Oh, you mean deliberately. Couldn’t figure out what Dilbert had to do with this.
I think I’ve pretty well established that the outcome was dishonest, Gore was robbed, and there’s nothing black-helicopterish about it. The only question remaining, IMHO, is did some persons or groups deliberately do the stealing. That’s the question that you’re raising here.
I don’t think I made that claim in so many words, but I’m willing to debate that with you if you like - as long as you’re conceding the rest of it. Because intent is pretty subjective territory, and we’re likely to have very different views of what’s sufficient proof. And knowing that in advance, it ain’t worth the trouble if, should you feel that argument slipping away, you jump back to the ground I feel we’ve already covered.
Or we can debate what’s on the table now first - whether the disenfranchising of non-felons did in all likelihood reverse the outcome, and then some - and leave the whole intent bit open for now. Your call.
RTF, you know that I’m disgraphic. Frankly, I decided long ago that I was going to type what I mean and if someone wanted to quibble over spelling rather than addressing the substance of my post, well, that would demonstrate their lack and not my own. I find it interesting that it’s you who so often feels the need to address my spelling rather than the content of my posts.
No, I don’t think we’ve established anything like that at all, mainly because of the pejorative terms you’re using, and yes, that is the question I’m raising here, in fact the only one I’ve been making since this Florida hijack began. Let’s try an analogy, although God knows these rarely work here because people get bogged down in going back and forth as to how the chosen analogy is different from the situation at hand rather than how it is the same. Suppose you have 2 rear end collisions. In case 1, it was caused by the trailing driver looking away from the road for a minute to fiddle with the radio, and in case 2 it was caused by the driver in front, maneuvering his car so that the car behind him would strike it and he could file a bogus insurance claim. Two separate accidents, both identical in their particulars, but with two very different causes, which makes one an accident and one a crime. The terms you used above, that I quoted, imply intent and direction, and that’s what I’m asking you to show proof of (That’s also the black helicopter part). Dishonest =/ inaccurate and “robbed” implies intent. If you reach into my pocket and take $5, you have robbed me; if I drop $5 on the ground and you come along and pick it up, you have not robbed me (one is a crime, one is not, see?), but I’m out a Lincoln either way. You can state that people were disenfranchised unjustly in 2000, and I won’t argue with you. You can claim that if they hadn’t been, the election results would have been different, and I’ll give you a “maybe” (there is no way to know for certain at this late date one way or the other-and remember, I’m on record as saying that the correct way to handle this mess would have been to have a complete recount of the entire state), but when you go so far as to say that Gore was robbed by the dilbert actions of the Republicans, well, then, I expect you to demonstrate proof of that claim. When you say that, what you are talking about is treason against the Constitution of the United States of America, and that raises the burdon of proof beyond a collection of “don’t you find it odd that XXX” and “oh, it’s just a coincidence that XXX”. By proof I mean actual evidence that you could take into court.
And as far as I’ve seen, you don’t have any.
And as a further aside, I wonder what your thoughts are on what I posted earlier WRT the size of the conspiracy that would have been needed in the event that a person or agency decided that they did want to change the outcome of the election beforehand. I know my conclusions are based upon a couple of assumptions, but I believe they are sound assumptions, and the whole thing is a lot more logical than many of the wild conspiracy theories that have been throw about in the last six years. I still feel that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate is a valid principle here, or, as BrainGlutton said the other day in another thread (Hanlon’s law) “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.”
Really? 100 years, huh? One hundred years. That’s a long damn time. Generations. How soon we forget about [url=“Henry M. Jackson - Wikipedia”]Henry M “Scoop” Jackson
[/quote]
.
Forget “Scoop” Jackson. His determination that the US be strong and involved in international affairs is anathema to those of you worshiping at the church of true left wing liberalism( no matter how it won the cold war. Pfft! Forget that, man, that’s ancient history! ). How about an obscure politician named John F. Kennedy who said (It’s his most famous quote):
“Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country”??? Fuck that. Modern liberalism is all about “What can my country do for me”, or as P.J. O’Rourke put it; “Hey, now we can all vote ourselves rich!”
BrainGlutton, you say to me that I have no idea what the Democratic party could or should mean because my values are 100 years out of date? You’re wrong, I say that I have an iron hold on what the Democratic party stood for long before it went to shit, and I have historical precedent to back me up. And it wasn’t any 100 years ago. You’re a librarian, do some research.
Please explain this further, because it is at complete odds with my perception of the interests of liberals, and to a lesser extent of Democrats. For example, how would support for a minimum wage increase, disinclination towards tax cuts for the wealthy, protection of the environment, advocating universal health care and any host of similar measures be seen as selfishly motivated? The reason I accept labels such as liberal and Democrat is because they tend to advocate for positions that fit a “greater good” model, or may defend the rights of the powerless.
Please explain how liberals are all about “what can my country do for me.”
OK, now you’re changing the subject, or so it seems to me – all along I thought you were calling the Dems the party of “freedom” in terms of domestic policy. Certainly the Dems always have wanted America to remain a free country – how does that distinguish them from the Pubs?
Also, you – and Jackson, and all American voters, and all Dopers – should beware of false tautologies. Remember well:
Democracy != freedom.
Equality != freedom.
Democracy = equality, but only in limited aspects.
Hm? That is neither characteristically Dem nor in any way new. Politicians of all parties have always told voters, “Vote for me! It’ll be good for your pocketbook!” They merely differ on which policies are promised to achieve that.
Time permitting, I shall. But I’m fairly certain it’s been more than 100 years since Dems have, e.g., given more priority to a business’s right to make money in its own way than to the community’s interest in the larger effects of all that (which is how Libertarians think). I mean, did the Dems even consistently oppose the 16th Amendment (authorizing the federal income tax)? If they were the kind of party you seem to be describing, they would have.
Alright, you’ve thrown me a handful of balls, I’ll swing at them.
Minimum wage:
I support the idea of a minimum wage, and I’d even support a small increase in the MW, it’s been a long time since it went up and inflation keeps creeping along. However, what a lot of liberals seem to have lost sight of in my opinion is that the MW is supposed to be exactly that: A minimum. Working for MW should keep you in food and shelter and that’s about it. I’ve read articles before where people suggest the MW should be 8, 10, 12 dollars an hour or even higher. That is, I think, madness. Not only would it drive millions of employers out of business, but it would also fuel rampant inflation. If you wanna make more than MW, then you work to increase your value as an employee. Go to night school, learn a skill, whatever. Society owes each of it’s members the ability to earn enough for food and shelter. It does not owe them a house in the suburbs with a two cars in the garage. (not that raising the MW to, say, $20 and hour, would give everyone that either, but the trend tends to be away from a “minimum” wage and towards a “generous” wage)
disinclination towards tax cuts for the wealthy:
This is one thing I’ve never understood. I am far from wealthy (far, FAR from wealthy at the moment), but I got a tax cut too. This benefited me and my family. If a wealthy person also got a tax cut, what bearing does that have on me? There are two reasons, I think. Number one is the myth of the idle rich. While there are some rich people who idle fortunes that their ancestors made away, for every Kennedy there are hundreds of rich people who work their asses off. I personally know perhaps a double handful of millionares and multi millionares, and every single one of them works like a dog. Number two is simple jealousy. Rich people already pay a disproportunate share of taxes in this country, the top 1% of wage earners pay something like 20-30% of the taxes collected. Who cares? Soak the bastards, they’re rich and I’m not! Fuck that. Being rich is a reward for hard work or smart investment. It’s something to strive towards, not something that people should be penalized for achieving.
protection of the environment:
This is an easy one. Nobody should be allowed to despoil the envirenment wantonly. However, the modern church of liberal thought holds “the environment” as some sort of diety. Everyone is all in a tizzy over “global warming”, yet even the experts don’t have a consensus on what it actually is, what’s causing it or weather we should even attempt to do anything about it. Doesn’t matter. Pass a law! Sign a treaty! (Kyoto, which wouldn’t have done a damn thing anyway cite.) Create more government to FIX THIS PROBLEM NOW! Here’s the really crazy part, the part that makes me want to pound my head into a brick wall for relaxation, even the best solutions to the CO2 problem (nukes, alternate energy sources) are rejected by liberals because they’d be “bad for the environment”. (Nukes are infinitely safer than they were 30 years ago, yet environmentalists oppose them, wind farms are rejected as “ugly” in NIMBYism gone mad). “Protecting the environment” is a handy little catch phrase, after all, who would oppose that? In practice though it achieves a level of insanity that the greatest Marx brother’s routine could never hope to match.
universal health care:
I’ll quote what I said to BrainGlutton in another thread a couple of weeks ago. Everyone thinks that UHC is a great idea in the abstract. “UHC that won’t cost me a cent and gives me unlimited medical coverage? Sign me up!” The problem is that most people realize that there are 50 million Americans without health insurance right now. Even assuming you could achieve a one to one transfer of the money spent on health insurance now to a government program, saying that it’ll be no problem insuring 300 million people for the money that currently insures 250 million people is just not credible. Claiming that a government sponsored UHC program would be efficient and allow citizens full choice of doctors and treatment is laughable. Government gives you the DMV, not Marcus Welby. Recognizing there is a problem is easy. Proposing to solve it buy instituting a UHC plan that “Won’t cost you anything more, really! And you’ll get full choice in your medical care! And ice cream! and bikes!” is laughable. Most people not in your base (and remember, we’re talking about attracting the independents here) recognize that it’s an empty promise to garner votes.
Everything you’ve mentioned is a “good idea” in the abstract, but all of them also boil down to “have the government give me more”. That’s asking, no, demanding that “your country do for you”
And THAT’S what I think of Joe Lieberman!
Why didn’t you simply answer the question I asked. What makes the democrats the party of “What can the government do for me.” Even in your microfocus on the examples I gave as to why they aren’t, you failed to illustrate your claim.
How, for example, is it selfish of me to be concerned about the environment? The negative effects of failing to do so probably won’t directly effect me.
I make far more than the minimum wage, so that won’t affect me. I’m fairly satisfied with my health care coverage - I have some, which is a good start (and your argument against it is nothing more than a factless rant). A tax cut would be of benefit to me, so why oppose it.
Why do I hold positions that are not in my interest, and accordingly align myself with the democrats? Your thinking on this is just not at all clear, but that isn’t a surprise coming from a Republican who thinks others will believe he’s a democrat.
Please think harder before spouting nonsense about the Democrats being about “what can the government do for me” unless you can weave an argument about how each democrat will benefit from minimum wage increases and universal health care and abortion rights and gay marriage and saving Social Security from phase out and protecting the environment…
Try “What can the government do for all of us” and you are on the right track.
True, quite true. But not entirely true. I, for one, have a very hard time thinking of Zell Miller as a Democrat any more, and I know I’m not alone. Partisan
politics is one field where “no true Scotsman” is not a fallacy.
Well Brain, if you recognize that fact, then you’re awful close to understanding what seems to baffle so many people on these boards, how can a poster with conservative leanings call himself a Democrat? It’s simple, in fact I believe it was you who said “Republicans want to regulate your bedroom and Democrats want to regulate your workplace”, or words to that effect. Those are the types of things that the government should be involved in, core tennants of the Democratic party that I do believe strongly in: Equal rights and opportunities for all citizens of the U.S. Racial equality. Equal rights for women. The right of same sex couples to get married. The right of a woman to an abortion. Seperation of church and state. Affordable public education. A viable social safety net. Minimum standards for wage and limits on weekly work hours. Social security. Those are just off the top of my head.
BUT
The problem with the Democratic party, IMO, is that many of these fine, necessary principles have been corrupted into entitlement programs that go far beyond the scope of what was originaly intended or is wise. To wit:
Equal rights and opportunities for all citizens of the U.S. =/ Equal rights and opportunaty of illegal aliens, and it certainly =/ equal results. Racial equality =/ racial preferences, even in the name of “balancing” what happened before. Equal rights for women =/ preferential treatement for women, nor should it come at the expense of men. I could go on, but I think you get the point. The differences I have with the Democratic party are not on these basic principles (although I have some differences with some basic principles, gun control springs to mind), they are in the application of those principles.
Knew you were disgraphic?! I didn’t even know there was such a word until reading your post just now.
But, um, there’s spellcheck.
The reason I addressed your spelling is that it was why I didn’t understand what you were asking initially.
If you have a problem typing your letters in the right order and aren’t willing to use a spell-check program to correct your spelling, AND you want the sympathy and understanding of those of us who are reading your words, you might START by taking it for granted that occasionally you will be misunderstood, and cutting appropriate slack.
“So often”?
Please do elaborate. I might’ve noticed your spelling sometime before, but I certainly haven’t made a habit (and, more important, an issue) of it, you know it, and you are therefore a liar.
Prove me wrong if you think you can.
The only reason I brought it up this time is that the word was sufficiently misspelled that its meaning didn’t register as I was reading the first post where you meant to say ‘deliberately.’
Awwwwww…
The rest of us know how to scroll up, skip back to the previous page, etc. Sorry you don’t.
There’s a reason for that: if the analogy differs sufficiently from the situation at hand, the point made by the analogy is not relevant to the situation at hand.
I’m still trying to figure out where the analogy ends and where you get back into your argument. Best as I can tell, it’s such a piss-poor analogy that there’s no point discussing it.
If that’s your standard, then of course I don’t. You have any idea what it takes, to take a case into court? None of us here could manage that.
I don’t care about any of that; I don’t see how it’s got any relevance to any claims I’ve made here, and I’ll let you and the others fight that one out. Have a nice day.
With integrity like this, there’s no way Joe’ll bolt the democratic party!
-Insight On the News is the weekly sister publication of The Washington times, America’s Newspaper.
