[QUOTE=Shodan]
…Can you envision lissener Pitting a gay liberal?..
[/QUOTE]
A bit confusing, Shoddy. Need one be both gay and liberal to be beyond criticism by friend lissener? Clearly, a gay conservative is not beyond criticism. So, maybe you mean to suggest that being liberal is sufficient to put one beyond a lissener critique? In which case, why did you feel the need to include the “gay” discriptive? Unless, of course, you think that has some special relevence?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
It was certainly all lip service from Foley. If it turns out, as the preliminary evidence suggests, that Hastert knew and did nothing, then it was lip service from him as well.
Does that make it lip service from the entire coterie of elected Republican officials, though?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not just the Foley fiasco. Cunningham, Ney, DeLay… OK, not every Republican, but a rogue’s gallery large enough to make a mockery of claims that the GOP is the party of “law and morality”.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I think, as between the Dems and the Repubs, the Republicans DO try to characterize themselves as the “law and morality” crowd. They paint the Dems as liberals soft on crime. And they certainly are the party that tries to identify with what much of the country would call “traditional” morality.
[/QUOTE]
So when you said the following in the OP, the key word was ‘say.’
I should also point out this:
This, you say, is because:
You are, of course, welcome to hold your own view of what “law and morality” means. But your view appears to be a very circumscribed view, one that focuses heavily on individual and relatively inconsequential sins, while largely excluding the large-scale sins that do substantial harm to large numbers of people, that one cannot commit without a great deal of power over one’s fellow man.
Most of us here are far more upset about the actual physical carnage in Iraq than the potential moral carnage of a whole host of “Toilet Man” sequels.
If you and I put vastly different weights on different offenses against law and/or morality, then we have very different views of what those words mean, and this is what our disagreement reduces to. I can say I think you define these words in silly ways, but I cannot say you are wrong. However, in debate we will inevitably be talking past each other.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Nor did I claim that either I, or the GOP, had a corner on morality.
[/quote]
Then what was the point in calling Republicans the party that “stand[s] for law and morality”? Democrats “stand” for morality, too. Just because our morality and yours may differ on issues of sexuality, drug use or criminal sentencing, doesn’t make us “immoral,” which, assigning the moniker of “moral” to one party exclusively, implies a lack of same in the opposition. That’s just plain wrong, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
It was certainly all lip service from Foley. If it turns out, as the preliminary evidence suggests, that Hastert knew and did nothing, then it was lip service from him as well.
Does that make it lip service from the entire coterie of elected Republican officials, though?
[/QUOTE]
Remind me what the point of your OP was again? Wasn’t it you who took the entire coterie of elected Republican officials to task right there in post #1? Isn’t that why so many here are heaping praise on you for finally seeing the light? Now all of a sudden it’s just one, or possibly two bad men who have acted immorally?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Really?
Here is the post that led Polycarp to attack me -
[/quote]
So what? I didn’t accuse you of not being able to see the sin in other people: I accused you of not being able to see it in yourself. Your blindness to your own partisanship is apparently so severe that you can’t even see accusations of such blindness. Does this whole paragraph appear as a black bar to you?
Normally, “I know you are, but what am I?” is an inappropriate response. Now, however…
Daniel
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I was answering mhendo’s question. It’s hard to see how I could be evasive as to John Mace’s question.
[/QUOTE]
You are right - I apologize for linking your response to a different question. I shouldn’t have insinuated myself into John Mace’s excellent question in the first place.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
I make no secret of my political affiliation, but as many people have said, I’m not abjectly partisan and I certainly do not write people off for having the wrong politics, and I know that’s true precisely because people around here have told me so so many times.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not true in this thread.
Although you are entirely correct that you are going to get more praise from the SDMB than I will. Conservatives don’t get praise here; they get piled on.
Once you form the correct opinion of the political thinking that forms a good chunk of the discourse around here, it tends to bother you less.
By asking Bricker a question as to what he means? This is “dropping a contemptuous shit” into a thread?
By the definitions of the Usual Suspects, no doubt. But anything that does not fit into their preconceived notions is that.
In this case, it is because Bricker started this thread and gave the Usual Suspects their opportunity to shit on Republicans. Again.
Really? Could you cut and paste where I attacked the Democrats for their handling of the Foley affair?
Or is that an instance of your idea of “fair-mindedness”?
If it comforts you to tell yourself that…
and Poly - perhaps if you could read my first post, you could explain how asking a question means identifying with Ann Coulter. Or perhaps not.
If you mean what I thought, that anything besides “Republicans suck!” is being Coulter, then don’t bother.
You’re kidding.
What you mean is, “even if the Democrats cared more about attacking a Republican than protecting a minor, so fucking what?”
IOW, if what you claim is true, then Democrats would also be putting politics over principle. This would make them any different - how?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Really? Could you cut and paste where I attacked the Democrats for their handling of the Foley affair?
[/quote]
When you constantly have to distort what people say (notice the adverbial phrase you added to the challenge in order to make it unmeetable) in order to fake a win, you’re a loser.
Daniel
So asking a question about the OP of a thread means being blind to one’s own biases?
I reposted what I said so that you could point out how nasty and partisan it was, and how it was an attack on Democrats. You’re quite correct - I don’t see any such tendencies in my first post, and I find the over-reaction by Poly to be mildly humorous in a self-parodying way.
So why don’t you take a crack at it? Explain how asking Bricker who he is referring to is a sign of the most blatant partisanship.
And, as I said earlier, if all you mean is “nothing but Republican-bashing is acceptable”, don’t trouble yourself.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
So asking a question about the OP of a thread means being blind to one’s own biases?
[/quote]
Of course it doesn’t. You really have comprehension troubles.
More halfwitted distortion. You reposted something you’d said TO WHICH I HAD NOT RESPONDED, apparently so I could point out how nasty and partisan it was. You did NOT repost the bit that I’d responded to, the bit that represents blind partisanship. Let’s try again, although I suspect you’ll see just a black bar:
That’s you, doing almost precisely what you’re accusing other people of doing.
I don’t know why I’m troubling myself, but I’ll explain nothign of the sort, because I don’t agree that asking Bricker who he is referring to is a sign of the most blatant partisanship. You’re trying a Chewbacca defense.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Shodan]
What you mean is, “even if the Democrats cared more about attacking a Republican than protecting a minor, so fucking what?”
IOW, if what you claim is true, then Democrats would also be putting politics over principle. This would make them any different - how?
[/QUOTE]
Earth to Shoddy! The Democrats didn’t sit on this information! It was a Republican. You can try to fling this booger off of the GOP’s finger, but it’s not going anywhere. You’re gonna have to eat it.
In fact, let me make it clearer.
[You] don’t do that [engage in rational discourse] in cases like [Clinton]'s - [you] do a Two Minute Hate. [You] also don’t do it when [Republicans] are caught with their hand in the cookie jar (or down someone’s pants [like with Foley]). There, [you] do another Two Minute Hate, but aimed at [Democrats, like in this very post that I’m paraphrasing].
Daniel
[QUOTE=Shodan]
…Although you are entirely correct that you are going to get more praise from the SDMB than I will. Conservatives don’t get praise here; they get piled on…
[/QUOTE]
Pobrecito! Interesting point, made on the fifth page of a thread in which a conservative has recieved fulsome praise for making a lurching step away from the path of political error. Should you, at any time, show similar fair-mindedness I promise similar approval, the very instant I regain conciousness.
So again, you fucking moron, point out where I attacked Democrats.
Distort? You fucking liar.
It’s an unmeetable challenge because I did not fucking do what you fucking liars claim I did.
Gad, you people are dishonest ass holes.
And let me be clear - I am responding in the above to LeftHandofDorkness, not to any posters I haven’t read.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
What you mean is, “even if the Democrats cared more about attacking a Republican than protecting a minor, so fucking what?”
IOW, if what you claim is true, then Democrats would also be putting politics over principle. This would make them any different - how?
[/QUOTE]
Yep, that’s exactly what I mean. There’s a huge fucking difference between actually doing a bad thing yourself, and telling everyone else about the bad thing the other guy did at a time more advantageous to yourself. Surely even you can spot the difference.
If the Dems knew about it (which they didn’t, so this is purely an exercise in imagination), the Pubs had years to come clean about it- and they didn’t. Don’t even try to paint the Republicans as the victim, here.
Oh, and the Democrats didn’t know about it, and try to keep it covered 'til it was a good time for them to release the info. A member of Foley’s own party released it. Hint: Foley ain’t a Democrat, despite what Fox “accidentally” claims.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
So again, you fucking moron, point out where I attacked Democrats.
[/QUOTE]
A giant black bar, your own words must be to yourself. It’s remarkable. When you talk about “The Usual Suspects,” I take it you’re talking about the Christian Coalition and the NRA?
I realize I’ve not responded to the OP. So here’s my thoughts: I’m heartened, impressed, and dispirited.
Heartened because I really hope the Dems take control this cycle, and they’ve been sucking at doing it, but it may be that the Live Boy scandal is a deciding factor, and politically speaking, it makes me glad to see that for some folks, it’s having that effect.
Impressed because it’s always good to see folks motivated by principle and not by party. Loyalty to people is good, but loyalty to principle is better. Personally, I think the Republican party has far too much interpersonal loyalty, and that’s their political strength and their moral weakness; Democrats are just the opposite.
Dispirited because, while I respect your reasoning, Bricker, it’s just so…alien to me. The best analogy I can come up with is if, after watching Democrats spend years promoting abortions, suppressing Christianity, and requiring employers to post a bust of Karl Marx in every workplace, they were finally brought down by a scandal in which a Democrat illegally denied a worker’s compensation claim. I mean, sure, illegally denying a worker’s comp claim can really fuck up someone’s life, but their other sins would look so much greater in comparison, wouldn’t it be a little dispiriting to have something like that be the proverbial straw?
Daniel
[QUOTE=Bricker]
OK, fair enough.
I think, as between the Dems and the Repubs, the Republicans DO try to characterize themselves as the “law and morality” crowd. They paint the Dems as liberals soft on crime. And they certainly are the party that tries to identify with what much of the country would call “traditional” morality.
Yes?
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
But it seems to me that you’ve made an interesting rhetorical slide here. You assert, in this post, that the Republicans “DO try to characterize themselves as the “law and morality” crowd,” and that they try to identify with traditional morality. I’m not arguing with that at all.
Bolding mine.
But it seems to me that this is different from your OP, and from your general position on these Boards, which is not only that the Republicans present themselves as the party of law and morality, but that this presentation is accurate, and that they are, in fact, the party of law and morality. It is the latter position that i’ve been arguing against.
The question implicit in my earlier criticisms was not “Do the Republicans try to characterize themselves as the party of law and morality?” The answer to that is clearly “yes.”
My question was, “Do you believe that the Republicans are, in fact, strong representatives of the principles of law and morality? If yes, do you believe that the whole Foley debacle is an aberration?”
If your answer to those questions is “yes,” then the criticisms i’ve been making in this thread stand.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
In general, Democrats have been soft on what I would call “personal responsibility” for crime – arguing for legalization of drugs, alternative sentencing for criminals, and the like. Not that these are monolithically-held positions of the party… but when they are espoused, it’s generally going to be a Democrat espousing them instead of a Republican.
[/quote]
How is arguing for legalization of drugs being soft on personal responsibility for crime?
An argument for legalization for drugs is an argument that taking drugs should not be a crime in the first place. Also, many who argue for the legalization of drugs base their position on the fact (and it is a fact) that many of the crimes associated with drug use (theft, violence, gang activity, etc.) are more a product of the illegality of the drugs than of any inherent characteristics in the drugs themselves.
I know that, from my own point of view at least, my position on the legalization of drugs goes hand in hand with a strong position about personal responsibility. I think we should let people take drugs, and if taking drugs leads in some cases to criminal acts (theft, violence, etc), then we should punish those acts. I don’t think that being high on anything (whether it’s alcohol, meth, heroin, whatever) should excuse a person’s criminal acts.
I’m still having trouble understanding why this is the fault of the Democrats.
Does this mean that the Republicans who knew about the situation have NO culpability for not bringing it up? Does the apparent fact that they cared more about Foley’s seat than they did about the minors he seems to have harassed not matter?
They had a year to bring this up. More than a year, as apparently there have been allegations of inappropriate behavior for over a decade. Do you have a good reason that they didn’t? That they shouldn’t have? Something possibly more intelligent than Newt Gingrich’s “gay-bashing” allegation?
In this situation, the Democrats sure as hell used this to make hay. It’s different if you consider the hypocrisy of men who tout themselves as being the party of personal responsibility blaming everyone but themselves.
Had Republican leadership stood up a year ago, six months ago, a week before the news came out, and gone to the Ethics committee with their concerns, if they’d properly investigated the allegations of the situation (considering the content of some of those instant messages, I cannot FATHOM why they would not have taken some kind of action), if they had even just stood up when the news came out and said “We are now investigating this to the furthest reaches. We regret that we did not know of the situation before (x date) and did not want to smear the name of a valued colleague, and for that we take full responsibility,” they would not be catching so much shit.
Instead they have hidden and ignored and denied and blamed. And they do it all the time.
Now, I’m not going to say Democrats have never done it either. That party’s not a pile of saintly behavior. It’s not just a Republican thing, it’s a politician thing. But it’s disgusting for them to stand on such a hypocritical platform of personal responsibility. Accept that they are imperfect, that there is a reason the word ‘politician’ is almost a synonym for ‘liar’, and accept that it isn’t just the Dems that have made it so.
And for the record, while I greatly admire Clinton, he DID take advantage of his office and he DID sexually harass women, and I do not admire those qualities in him. I do not say that what he did is any better than what Foley did, save that his targets were not underaged. But I do find it rather amusing and predictable that he was attacked for what he did by the same people who are getting oh-so-defensive about Democratic attacks on Foley.
Additionally. Your constant griping about how little you’re appreciated makes you sound like a teenager. Have you ever considered that maybe there’s more than one reason you do not find universal agreement here?
Hear, hear, Ninja
The hypocrisy of the GOP and its supporters at this point…well, it doesn’t amaze me, but it does disgust me. When I think of the time and money and media saturation that involved a legal, consensual blow job and the “moral outrage” that so many wallowed in…
And now this: sexual harassment and predation by a GOPer that is met with finger pointing, blame game, dismissal and lame attempts to pin it on Democrats; it all leaves me certain that the GOP is most certainly NOT the party of family values, morals or ethics. I am not new to this way of thinking, but I am disheartened by the further confirmation of me beliefs.
Christ-I want to say to all of them: “have you no sense of decency, sir? Have you none?” [paraphrased]
But I know what the answer to that is: no, none. Power before party and country. And fuck whoever gets in our way-even high school students. How do they sleep at night?