You know what? I am insulted by this comment. I disagree with you on pretty much anything political, but you are one of many people on the Right who I will listen to/read because it’s good for me, it helps me be more certain in my opinions, it is an antidote to knee-jerkism. But you assume that only the Right doesn’t merit respect? That I automatically disrepect the Right? Is that YOUR knee jerking, sir?
I have many friends, good friends, who are on the Right. Hell, my boss is a fundie, pro-business, global-warming hating Conservative and I respect the hell out of him. I hope he respects me, as well.
I am quite capable of judging each Conservative individually, and I would ask you show me the same courtesy. I hate Cheney. There, I said it. You know why? For what he’s done, for the choices *he *has made.
This is a silly discussion, even by the standards of the SDMB. If what we’re doing is comparing posts made by Bricker, who, while sometimes arrogant and occasionally short tempered and frequently overly pedantic, is extremely polite; with posts made by the most vitriolic leftists in any possible situation… well, the left is going to come off looking like rabid idiots.
But why not instead compare posts made by, say, Left Hand of Dorkness with posts made by the most vitriolic righties in any possible situation. That would be just as pointless and unrepresentative of the situation as a whole.
As for Cheney vs. Kennedy, I think there’s actually an interesting issue here… a fair number of people on the left (including me, for the most part) believe that Cheney is guilty of some really serious misdeeds, particularly that he played a major role in starting a basically fraudulent war. Now, we kind of take that whole accusation for granted because we’re so used to it, but if you take a moment and think of how horrible war is, starting an unneeded one fraudulently is one of the most horrifying crimes possible. Now, reasonable people might disagree with the truth of that accusation, but it’s clearly not prima facie unreasonable. That is, there actually was a war, Cheney was actually heavily involved in starting and supporting it, and there are various pieces of evidence that might convince one that it was in various ways fraudulent.
On the other hand, we have Ted Kennedy, and various people believe that he committed a really grievous crime a long time ago when he was young and drunk and stupid, and again it’s not prima facie unreasonable to so believe.
So, we have Dick vs. Ted, and a lot of people seem to think that there’s some fundamental unstated principle of left vs. right equality wherein just because they’re both public figures, and both were having health problems within a few years of each other; that therefore they are precisely equivalent representatives of their various philosophies, and therefore the reactions that people have to those deaths/health problems can be directly compared and the civility and decency of the reactors directly compared. Which is just nonsense.
In my opinion, Cheney is a traitor, murderer, thief, and a liar.
He has killed thousands, stolen billions, and caused harm to his own country.
The lack of compassion is due to the man and his crimes, not his political party.
The right and left in this country have different agendas and methods of achieving them. There are bad people on both sides. However, right now, in the early 21st century, the right have the bad people in charge.
What is the right against:
Gay Marriage
Repeal of DADT
HCR
Sex Education
Trying terrorists in our legal system
Outlawing Torture
Climate Science
These policies are evil. Not poorly thought out, just outright evil. They are mostly based in prejudice and arrogance. The ideas they do bring to the table are lies:
Tort reform will not save HC. It will shave a couple percent off.
Buying HC Insurance across state lines will not save HC. It will cause a race to the bottom where the companies move to the state with the least regulations.
Their ideas are stupid and purely ideological and not grounded in the real world. They think cutting spending during a huge recession is a good thing. It is not. It is a remarkably stupid thing, but they whine and argue for it because they want to paint a picture of their ideology saving the day.
They have major party players like Inhofe who outright lie about Climate Science and use the congress’ power to circulate a fake list full of lies about Climate Science.
Where are the equivalent evils on the left? Honestly?
You don’t think the tax rate on the richest Americans should go up a few percent. Fine, you disagree, but it isn’t a mindless policy.
You don’t think HC should be available at a reasonable rate to anyone in the country. Fine, you disagree, but it isn’t an evil policy.
Tell me where the equivalent evils from the left are. Please. I’m not ideological. I just look for bullshit and lies and right now the vast majority are oozing from the right side of the spectrum.
Um… why? I was responding to tumbleddown’s post, not making some sort of “everyone on the Left does this” statement. Maybe tumbleddown could legitimately take offense, but in what possible way are you offended?
You just can’t compare a man that had an accident that killed one person to a man that intentionally killed thousands to increase his own power, ego, and bank balance.
You don’t see where tumbledown and I agree that some people don’t deserve respect? That by making that comment to him you are also painting me with that brush?
I love it when they came up with the term “compassionate conservative”. It is practically military in it’s logic. The fact they had to come up with it. is proof of it’s bullshit. It ushered in the era of Luntzian terminology. Calling an act that allows pollution "The Clear Sky Act " is an example . Then calling estate taxes “Death Taxes” is another. Cheney has been a big user of that crap. It works.
Cheney is the brightest and most well spoken of the neos. He has the ability to stay on message better that the rest. I still get no pleasure from his getting sick. He has had 4 heart attacks. at least. But I do think he is partially responsible for wars, deaths and deficit growth. And then he blames everybody else.
Hey could you take a break from your backpeddling about your most recent stupid comment to answer my call for the equivalent evils of the left? (And we need major players, not some guy with a sign by the offramp.)
Both sides are the same according to you. I’d like to know why you think that, other than your blind, unthinking ideology.
I understood your point just fine. My point is that the vocal faces of both political parties in the U.S. are vile and disgusting. It’s not about running the country in the best and most efficient way for its citizens, it’s about beating the other side and cheering when they lose. This sort of thing just highlights it.
Or, Bricker could just say, “I apologize for causing offense where none was intended”. Instead, I get, “Who me? Show me where your offense is legitimate.”
The problem is in what you consider evil and what I consider evil may not always be the same things.
For example, I consider it evil to create a culture of dependency by selling the lie that society is responsible for everyone’s health care costs. I think we have a stronger, more reliant society when we each assume our own responsibilities, and that every step we take down the path of universal health care is one that moves us closer to mediocre. I find that outright evil.
But I know that my opposition does not see it that way. I know that their ideas, although flawed, arise out of an interest in doing the best thing for the country. That they are mistaken does not make them evil, even if their mistake will create an evil.
In return, however, my opposition does not credit me with the same motive. They believe that my wish is to let people get sick and die. They can’t say, “Well, he’s mistaken, but his motives are good.” No, no – I have to be evil.
This discussion reminds me of a line from “The Grapes of Wrath” where one of the characters says, “Thank God that son of a bitch is dead”. Is there some time when a member of our own society is so decidedly despicable as this is not uncivilized behavior? FWIW, it was probably only worsening angina, as Cheney is now back at home ensconced with his erotic novel writing wife, and good for him. But it remains a point of discussion: at what point does someone’s behavior remove the normal protections of civilized politeness.
Russians probably didn’t express joy when Stalin died for fear that the apparatus was still in place. So that leaves us to Godwinizing and getting straight to Hitler. Yeah, many Germans and Austrians were delighted that he finally was dead.
Is, was Cheney of the same ilk? I can see the point of some that he is in fact greatly damaging to our country. Perhaps more than any other figure in American history. Yet, I don’t feel the same way about him that I did about Jesse Helms. Mind you, these are my actual feelings, not logically arrived at, but which I am trying to logically explain to myself. Sure, I will always crack a joke at Cheney’s expense and I think his damage to our country (and the world at large) is enormous. Far more than Jesse Helm’s hatred spewing. Yet my feeling about Helms, the satisfaction and “vindication” I felt at his passing, probably won’t be applied when Cheney dies or returns to the hospital. And I suppose it is the nature of the damage that they did. Helms deliberately spread hatred and divided the country. Cheney deliberately spread fear and furthered war. Cheney’s actions are far more damaging and evil in my opinion, yet I cannot muster the same venom to cross the line of saying something as repugnant as I would/did with Helms.
But on the other hand, I can sure understand why some people don’t restrain themselves. From my point of view there is nothing at all comparable about the careers of Kennedy and Cheney. Kennedy had his moment of shame in the auto death of Mary Jo Kopeckne and spent a life sincerely trying to better the lot of people less fortunate than himself. Cheney recklessly started wars he profited from. It is so utterly disproportionate as to make it a completely false analogy. I get Dio’s point (and agree with it) that they are not the same.
Because we’ve seen that that is the end result. We’ve identified a problem and we want Congress to do something about it.
So either you don’t believe there’s a problem, in which case I have to consider you willfully blind, or you’re fine with the consequences of that problem, in which case I have to consider you kind of an asshole.
It may not be your wish, but if you get your way it will be the result. I don’t want people to die, I just don’t want them to have access to health care.
You’re so convinced that your side is right that this argument becomes one of definition. Of COURSE it’s not evil to grind a society down by penalizing achievers more… it’s just making them pay their fair share. And of COURSE it’s evil to not want to make everyone healthy, no matter how much they personally pay or don’t pay.
With those definitions in play, how can I possibly show a evil on the pro-UHC side? You’ve defined is good; you’ve defined opposition as evil.