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

[elucidator]

@Scylla

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]

@Der_Trihs

@Scylla

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]

@E-Sabbath

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]

@E-Sabbath

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]

@VarlosZ

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]

@ElvisL1ves

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]

@Scylla

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]

@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.

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]

@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?

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]

@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.

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]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

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]

@Der_Trihs

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]

@RTFirefly

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]

@Darth_Sensitive

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.