Go ahead. What about the OP, or about what you think was useful about the OP would you like to discuss?
Well, we’ll have to pay attention after their ruthless rise to world domination.
Well, as Liberal seems to have abandoned the thread completely, and you appear to have taken up the mantle as defender of the integrity of his topic, maybe you can answer the questions that i posed and the points that i raised back in post #66 of this thread.
You say that his OP consisted of “some thoughts on how liberals in this country have failed, and how they might, in his eyes, right the ship.” Well, if that’s all it was, then i might agree that this thread had been unfairly derailed. But the fact is that he drew what seemed to me to be an extremely tenuous connection between Walter Jones’ change of heart on Iraq and the policy and political strategies of American liberals.
He claimed that Jones’ turnaround came about because Jones “learned…that people were robbed of their freedom.” Well, i’m not convinced that this was the reason at all, because none of the news stories i’ve read on this issue says anything remotely similar or quotes Jones as giving this as a reason. And nor am i convinced that anything liberals said would have caused Jones to have his change of heart any sooner.
Furthermore, in the OP and some of his later posts, Lib then go on to blame liberals for Jones’ delayed discovery of his own conscience. We are told, with a straight face, that “He [Jones] might have learned this sooner if modern liberals were not ashamed to say the words [like freedom].” Color me confused, but i’ve always been under the impression that the ethic of personal resonsibility that is so much a part of the libertarian ethos would suggest that Jones’ decisions and failures are his own responsibility.
I told Liberal much of this stuff over 24 hours ago, and offered him the opportunity to further explain the link he was describing between liberal failures and Jones’ position, but he was too wrapped up in his martyrdom to address the issue. If you can help me understand the logical connection being drawn in the OP, i’d be very grateful, because i really don’t see it.
Sure, i firmly believe that many liberals, and especially many of those who identify specifically with the Democratic Party, have demonstrated some very poor political strategy over the past five years or so, and i believe these are issues that are worth addressing. But i don’t think that they’re best addressed by pointing to a conservative Republican war supporter who suddenly changed his mind too late to have any real effect, and telling liberals that it’s our fault that he didn’t come to his senses sooner.
Nor is it very productive to open a discussion about what liberals might do better by telling them that their only road to integrity is to follow a libertarian platform. That’s the sort of attitude that closes off avenues for dialog, rather than opening them up.
You make a good point. I went back and reread your post and I thought you made some good observations. Yet Liberal chose to respond to the folks he would describe as kin of the screeching Kennedys. I won’t make any judgement call. To those who seem to joyfully attack. To those who can’t resist the urge to attack I say;Deal with the subject of the post at hand {which you tried to do mhendo} If you really think Lib’s just trying to get attention then cooperating seems pretty stupid.
You may not agree with the point he’s trying to make concerning the Liberal Dems but I still saw no reason to believe he’s somehow blameing the war and all our problems on the the Democratic party. I got the impression he’s suggesting what he believes to be a better approach. Obviously some here don’t agree. Fine.
Jumping in with baseless accusations, and sarcastic attacks serves no purpose I can see. I happen to think the Dems are using the wrong approach. I thought that before the election. If you think I’m wrong then convince me. Have a rational reasonable arguement. Certainly “Fuck you asshole” isn’t going to do it. The reason I like SDMB and quickly left others is because, here people think, {at least most people} they make me think and challenge me.
Ah to hell with it, I’m just venting. Thanks for your post. I appreciate it.
So we should forgive the idiot that was behind the whole “Freedom Fries” thing? I don’t fucken think so. See what is really going on is more and more Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush as he becomes more and more unpopular. Is this guy going to stand up and shout from the rooftops that Bush is a liar and his policies are fucken stupid? I don’t think so. I would respect him if he did because this is what is called for if he is really repentant.
Not only is Bush loosing the war, he’s running our economy into the ground. Republicans in Congress want to be re-elected because they enjoying being politicians even though over the years they have fed the anti-politician sentiment in the country. Well, now they are the politicians running a corrupt Congress. What happened to term limits? What happened to the Contract on America? Yet another bit of hypocrisy from a Republican party that is all smoke and mirrors.
This underscores why I am a Democrat. We run better economies and fight better wars. We have smaller governments and generate less inflation. The truth is often stranger than fiction but all of this is true. To a large degree, the Republican party relies on an ignorant constituency. If their supporters knew the facts and not the bullshit (how many times did you get the “Clinton killed 40 people” from your Republican friends?), do you think that they could generate the numbers they have been able to generate? The term “Freedom Fries” further underscores this ignorance. We have never been at war with France and we owe our existence as a country to the French. It’s too bad the French didn’t run (they are cowards right?) at Yorktown then we wouldn’t have these idiots who spout this shit. But they didn’t run and in my opinion we should be eternally grateful to the French for this. It’s a good thing the French stopped the Muslims at Tours in the 8th century or we would all be speaking Arabic as well. So you see, the very ground that the Republicans formulate and fortify their opinions rest completely on ignorance. They are not the party of small government but rather the party of running just as big or bigger governments while maintaining that they are the opposite. So if you can handle the hypocrisy and lies, go ahead, vote Republican.
However, I still have faith in the American people for one reason. They rarely tolerate incompetence for very long. The Republicans seem to think that the swing voters are going to remain loyal to them even while this country goes to shit. They have no one to blame when it does and they know it. I would hate to be in their position right now. As a matter of fact I think they have sown the seeds of their own party’s decline because they have had plenty of time to turn it around but they haven’t. You can’t keep blaming Clinton for the shitty state of things when you have had 8 years of party dominance in all three branches of government.
The Democrats need to keep exploiting this. I’m a Clinton democrat and I feel that he ran the best government in decades. I feel that we need to come together as a party and maintain a more populist/centrist line. This is our traditional place in American politics. This is where the heart of the American people is and it should be where our party governs from once again. You see, it is the Republicans who have invaded our territory and we need to chase them out and regain the ascendancy. The extreme right wing is ruining the Republican party and the extreme left has ruined ours. The Republicans have been able to define us and this is the problem. They have been able to paint us as “looney liberals” when we are not. I’m still a Liberal, no one can make me stop being proud of this fact. I believe in new ideas and the freedom to change when the need arises. Stop letting them define us.
This country must evolve or it must decline. They are the party of decline just because of this very fact. Why are you getting shaky cause Dean is stirring the pot? Someone needs to fight. Someone needs to draw a distinction between us and them. We need to portray exactly what we are: The opposition party that is in touch with the majority of Americans and will run the country better than the way it is being run now. After all, that shouldn’t be that hard.
Well I certainly won’t argue with that one. Neither would my neighbors. Something about the blinds open, lights on. Go figure
Well it must be by pure chance that I haven’t seen anything like what you suggest. I do get your drift. If it’s as drastic as you suggest then why isn’t something done about the consistant hijacking? I don’t mind an interesting tangent in a thread but consistant hijacking by the same person? Why haven’t moderators done anything?
I didn’t even see it once. I read part way through it and decided it wasn’t really that interesting.
I find it hard to believe that people here aren’t smart enough to curtail the kind of behavior I hear you describing. Still, I’m the newbie so I’ll defer a judgement call until I’ve more experience. I appreciate your patient explaination . Thanks for not being offended by my “defense” of this horrible slanderous OP.
If he had simply called for a “better approach” that would be one thing. What he did, though, was to connect liberal politics with Walter Jones’ u-turn in a way that seemed—and still seems—completely contrived, and designed merely to raise people’s hackles.
But to me it seemed as if the OP itself was a baseless accusation (liberals are to blame for Jones not changing his mind earlier) and an attack (maybe not sarcastic) on liberals that left no room for the give and take of normal debate. It assumed a single and unswerving notion of what should constitute liberalism, and preemptively ridiculed anyone who would step outside this narrow definition.
Well, as i said in my previous post, i also have plenty of problems with the direction the Democratic Party has taken. Hell, i was pretty unimpressed with Clinton. But while Lib’s OP did not contain the words “Fuck you, asshole,” it did accuse liberals of being to blame for conservative attitudes, which seems to me a rather pathological claim. He accused liberal of compromising their principles, rather than accepting that maybe their principles just happen to be different from his. He accused liberals of trying to “dazzle the populace with your dizzying intellects,” rather than conceding that some things need to be thought about deeply, and that sometimes things can’t simply be explained in sound bites. He accused liberals of wallowing in the “swamps and marshes of special interests.” Hell, he even used the old canard of criticizing liberals’ “bleeding hearts.” This is not to say that there’s nothing of merit in these accusations, only that they were placed in a context—Walter Jones’ policy shift—that made their relevance extremely unclear.
He also had the gall, while accusing liberals of all these things, to paint Jones himself—the guy who invented the term “Freedom Fries” and was an ardent supporter of the war—as a man of principle, a guy whose mind was changed by his comm itment to the ideal of freedom. I see no evidence of that at all, and so far i’ve seen nothing but the OP’s assertion that even makes this rather odd claim.
And on top of all this, when someone criticized his position, Lib accused that person of being a “socialist authoritarian” who opposed the war only because “war is all scary and messy and inconvenient,” and of not caring about Iraqi casualties but of seeing them as merely a vindication of a political position. There might be no “Fuck you, asshole” in those posts, but they’re pretty damn offensive nonetheless to people who did, in fact, have very principled reasons for opposing the war in Iraq.
I know. That’s where the other two ombudsmen came from. There used to be one. Of course, the new blood hasn’t found any sign of bias either. I hold out hope for the future of NPR.
Hid it? Sorry. I thought the capital letters were plain enough. Obviously not. I see you fancy yourself a plain spoken direct individual. BFD Here’s a news flash. PLain spoken and direct isn’t the same as “right.” Your opinion is not the same as fact or the truth.
You’ll note that I said I wasn’t sure if my point was the same as Libs I won’t second guess his but I’ll explain the one I made. For reference you said
Hentor
to which I responded
You didn’t seem to understand that comment.
What is it that you think your principles are? If I were to guess I might say Human rights, Civil liberties, Social justice
Not, Pro Choice, or Universal health care, or things that are policy, not principle.
Here’s the tricky part of those principles. When you insist on frreedom of speech for yourself then it places a moral obligation on you to support that right for others, even {and maybe especially because it’s the most challengeing} those you disagree with. If you take a stand for civil liberties and social justice for those whom you see as oppressed you have a moral obligation to support those same principles for the people you see as the oppressors. The basis for our democracy is all particpating citizens shaping policy and figureing out what works and what doesn’t. “fuck you asshole, we’re right” is a denial of the process. In my book that makes it a violation of the very principles you say you support. It’s a mirror image of the same bullshit you hear Dems berating this administration for daily.
Do you support freedom of speech, cosmosdan?
Sorry, I don’t see it that way at all. Pretty much everyone disagreed with the OP. I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that nobody expressed disagreement. You seem to want polite, reflective replies to a rude, arrogant OP. That makes no sense. If you want a debate about Libertarian vs. Democrat, go ahead and start one in GD; even I know that’s been done a thousand times.
I notice, cosmosdan, that you have neglected to follow through on your offer to oh so patiently explain to this troglodytic freedom-of-speech-denier exactly what was worthwhile about the argument constructed in the OP. In fact, you’ve spent most of your time here castigating others and pontificating about principles and who has them and who’s violating whose.
I’m all ears.
Don’t forget to explain how Freedom Fries guy could conceivably be described as a “quiet man.”
A couple of people have taken the time to explain and point out a few things to me. My sincere thanks. It seems some posters were reacting to Lib based on other posts as well as this one. Evidently you’ve had these discussions with Lib before and you’re just sick of his shit. I hope you can understand how a few of us who haven’t been a part of these other threads might actually want to discuss the topic of this one. Because you’re sick of his shit you come into this thread and hijack it and make it a personnal attack on** Lib** so you can complain about **Lib’s ** constant hijacking of other threads and how he makes everything about him. PLease excuse me if I think thats bullshit.
If you’ve already had this discussion with Lib a few times and you don’t agree and you think he’s full of shit, then fine. Don’t participate. Please allow those of us who haven’t to think it through on our own since that seems to be what SDMB is about.
When I engage somebody in a discussion I want to examine the details of their arguement one point at a time. How much I agree with and how much I don’t will vary from person to person but I usually learn something and come away with new concepts to consider. When folks come in to vent, spit and ridcule and bring that process to a halt, I don’t appreciate it. It’s the first cousin to trolling as far as I can see.
A bunch of proud liberals come in to defend the faith and jump all over Lib because they don’t like his views and haven’t been able to sway him. They act remarkably similar to the faithful defending Bush The hypocrasy is laughable as well as annoying.
Since I certainly didn’t do so, I’m not sure why you’re telling me this. I would find this every bit as irritating coming from anyone else. And in fact I’ve jumped all over conservative posters for suggesting that the key to the Democrats’ survival is, essentially, becoming Republicans. It’s a stupid argument to make, no matter who’s making it.
I’ve had various discussions with Liberal before. Not on this topic, though. I’m not sure why you feel the need to suggest that I was responding to anything but his posts in this thread. That’s a rather unpleasant thing to say about me, and whatever feelings I bear towards Liberal, they didn’t influence what I wrote in the quoted post. Perhaps you are unable to simply read something and respond to it without bringing in your feelings about something else; I do not share this disability.
The post you quoted was a discussion of it - perhaps you don’t like the fact that I dismissed it. That’s your perogative. Liberal certainly doesn’t need me to treat him with kid gloves in order to help his self-esteem - he’s a big boy, and he can handle himself.
I don’t really care what you think, so no worries. I’m not sure what you think was a hijack - my first post was in direct response to the discussion already taking place; it had changed long before I posted what I did. And my next response was a reply to someone else’s post, referencing the OP and explaining why it was ridiculous. Neither of those things could rationally be construed as a hijack. I’m not sure what you’re responding to here, but it has nothing to do with what I’ve written.
Like you said, you are fairly new here. Let me explain, then - it’s considered perfectly acceptable, even desireable, to post and indicate disagreement with something. There is no such rule as you imagine requiring all posts in a thread to be in agreement with the first. And in fact, if you glance around the pit some more, you’ll see exactly how wrong your idea is.
You can’t discuss it if I post my own thoughts on it? I will participate in whatever thread I like to, and if it bothers you to see disagreement, you might want to find somewhere else to hang out. I can’t imagine what could possibly be going on in your head to make you think that it’s not okay to disagree with people.
Be careful of making implicit accusations of trolling; there’s a particular rule about that and you’re edging close to violation of it. If you don’t believe that the post you quoted was relevant simply because it disagreed with Liberal, I’m not sure what to say in response. Tell me something - you seem to be defending him a lot around here. Do you consider it some sort of infraction to disagree with other posters, or does that particular rule only apply to Liberal?
A bunch of liberals came in to defend our political views. Again, I can’t imagine why you would find that surprising. Pray tell, what is “hypocratical” (is that the new spelling?) about defending one’s political views? Are you engaging in this sort of game-playing because Liberal posted something indefensible? Why can’t you argue a point on its merits rather than simply insulting liberals?
Look at this mess!
Anyway, elucidator and the highwayman --could I copy your posts? I want to send them to my Dad–another “yellow dog” Dem. I really like the way you expressed your thoughts.
As for the rest of all of this. cosmosdan , you are ascribing to Hentor something that I posted. I was the one who got concrete and mentioned party platforms–as party platforms. I was not speaking of prinicples, per se, in my posts, but in terms of actual policies. I fail to see the reasons this is incorrect in your eyes, but perhaps I am missing something. This is not (never was) a thread about political philosophies, really. This was a castigation of the Democrats/liberals by one person who claims to have superior knowledge of what our principles should be.
There is a difference.
You may be correct. That seems based on what has happened in other threads rather than just this one. I don’t get that just from the OP. If that was indeed his goal it’s seems goofy that those who disagree with him rushed in to give him what he wanted.
Again, I see your point and you may be right. I don’t see him blameing liberals for Jones not changeing earlier in the OP. Did I miss it? I confess, not haveing participated in many political threads I missed some of the Libertarian references. I understand how some might take offense but I don’t see the preemptive ridicule. If he has tunnel vision about his views then allow those of us who haven’t learned that to discover it on our own.
I gather that he doesn’t agree with the modern version of liberalism. In many ways neither do I.
please explain how he blamed liberals for conservative attitudes in the OP. I don’t see it.
In the sense that I find the Dems useing the same distasteful tactics that republicans use I also think they have abandoned certain ** principles.
I also get the a smug sense of intellectual superiority from too many liberals. the opposite side of that coin is the smugness of conservative republicans in “we know how the world really works” Both are distasteful. My take was “make your sound bytes matter more than they have up till now. choose better words because you’re squandering your oportunities” maybe I was imposeing my own wishes on what I was reading,
Was it you that pointed out earlier that it should have been two threads. SOmeone else asked why the thread wasn’t “what does this mean for Bush supporters” I understand the questioning of why the two were linked. It’s a valid point. I agree with you that his eager acceptance of Jones sincerity was a little too naive for someone as smart as Lib. When you commented on it he chose not to respond at all.
People who oppose war simply because “war is bad” and quickly ridcule anybody who doesn’t embrace their truth don’t help the dialogue much. Many people were against us going into WWII. Were they right? Was FDR right for lieing to the public and leading them into the war through less than honest means? I don’t accuse Hentor ** of being that kind of liberal, but considering the language in the post Lib responded too I don’t critisize the use of “socialist authoritarian”
Absolutely and whole heartedly. I try to maintain the premise that I can learn something from anyone if I am willing to listen as well as spout my own views. That isn’t always easy.
By supporting free speech does that mean I should support peoples right to shout down anyone that voices an opinion they don’t like, or should I support the persons right to express their opinion without being shoouted down?
I made no such offer. My offer was to explain an ironic point you didn’t understand. I have done that. Did you miss the explaination. Perhaps I should have used fuck you again to get your attention.
you’re specifcily asking me to explain a statement I never made or defended. I decline.
[
I appreciated their post as well. It’s an example of what I like about SDMB
My comment to Hentor was a reply to something he said to me. If you have a question about some point I made feel free to ask.
Well, it’s a matter of interpretation, i guess. It just seemed to me that by linking what i consider to be two essentially unrelated issues in the OP, he was taking a jab at liberals for things beyond their control. And then, in a later post he said qauite clearly that if liberals had been more principled and used the right words, Jones might have changed his mind sooner.
It is entirely possible that he had a more subtle intent than this, but i can’t fathom what it was, and he hasn’t deigned to respond to my questions about it. But, given the fact that a whole bunch of people seemed to read the OP the way i did, doesn’t it suggest that maybe there’s some justification to our compaints? And given that no-one has yet been able to provide what i consider a satisfactory rationale for linking Jones’ change in attitude to the failures of liberal politics, i feel somewhat justified in continuing to be perplexed by the OP, and in continuing to see it as two largely unrelated issues.
You are correct that plenty of people in this thread are probably reacting based not only on the OP itself, but on their past experiences with Liberal. In theory, it would be nice if we could treat every post without any of the baggage that comes with our past experiences on the board. And i know that many people try to do that. I do my best, in most cases, not to drag animosities from one thread into a different thread. For example, The Highwayman and i have been exchanging abuse in the thread about boxing, but that will be irrelevant to me when i meet him in another thread.
But while it would be nice if we could all do that all the time, the fact is that sometimes particular people engage in certain behaviors or strategies so frequently that it’s hard to engage with those people without thinking about your past encounters with them. Sure, Liberal talks about the tyrannies of conservatives like Bush, but in my experience he always seems to believe that these tyrannies hold lessons for liberals, rather than for conservatives. Despite his ostensible opposition to tyranny of any sort, he’s always lecturing liberals and not conservatives on what they are doing wrong, and what they should do in order to improve. Now, it might be that he does this because he feels that lecturing conservatives is a waste of time, that they are too far gone. But it still gets a little tiresome after a while.
Anyway, this thread has devolved into little more than a discussion about Liberal, something he often seems implicitly to encourage with his posting style and his put-upon attitude in response to criticism. I see no real point in continuing to flog the dead horse, so i’ll leave this as my last contribution to the thread.