I Used to Privately Snicker at the Dems

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
The reason I always run back in the direction of the Libertarians is that every time you get near a politician who you think has real principles, you wind up sadly mistaken. These are people who are attracted to power in the first place. There is immense pressure on them to stay in power. Not only does it give them the power and recognition they crave, but they have throngs of donors, sponsors, campaign workers and a large section of the public counting on them to stay in power. They operate in a strange world with its own rules of behaviour, disconnected from the public. They have gifts thrown at them, ‘advisors’ who only care about keeping their jobs and will counsel the politician to do stupid things.

It’s a corrupting environment. Even the ones who go in on principle often find themselves in a minefield of political traps, corruption, and ‘business as usual’ unethical behaviour, and they wind up having to play the game just to stay even.
[/quote]
This is why, on this side of the U.S.-Canadian border, we have a system of checks and balances in our government. The men who wrote the Constitution didn’t assume that men of principle would govern - quite the opposite, in fact.

One would hope that there’d be depths to which even fairly unprincipled men would not stoop, just to save one lousy seat in the House of Representatives. These are those depths.

And ordinary Americans have no trouble realizing this - and are upset about it in a manner that they weren’t upset about Clinton.

Y’know, Sam, it’s been nearly a decade now. Has Monica Lewinsky, even once, so much as hinted that she was pressured into her relationship with Bill Clinton?

It may have been tawdry, but if there’s any evidence that it wasn’t 100% consensual, I’d like to see it.

162

Drudge Radio Clip transcript

[QUOTE]
"Clip #1: And if anything, these kids are less innocent – these 16 and 17 year-old beasts . . . and I’ve seen what they’re doing on YouTube and I’ve seen what they’re doing all over the internet – oh yeah – you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You’re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven’t got the whole story on this .[/QUOTE

“Will no one think of the adults.”

163

Offered without comment:

164

[QUOTE=Lissa]
In a good debate, as you refer to, each situation must be examined objectively. I know this is the pit, but calling someone naive for admitting something like this is not part of rational discourse.

Everyone knows I am a huge critic of Republican Party policy and especially of the Bush Administration. But, I aslo believe the only chance I ever have of convincing others of the validity of my assertions rests in rational discourse that encourages them to explore their commonly held beliefs and reject the notions of partisanship. To accomplish this, I must be also willing to do the same.

The common occurrence is for partisan individuals to use any single incident to demonize the entire competing party. Thus, when people criticize Bricker of being naive and ask him to refer to Republicans, in total, as evil, retarded, bigotted fascists, they themselves committ the same offense that Bricker has come in here to reveal.

My call is for rational discourse.
[/QUOTE]
You have grasped the concept, but the chances of achieving it are slim.

There are a number of posters here on the SDMB who are incapable of rational discourse. This is not limited to the Pit; they are equally partisan-to-the-point-of-irrationality in GD (and, in some cases, CS as well).

This is not rational discourse. The Usual Suspects don’t do that in cases like Foley’s - they do a Two Minute Hate. They also don’t do it when Democrats are caught with their hand in the cookie jar (or down someone’s pants). There, they do another Two Minute Hate, but aimed at Republicans.

Did you notice the foam-flecked hysteria with which Polycarp greeted my post, which asked a question of Bricker? Poly had his heart set on his hate, and not only is any defence of Foley (which I did not do) going to be attacked with venom, anything other than full participation in the Hate is going to get it as well.

Bricker is a fair-minded person, obviously. None of those who call him names for not joining in their mindless hatred of all things Republican are fair-minded persons. Can you imagine a person like rjung starting a thread attacking a liberal Democrat for anything? Can you envision lissener Pitting a gay liberal? Try starting a thread that “Clinton abused his office and sexually harassed women” and see how much agreement you get from all the “fair-minded” liberals hereabouts.

This is a heavily slanted board. Threads about Republicans are met with a chorus of agreement that “Republicans are eeeeeevil.”

So are threads about Democrats.

It’s always OK if a Democrat does it. It’s never OK if a Republican does it.

Regards,
Shodan

165

[QUOTE=Shodan]
This is not rational discourse. The Usual Suspects don’t do that in cases like Foley’s - they do a Two Minute Hate. They also don’t do it when Democrats are caught with their hand in the cookie jar (or down someone’s pants). There, they do another Two Minute Hate, but aimed at Republicans.

[/QUOTE]

It is remarkable how clearly you can see that sin in other people, and yet can’t look at your own posts in this very thread.

Daniel

166

[QUOTE=lissener]
Thanks for making my point for me; all your examples are examples of rational discussion, not partisanship or name calling.
[/QUOTE]

No, they are not lissener. Read again please.

167

I’ve not heard of this “Clinton” of whom you speak; is he perhaps a famous actor? I think a thread on this matter would be very well received - such important yet seemingly unknown events should not go without comment. Quick, Shodan - time is of the essence! This must be discussed now! To hell with the liberal censors, let loose your insights!

168

Well, how do Dems treat Democratic scandals?

Take this year, for instance. Dem Congressmen Jefferson ($80K in the freezer) and Mollohan (can’t remember what his shady deals were) have been caught doing unquestionably bad things. In the case of Foley, the uproar is not about the fact that he did bad shit; the problem is, he did bad shit and his party leadership had plenty of reason to know it might be going on, and kept it covered up.

So: any evidence that this happened with Jefferson or Mollohan?

169

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
I’ve not heard of this “Clinton” of whom you speak; is he perhaps a famous actor?
[/QUOTE]

How can you not have heard of the enemy who causes all our nation’s problems? He steals the corn, he upsets the milk-pails, he breaks the eggs, he tramples the seedbeds, he gnaws the bark off the fruit trees. :rolleyes:

170

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Hey, I laughed.

Admittedly, it was an evil laugh, but what else do you expect from me?
[/QUOTE]

[Sally Field voice] They like me; they really like me![/SFV]

205 names on a list? Holy crap. And if even one of them is a Dem (and odds are…)–then this will become a Godless Liberal Problem. :rolleyes:

171

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
It is remarkable how clearly you can see that sin in other people, and yet can’t look at your own posts in this very thread.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Has Shodan ever once made a substantive contribution to a political thread? It’s a bit ironic that someone whose only contribution to political discussion is wildly partisan sniping, someone who exists to tow the party line and can’t even scrape together the intelligence to do that with argument and reason but instead resorts to insults, is whining about how mean the Democrats are.

Hey, Shodan. Do you have a tiny shred of dignity or principle left in you? Don’t you agree that the problem with the Foley scandal is the Republican legislator who attempted to prey on teenagers and the Republican leadership who covered it up? Or do you really - as your posts here indicate - only have a problem with the fact that the Democrats responded to it? Is that truly the problem here - too much Democratic fussing?

You really are the embodiment of It’s Okay If You’re A Republican, aren’t you? So long as your team wins, nothing else counts. It doesn’t matter if they’re sexually harassing 16-year-olds - the only problem here is the Democrats making such a big deal out of it. Is that about right?

172

[QUOTE=Shodan]
There are a number of posters here on the SDMB who are incapable of rational discourse.
[/QUOTE]
Truer words were never spoken. Physician, heal thyself.

173

[QUOTE=Shodan]
…snip…

It’s always OK if a Democrat does it. It’s never OK if a Republican does it.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

So how is the view up on your cross?

That entire long post came across as a long whine.

I have had discussions about Republicans and the Party on the board without the rancor you inevitable receive. I believe it is the poster and not the subject. I am republican and you regularly piss me off with your posts.
Being Republican does not mean you have to support or like the current administrations. The party consists of more than the current group. I agree with those that say no politician is without faults and that all successful politicians have had to compromise their personal morals. You hope to find a candidate that has a history of policy decision you agree with and minimal corruption. That is about all we can hope for.

Bringing Clinton up in this thread should really just embarrass you. It would be like bringing up Nixon for no other reason in a thread about Clinton. You should be ashamed of yourself. You come across as a Shill and not a poster of integrity.
In contrast you make **Bricker ** look that much more like a Mensch.

Jim {BTW: that is the ideal word, **Bricker ** you are a Mensch}

174

[QUOTE=Excalibre]
You really are the embodiment of It’s Okay If You’re A Republican, aren’t you? So long as your team wins, nothing else counts. It doesn’t matter if they’re sexually harassing 16-year-olds - the only problem here is the Democrats making such a big deal out of it. Is that about right?
[/QUOTE]

Just to pre-empt the next Shodan post. Drudge are now reporting that one of a series of the emails might have been sent when the recipient was 18. So that’s alright then. Glad we’ve cleared this little misunderstanding up. Move along, nothing to see here folks.

175

Where would anyone get the idea that hatred of all things Republican is necessarily mindless? Simple observation of the world around us and thoughtful analysis are perfectly capable of yielding such a result.

176

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Bricker is a fair-minded person, obviously. None of those who call him names for not joining in their mindless hatred of all things Republican are fair-minded persons.
[/QUOTE]

And not a single one is a True Scotsman, either, I’ll bet.

177

[QUOTE=Lissa]
In this case, we have a poster who had vehemently supported many of the Republican’s actions all throughout this board admitting that this is a clear cut example of impropriety that has eroded his trust in the Republican party. Then, many people jump in and say yup all (R’s) are mindless cretins who engage in illicit behavior. Bricker was admonishing himself for always assuming the best about Republicans. Then, he is criticized for not always assuming the worst.
[/quote]
Bullshit.

He was not criticized for always assuming the worst. Read what i wrote, and apply your intelligence to it, rather than simply assuming that any criticism of Bricker was nothing but knee-jerk partisanship.

As i’ve already said, Bricker’s OP strongly implies that it’s only this one incident that is a problem, and that if the Republicans do the right thing here, they can continue to lay claim being defenders of law and morality. I disagree with that characterization of the situation. Should i pretend to agree with it, and should i rain down praise on Bricker, simply because he has decided not to defend the indefensible?

And in my follow-up post, i gave a further explanation of my positon, and conceded that it had much to do with political platform, and with the fact the current crop of Republicans had proven themselves so untrustworthy as to make me incredulous that anyone could support them at all.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
In a good debate, as you refer to, each situation must be examined objectively. I know this is the pit, but calling someone naive for admitting something like this is not part of rational discourse.
[/quote]
Jesus Christ, learn to read, will you?

No-one accused him of being “naive for admitting something like this.” In fact, people said almost exactly the opposite. If anyone accused him of being naive, it was for not waking up to the dishonesty and the lack of integrity in the current Republican Party well before now. Quite a different thing.

You keep harping on about “rational discussion” as if you knew what you were talking about, but, as lissener pointed out, every quote you gave in your earlier post was an example of ratrional discussion. The only thing different between those posts and what you want to see is that those people didn’t get down on their knees and offer to give Bricker a blow-job for admitting that the sky is sometimes blue.

178

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Where would anyone get the idea that hatred of all things Republican is necessarily mindless? Simple observation of the world around us and thoughtful analysis are perfectly capable of yielding such a result.
[/QUOTE]

I know you are mostly joking but would you call Mayor Bloomberg of NYC (Republican) worthy of hatred. How about Governor Pataki of New York? Senator McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell, etc. ? Are the really worthy of hatred?
It is possible that moderate, non-religious right Republicans will take back the party, I know it does not look too hopeful right now, but if the Dems hand the Reps a defeat in 06 and 08, the party will move back to the middle. So it is in everybody’s best interest that the Dems come up with a good candidate this time. There is also the long shot that McCain or Rudy or Bloomberg will get the nomination.

Jim

179

[QUOTE=mhendo]
As i’ve already said, Bricker’s OP strongly implies that it’s only this one incident that is a problem, and that if the Republicans do the right thing here, they can continue to lay claim being defenders of law and morality. I disagree with that characterization of the situation. Should i pretend to agree with it, and should i rain down praise on Bricker, simply because he has decided not to defend the indefensible?
[/quote]

In your view, apparently, the decision to remove habeas review from among the judicial review options the unlawful combatant detainees have available to them is on par with this instance of sexual predation: completely morally wrong, utterly and obviously indefensible.

I don’t agree. I think there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides, and a person of decency and fair-mindedness can support the decision or oppose it without losing the imprimateur of fair-mindedness.

So, too, with other issues we’ve debated here.

This issue is different, in that I believe it is not possible to support either Foley’s actions OR the actions of any person in authority who knew about Foley’s actions and deliberately did nothing or actively sought to conceal them.

I am certainly willing to listen to an argument to the contrary. But if you are inveighing against my continued support of, say, the pro-life position or my support of the war in Iraq as de facto evidence of a moral perfidity… wel, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

180

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I know you are mostly joking but would you call Mayor Bloomberg of NYC (Republican) worthy of hatred. How about Governor Pataki of New York? Senator McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell, etc. ? Are the really worthy of hatred?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I didn’t think Giuliani was worthy of scorn, anyway, until he agreed to do ads for Santorum. Now…meh.