[QUOTE=Evil One]
By the way, I expect those troop totals to be reduced primarily to reduce electoral vulnerability. Yes, I am that cynical.
[/QUOTE]
see, problem w/that is, that if the troops are reduced because of electoral vulnerability, it raises the likelihood that those remaining will be in more danger than they currently are. I, too, am that cynical, but I have some small level of hope that the troops lives are worth more than that. I know, there’s little enough evidence of that. Pisses me off to the max that the only ‘care’ that the troops get is rhetorical in nature. Any other aspect- piffle.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Don’t get too excited over some local elections swinging your way due to war fatigue and a rare moment of national cooperation by the democrats to nominate more moderate candidates and present a moderate national message. Presidential elections are a different animal.
[/QUOTE]
You still don’t get it, Evil. The post-Goldwater American conservative movement – incisively described here – has peaked, in the same way that post-WWII American liberalism peaked with LBJ. It will still be with us for a long time to come in the form of conservative grassroots organizations, think-tanks, and media outlets, all lavishly funded by the corporations, but its electoral appeal will slowly and steadily and inevitably diminish. Partly because the American people have had a chance, these past seven years, to see what “movement conservatives” do with power once they have it and how that turns out, but also because of demographic trends analyzed by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira in The Emerging Democratic Majority. (See also Teixeira’s blog.) You’ll live to see the day, once again, when “Rockefeller Republicans” are the only kind that matter.
It will take a long time. But the country is going to go so far to the left you won’t even recognize it.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Then why is Bush being so stubborn about that deadline-spending bill?
[/QUOTE]
because it wasn’t his idea. A timeline isn’t ok, unless **he’s ** the one suggesting it. troop increase/decrease is the wrong thing to do unless he’s the one suggesting it. He’s the decider, remember?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
You can do the work if you like, Elvis. If you find one that was wrong, I’ll issue a mea culpa to not being able to fortell the future with one hundred percent accuracy.
[/quote]
Translated: “You’re right”.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
The point, which both of you continue to ignore out of apparent sheer desperation, is that the smoke is pretty thick, enough for any responsible person to suspect a fire and go look for one. Your position is that one must have *absolute, incontrovertible proof * that it *is * a fire before one even goes to find out.
[/quote]
I have never rejected your right to go and look for evidence of the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”, nor have I ever denied that there was any possibility of dirty tricks. What I do have a problem with, as I’ve stated numerous times, is that you guys state it as absolute, unequivocal fact. You can’t prove it, but it definitely happened. Well, I say that the Democrats cheated. How can you argue with that? They won, didn’t they?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
What I do have a problem with, as I’ve stated numerous times, is that you guys state it as absolute, unequivocal fact.
[/quote]
“Unequivocal”? Hardly. “Probable” is as far as it goes, and that should be enough.
Sigh, once again, that’s what good-faith investigations are for. The ones we’ve been demanding, and not getting. The ones you’re pooh-poohing.
[quote=]
“Probable” is as far as it goes, and that should be enough.
[/quote]
Should it be? For my part, if you change the word to “possible” I’d be on board with that. Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Democrats cheated to win in 2006, too. This should highlight the fact that conspiracy theories are ridiculous on their merits.
An analogy: there’s a small but nonzero chance that you once did time in jail. Should I therefore assume that you did and refer to you as a convict because it suits me to do so? You have no problem doing much the same thing to others.
Good faith? Where’s the good faith on your part? More to the point, would you believe the investigation’s results if no conspiracy was found? I think not. You have too much vested in believing that the Republicans stole the two elections to turn back now.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Good faith? Where’s the good faith on your part?
[/quote]
In my caring about the most basic practice of a functioning democracy.
You are entirely wrong about that, I’m disappointed to say.
One’s putting one’s party before one’s country does *not * mean that everyone else does, ya know. But if the hypothetical tu quoque argument that is so typically the last resort of the cornered partisan here makes you feel all good inside, you’re welcome to it. Shodan loves pulling that shit, as you know, but I never before thought *you * did too.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
One’s putting one’s party before one’s country does *not * mean that everyone else does, ya know. But if the hypothetical tu quoque argument that is so typically the last resort of the cornered partisan here makes you feel all good inside, you’re welcome to it. Shodan loves pulling that shit, as you know, but I never before thought *you * did too.
[/QUOTE]
Who’s the “cornered partisan”? Surely not I. Tu quoque, indeed.
:shrug: You’re making accusations of bad faith on someone’ else’s part for something you’re merely *imagining * him doing in the hypothetical situation of the names being reversed.
Okay, maybe that isn’t quite a classic tu quoque from the Debate Team rulebook. How about “projection”, then? Does that work better?
I really did think you were much more of a stand-up guy than this. Ah, well.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Um, those initiatives were for banning gay marriage, not allowing it; and I’m pretty sure that nobody really thought that any would be defeated, which is why Arizona was such a surprise. Most of them were in fairly conservative states, IIRC, and it was disappointing but not shocking that people were that bigoted. Some states were landslides, like South Carolina and Tennessee, and some not quite as much, like Idaho, but Virginia, Wisconsin, and Colorado were at least a little close, and Arizona defeated a ban on same-sex marriage by 2%.
CO- no on Civil Unions by 6%, yes on SSM ban by 12%
ID-ban by 26%
SC-ban by 56%
TN-ban by 62%
VA-ban by 14%
WI-ban by 18%
source:CNN
[/QUOTE]
Dude, that’s a pretty confusing list. It looks like you got your vote margins and your total votes concatenated. Otherwise, how are people voting to ban gay marriage by a 62% margin? Does that mean 112% of voters favored the ban? Now, THAT’S what I call an landslide! If not, then are you saying that, say, Wisconsin enacted a gay marriage ban because 18% of voters favored it?
Where’d you get those numbers?
And wouldn’t you be voting to allow gay marriage if you voted against the ban? Isn’t that pretty much what your intent woudl be?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
:shrug: You’re making accusations of bad faith on someone’ else’s part for something you’re merely *imagining * him doing in the hypothetical situation of the names being reversed.
[/quote]
… and you asked me if I would have the same opinion were the situation reversed, implying bad faith on my part which does not exist. You are also implying a partisanship that I do not have based upon my request for proof of a conspiracy theory that you claim exists. I originally did nothing but point out the fallacy of declaring for certain that which is not certain. The rest of the exchange is the metaphorical two guys pointing at each other on the playground telling “Your mom” jokes.
No, it doesn’t. I have never received any indication from you that you would be content with any rule, finding, or disclosure that originated from a Republican-controlled government. Quite the contrary, in fact, as you have expressed distrust and discontent at every turn. Why, then, would I be reasonably expected to assume that you would be happy with a report exonerating Republicans, were one to be produced?
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Dude, that’s a pretty confusing list. It looks like you got your vote margins and your total votes concatenated. Otherwise, how are people voting to ban gay marriage by a 62% margin? Does that mean 112% of voters favored the ban? Now, THAT’S what I call an landslide! If not, then are you saying that, say, Wisconsin enacted a gay marriage ban because 18% of voters favored it?
[/QUOTE]
Tennessee, for example, was 81% for the ban, 19% against. 62 points.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
… and you asked me if I would have the same opinion were the situation reversed, implying bad faith on my part which does not exist.
[/quote]
Only in reply to your accusation, in an attempt to get you to think a little harder about it. Didn’t work, though.
Goddammit, what part of “investigation” do you not understand? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Frank]
Tennessee, for example, was 81% for the ban, 19% against. 62 points.
All those votes should be here somewhere.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, that makes more sense. All the numbers are expressed as the difference between the no votes and the yea votes. In which case, they all look like landslides to me. Except for that Arizona vote, which I’m glad of but puzzled by.
Point is, just because you think it is right and just and fair that someone vote a certain way, even if all the evidence of logic and all the strictures of morality and common decency clearly lead toward a certain vote, there’s absolutely no guarantee that voters will vote as you and most reasonable and moral people think they should.
That’s why I think the people who are running Hillary and Obama’s campaigns need to look hard at moderate voters and see how widespread the bigotry runs and how deep, and what it will take to counter it. ‘Cause you’re only gonna have Abject Failure Total Asshole Bush to run against in one election 2008 (in the sense that it will be childishly easy to smear any Pubbie candidate with Bush’s failure, given Pubbies’ tendency to march in lockstep). After that, you’ll have to get elected on your own merits.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
That’s why I think the people who are running Hillary and Obama’s campaigns need to look hard at moderate voters and see how widespread the bigotry runs and how deep, and what it will take to counter it.
[/QUOTE]
And what do you think is the answer to those questions?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
I’m just stating fact as demonstrated by the reaction to 9/11 and the national security/defense baggage carried by the democrats. Only someone who is ideologically blinded to political reality would deny that a terrorist attack on american soil would not hurt the political fortunes of anyone deemed left of center.
[/QUOTE]
Excuse me. Supposedly we are being protected by Republican policies. If we have another terrorist hit in the next year and 1/2 the blame will be laid at the feet of those in power. And it ain’t liberals who’ve been determining that policy. Republicans have been running on their assurance that it won’t happen. Conservatism is going to look pretty ineffective after half a trillion dollars spent on a ‘war’ on terror that goes nowhere.
(Of course, since the number of terrorist attacks America in the last half century are in the single digits, and since al Qaeda takes years and years preparing to out-do themselves when we’re not looking, Bushco isn’t expecting it to happen on their watch anyway.)
[QUOTE=Snag]
If we have another terrorist hit in the next year and 1/2 the blame will be laid at the feet of those in power.
[/QUOTE]
C’mon, NO ONE could forsee that, not even Condi, and she’s psychic!
