your whole rant seems to elide is the fact that many of the threads critical of Bush contain material that is exceptionally important, and that is worthy of serious discussion. You may not like Bush, but it seems to me that you hold enough conservative positions that you tend to see many genuine criticisms of his presidency as nothing more than “pointless masturbation.” That is, of course, your right, but you shouldn’t expect everyone else to accede to your definition of what constitutes reasonable criticism.
Yes, but these assertions about the Board’s liberalism emerge not only in threads about the US election, but in all manner of political discussions, including those that do not deal with US politics at all.
Sure, and in case you missed it i’ll repeat what i said in my earlier post: in terms of US political culture, this Board is definitely liberal. But my point was to address your comment about European liberalism, and the way that some people use it as a yardstick. You said that doing this was a “contortion,” but again, it also happens in threads that are not specifically about the US elections. Don’t try to pretend that this thread is only about the US election; the comments being made by you and Brutus and others about the liberalism of this Board are obviously intended as general comments, and have been made many times before and in many contexts.
And again, even in the US context, there is still and element of subjectivity to this issue. For example, to me, as a leftist, this Board can look a little too conservative at times, despite the fact that it’s more liberal than the US average.
Nice try.
While the overall national vote is likely to be close, as is the electoral college, there are in fact many places in the United States that will go in a landslide for Kerry, just as there are many that will go in a landslide for Bush. The fact that this Board is more liberal than the national average does not mean that it is not representative of certain social or geographic segments of the United States.
I don’t recall ever denying that proposition.
I don’t recall anyone in that thread (or in any other for that matter) ever asserting that Kerry would win in a landslide, or that Badnarik has even the remotest chance of out-polling Bush. The thread was exactly what it said it was—a poll of people on these message boards. Christ, even the liberal Kerry-voters in that thread were laughing at how skewed the results were. You’re taking offence at nothing, just looking for something to whine about. And, by not participating in the poll at all, conservatives can ensure that it results in an even bigger landslide for Kerry, then sit smugly back and say, “Look, told you so. This Board is nothing but a bunch of liberals.”
Also, your assertion about political reality ignores the fact that, even though Bush is probably still favorite to win, around half the electorate in America will vote for Kerry, give or take a few percentage points. That still represents tens of millions of people. And there will be other people who support Kerry but who don’t vote. These people constitute a large and important segment of American society, and even if their candidate is not in the White House it doesn’t mean their views can be dismissed as outside of political reality. Similarly, the fact that this Board has more than the average percentage of Kerry voters or Badnarik voters does not make the Board out of touch with political reality.
Actually, i have been and continue to be extremely critical of Kerry. I’m not looking for any Kerry blowjobs. Thanks for playing, though.
It comes more in the fact that you are quick to jump down the throat of Bush critics, even when the criticisms they raise might be valid. As i said earlier, you might not like Bush, but you still seem happy to defend many of the conservative positions that he espouses, and to see any attack on those positions as “pointless masturbation.”
As i suggested, support comes in many forms, including criticizing Bush’s opponents for imagined slights. And i’m well aware that you’ve mainly been arguing that SDMB is a “liberal-oriented board,” but that’s a dead horse that you could have stopped flogging months ago.
I didn’t miss it at all.
The fact that you start a thread stating that you’re not voting for Bush doesn’t change the fact that you still continue to make de facto defenses of many of Bush’s positions by labelling his more leftist/liberal critics as “pointless masturbators.” It seems that, in your political world, the only acceptable criticism of Bush is moderate, conservative criticism. That’s fine, but don’t expect everyone else to follow your definition of acceptable.
I’ll cede your point. Of course, I’m guessing that you get to determine the definition of “major legislation.” I’m sure that with a little fbit of fishing I can drudge up equally stultifying bills sponsored by your particularly favorite legislator, Democrat or Republican, but I can’t really see the point, other than escalating an already stupid pissing contest.
I guess, by your criteria, the Boston Red Sox, having never won a World Series since the cretacious, should not be considered a “Major” baseball team. And since sponsoring major legislation is such an important part of being a US Senator, would I be correct in thinking that you are therefore a big fan of Senator Kennedy?
Or perhaps another way to put it is: “Vote for John Kerry - he’s involved in managing unimportant matters such as food”.
Welcome to Shodan’s world.
I know this is the pit and all but, based on my reading, Shodan is anything but stupid.
I agree.
Doesn’t stop him from engaging in stupid pissing contests, as evidenced by this very thread.
That’s only because it’s Brutus’ job for the pure stupidity around here. Shodan merely takes the same lame-ass arguments and wraps them in prettier words.
Gosh, I’m all aglow at the pretty words.
Actually, Brutus has come up with two of the funniest lines on the SDMB.
One was referring to nations who resent the success of the USA as suffering from 'geopolitical penis envy", which summed it up perfectly. The other was a response to someone posting nervously that this was his first venture into Great Debates.
Brutus’ response -
Gotta love it.
Regards,
Shodan
Chinashop owner: “Aaaagh, my priceless Ming vase! I’m ruined!”
Bull: “Stop your whinging, you’re actually just jealous of the size of my penis”.
I don’t believe anyone has ever said that Brutus does not have a sense of humor. I am, however, slowly coming to the realization that he is oblivious to facts, unable to admit himself wrong, closed-minded almost to the point of fanaticism, and apparently believes that every word that comes out of the mouth of his political opponents is an automatic untruth. Not unlike yourself. I do appreciate both of your senses of humor, if that helps. I’ve laughed even when I disagree with the point of the humor.