He said – and why you’re using an example of his intellectual honesty as if it’s a bad thing, I don’t know – Reese is that now, but that he was not at the time of the quote Finn initially supplied. And anyway, you didn’t say he put forth an argument that doesn’t make sense, or really address most of what he wrote that. You claimed he “waved it away” when clearly he addressed it extensively, right or wrong.
Coordinate, whatever for? My only view is your man is a dishonest wanker with a rather strong tendency to fling poo rather than actually stop and think. His entire argument trying to justify the mis-cite was an exercise in idiocy. The particular writer he chose was not Left in any sense, and his blundering about only proved that. All he need have done from the get go was admit that he grabbed a bad example, and put up another one. It is not like there is a lack of proper real Leftists writings that he could not track down to illustrate the point. (That is, there are plenty). It does become an offence however when someone is wrong and smears his critics rather nastily as he has been doing. Your defence of the git is just sad.
Please read the Pew cite again. For instance:
And as our newbie was kind enough to point out, a strict reliance on the Constitution (as Reese does to justify the Civil War) was a hallmark of the Conservative Democrats of the 1930’s.
Your ‘kicker’ doesn’t prove anything, anyways. I’ve already cited that there are Conservatives on the Left. That Reese would choose to prefer the Democrats because he thought that they were honest while the Republicans were dishonest speaks to his support for the Democrats as a party, not his opposition.
Yet again, Pew defines his politics as fitting into the Left under the umbrella of the Conservative Democrats: moderate on foreign policy (not an isolationist as you claim), generally against social welfare programs and almost always believing that hard personal effort can lead to upward mobility in any case.
Pew, in fact, specifically stated among other things that some Conservative Democrats do not oppose gay marriage. Your inability to see things except in singular little boxes is limiting. Yes, Libertarians view gay marriage in that manner. So do some Conservative Democrats. Again, according to Pew. Also according to Pew, Conservative Democrats are marked by a moderate foreign policy which would indeed include the idea that we shouldn’t have a global military reach or entangling alliances or invade Iran and we should have open talks with Syria as Pelosi did.
Pew is a respected and venerable institution whose stock in trade is the study of politics.
You, aint.
Speaking of which, Maeglin? Pew’s facts disagree with your anecdotes. And Pew trumps you.
With 51% of Conservative Democrats self-identifying as “strong Democrats”, you’re blowing smoke when you claim that it’s some sort of strategic choice.
Back to our newbie:
I’d also point out that it’s non generally a good idea to be stupid while erroneously accusing me of being ‘dim’. You’re failed to realize that I was basing my claims off of Pew’s definitions and didn’t “assert” anything to “cover up my error”. I found a man who would’ve been a Conservative Democrat in 1998, who by Pew’s standards was on the Left when he wrote the article. I don’t care about your standards. I especially don’t care if you think that Pew’s standards makes them (or me, or anybody else) somehow foolish.
You didn’t even realize that I didn’t use a strawman.
I was mocking your absurd claims that I was somehow using Pew to “cover up” my claims, rather than having based my claims on Pew’s definitions all along. Hence the reference to time travel, which evidently whooshed right over your head.
And while I’m at it, the New Deal?
The very first anti-New Deal politicians came from the Democratic party. Specifically from pro-business Conservative Democrats forming the American Liberty League, led in part by Al Smith, the Democratic nominee for President in 1928. Among other things, it pledged firm allegiance to the Constitution and to property rights via capitalism. (sound familiar?)
So in calling Reese an anti-New Dealer… you just called him a Conservative Democrat.
Whee!
And thanks Edison, I’m tired of this round robin sort of thing and I could be blowing ghouls heads off using V.A.T.S right now. I think I’ll do that instead.
Boyo Jim, we ask that people not inform others that they are on or being added to their ignore list. So please don’t do this.
Why? It’s amply clear that Reese does not fit into the category you need him to fit into so as to avoid admitting a simple fucking error.
Looking at the background on the man, he’s clearly a Right Isolationist hostile to
For instance:
Look at the join dates asshole, you’re the “newbie.”
As for your strained argument - well, what ‘Conservative Democrats’ are these? The ones that this Pew category is calling "New Dealers’?
Or an ad hoc version you just made up?
In short, your categories of Left and Right mean what you want them to mean so as to avoid admitting you fucked up.
Queerly contradicting your Pew Holy Grail definition, but it’s all ad hoc shit spewing to avoid admitting error, right mate?
Naw newbie, you’re new to the thread and came in only to pitch shit with no interest in honest discussion at all. You can’t even keep track of your own arguments. I suppose I could call you noob if you’d prefer?
I already gave their name, and the name of their leader. And no, the fact that America has had Conservative Democrats for quote some time isn’t exactly a secret. But I guess Edsforth isn’t a reliable source either, just like Pew, eh?
So, yeah, in your anger you missed the fact that the very first anti-New Deal coalition was made up of Conservative Democrats, including being led by a former Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land. So your allegation that Reese might have been an ‘anti-New Dealer’ means that by your own allegations, he would’ve fit right in with the Conservative Democrats of the 1930’s.
Are you playing dumb?
Pew (again, a trusted source) cites the fact that there are Conservatives on the Left. You (again, not a trusted source) claim that relying on Pew’s political terminology is making categories mean whatever I want to mean so I don’t have to admit an error.
I’d point you to my earlier act of mocking you about how I’ve kept the same definitions all through and based them on the Pew categories before I started posting at all, rather than switching definitions so I don’t have to “admit” my “error” .
But if it went over your head once, and then a second time when i explicitly explained it, why spend any more time on you?
You mean, the Pew definition that lists Conservative Democrats as being on the Left? Yes, an historical example of Leftists Conservative Democrats clearly contradicts Pew’s claim that there are Conservative Democrats on the Left.
Now, really, your sound and fury doesn’t signify much and I’ll admit that responding to this one last post is kind of like tonguing a sore tooth. I know I shouldn’t, but Ogdamn it was just too tempting.
Enjoy your rage, I’m trying to figure out how to kill Deathclaws.
Go for the eyes.
Well, it worked in the old games.
So just to summarize, in case I’m missing something, the argument is that this statement:
is supported by the articles of Charley Reese, a self-described conservative who is registered to vote with the Democratic party? So far, most of the posts in this thread since then have centered around the assertion that anyone registered Democrat is a representative member of the Left (which is wrong, of course).
But even if that was true, who gives a rip? None of his articles support the original thesis, i.e. reflect a viewpoint of someone who blames America as the one and only cause of terrorism while at the same time not calling abortion bombers terrorists because they want to punish religious lunatics. And even if he espoused exactly that viewpoint, that’s hardly evidence of a significant enough portion of the Left to justify such a sweeping statement (or even mention at all, really).
FinnAgain, you made a statement which is somewhere between completely wrong and not very interesting depending on how narrowly you decide to define “nutters on the Left”, and you’ve backed it up not at all. Just give it up, already. It’s OK to cop to overly dramatic rhetoric once in a while. Even when it’s the single most egregious example of such on the entire Internet, past, present and future, for all possible outcomes in every parallel universe.
For someone who is against flinging poo you do a lot of it.
You’re about as dim as he is (I suppose this would be why you’re his sole ally in this sad spectacle). My issue with the idiot is he’s clearly absolutely wrong in his cite, and on the mere basis of not wishing to admit a minor error, he flings poo uselessly.
Savage your opponent all you want if you have your facts.
Doesn’t quite work… I’m lvl 7 with 75 points in small arms and maxed out action points, and my combat shotgun simply can’t do enough damage before the damn monster jumps on me and eviscerates me in two swipes. You also can’t target eyes in this game, only heads 
I love the turn based element, and I love V.A.T.S. but goooood lord if I thought this thread was frustrating, trying to kill a Deathclaw without the proper weaponry is even more so. I might try leveling up some and raising my Luck so I can score more crit hits, or something. Maybe I can figure out a way to trap him with mines, too. The AI seems to ignore them and monsters will follow you in pretty much a straight line. I don’t have any mines… but I can probably go to the town with the playground to find some more.
Ahem.
Nope. It’s supported by my own experiences with various drinking buddies in college, posters on other message boards, and such. I did my best to find a cite online because it would satisfy requests for a cite and I can’t cite my drinking buddies.
Well, we’ve done that argument to death, to be sure. I contend that that Democrats are the party on the left of center in America, while the Republicans are on the right. Pew supports my assertion in its political categorization and inclusion of Conservatives among the Left as Conservative Democrats.
At this point, I’m not sure what else I can say. You say it’s wrong (of coruse), I say it’s right (of course).
Ahhh, but that wasn’t the original thesis. Merely that there were a non-zero number of nutters on the left who reflexively blamed America for all the instability/terrorism/whatever in the world and suggest radical changes in American foreign power (one buddy of mine once told me we should simply stop using oil, go cold turkey.) But when it came to abortion clinic bombers, the leftist nutters I’ve know in person or spoken with on the 'net didn’t blame the victim at all and only blame the bombers, not even suggesting any changes in abortion or clinic policy.
The point was also that there are also a non-zero number of nutters on the right who cannot bring themselves to strongly and forceful condemn abortion clinic bombers as terrorists.
So, I suppose, my point was that there are a non-zero number of nutters on both sides with some interesting ideological blinders on.
And, somewhere back in the thread, I posted quotes from Reese where he says that America is the cause of terrorism, and if American foreign policy was to be changed, terrorism would cease. Not be reduced, but cease. So that was at least the rip I gave for using that as an example. 
One of the first challenges I received in this thread, actually, was that I was applying it to the entire left. I pointed out that I was not. I can understand that the thread has devolved into a shit flinging contest and you easily could’ve missed the post, but hopefully you can understand why answering the same question multiple times has gotten a bit annoying for me, yes?
In any case, honestly, I’ve been posting here for five years now, often rabidly opposed to the fallacies of composition and division. I’ve drawn quit a lot of flack over the years for that actually, IIRC. Do you really think I’d become a partisan whore and start broad brushing the entire left, now? Why?
~sigh~
- I have backed it up. I’ve had personal experiences, which I can’t cite. I cited a Conservative Democrat[sub]1998[/sub] blaming all terrorism on America.
- It is exceedingly narrow and not all that interesting. I was simply talking about a subset of the group of nutters on the left. Not even all the nutters on the left, let alone all the people on the left, nutter or not.
- There are nutters on the left. There are nutters on the right. They’re the lunatic fringes, and they’re fringe because they’re not numerous and mainstream.
- For the record, I consider Palin to be edging towards the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, herself. Or at least pandering to the crazies along with the merely rabid among her base.
No. 
At least, not unless you can recommend a location to find a good small arms class weapon or energy rifle with which I can blast Deathclaws? I’m convinced that there’s something cool in the building it’s guarding. Maybe power armor would be cool too. 
Whatever you like to bleat on about, my dear, your pathological inability to admit error grows yet more entertaining in each new manifestation.
I’m afraid it has escaped you that no one has a problem with Pew or other sources, rather your ever changing and mendacious presentation and characterisation of the meanings.
Anger? Bemusement at your bizarre inability to admit simple error.
(1) The New Deal connection is off of the Pew characterisation that you opportunistically use when that definition moved to be the goal post, and
(2) There is no logical reason to connect what that study is calling a ‘Conservative Democrat’ in the 1930s with the thought-grouping that Pew is calling Conservative Democrat / New Dealer in the 00s, 70 odd years later.
(3) It is painfully obvious you’re grasping at any kind of vague framework to make the absurd argument that this Reese fellow is on the Left - which he is clearly not in any ordinary non-mendacious analysis thrown out to avoid admitting a rather trivial error.
You know you need to work on your straw men, they’re at once very weak and rather too obvious.
(1) First of course your claim of Democratic Party membership = Left is nonsensical, but if that is your private, idiosyncratic definition of Left, then… well good luck,
(2) Second, your claims that Reese fits Pews definition of Conservative Democrat (not your ad hoc 1930s definition, which is another kettle, and your own ad hoc assertion) fairly obviously fails, again rendering your argument absurd,
(3) No one, to repeat, is questoining Pew - no matter how hard you try to make that Straw Man stand up - only your characterisations. Yours, not theirs.
Feel free, your “mocking” is a fine compliment as far as I can discern - I would be more worried were you to be complimentary. In any case, it’s painfully obvious you’re not being consistent, and keep importing new and changing goal posts to avoid the evidently painful admission you chose a piss-poor citation to prove your point (which I would otherwise say was reasonably valid).
Because then I would be amused by your attempt to pretend to a level of consistency and coherent argument that no one but yourself seems to think exists on your part, and doubly amused that you dig yourself in deeper all the while thinking you’re making your point.
Maeglin was quite right, you are quite dim and nasty piece of work.
You know, I suspect that if you’d phrased the statement that “in my experience (based on the guys I drink beer with, mostly), there are some crazy-ass liberals who think [stuff] which is really no different than [crazy-ass right winger position]” this thread would be about three pages shorter. Or, if when asked for a cite, simply said “that statement may have come across as being overly general – this is just my experience with the liberal guys I drink beer with”.
Your “cite” was terrible and didn’t back anything in your original statement up, IMO, even if you pretend the author was a certified member of The Left (which he isn’t).
Nothing personal, but I think the fault of this particular brouhaha falls mostly on your shoulders. It’s good to focus on how you’re actually coming across, not just on how you intend to come across.
Do you have any actual evidence that abortion clinic bombers have any intent or plan to bomb a number of clinics sufficient to stop abortion happening by physical prevention? Because this sounds like total horseshit to me.
IntelSoldier’s assertion seems to also assume that Abortion Clinic bombers form a completely separate group from the people who commit other types of violence against doctors or property crime against clinics. All of those acts are clearly intended to intimidate and induce fear.
You would expect a great deal more Clinic bombings if Soldier’s theory were correct. After all, if intimidation isn’t the goal, then they must be planning on blowing up every single clinic in the country.
No one (God, I hope not) will disagree with you when you say that the Democrats are left of center (and similarly with Republicans being right of center). And I don’t think anyone doubts that Pew is (a) reputable and (b) correct when they say that there are such things as Conservative Democrats.
The problem here is that your guy isn’t a Conservative Democrat! (Even though we all concede that such a thing exists). You seem to be working off of an equation that goes (a) he’s conservative and (b) he’s registered as a Democrat, ergo, he’s a Conservative Democrat and, by definition, a member of the left.
The problem is that the math doesn’t hold. He is a conservative, by his own words, and he’s registered as a Democrat. Both of these are true, but by his own words, he’s not a Democrat due to any significant ideological alignment; rather, he’s a Democrat more or less as a “Fuck you” to the Republicans, who aren’t conservative enough for him.
Try it this way – if, say, Keith Olbermann registered as a Republican, just so he could write in “Bill Clinton” for the 2012 Republican Primary, that does not make him a Rightist, even if he’s ostensibly a member of the Republican Party.
I would say that generally the little letter, be it D or R, has a great deal of predictive power with respect to a person’s political beliefs. But the correlation is not 100%, as both my hypothetical Olbermann and your actual Mr. Lee seem to demonstrate.
Your math doesn’t hold. Mr. Lee is not a leftist. Come up with another cite that’s (a) more tangible than “my drinking buddies,” and (b) not as controversial as this one.
P.S. I might have overlooked this – you originally said that some leftists maintain that America is the “one and only root cause of terrorism.” I don’t see how your cite is in accord with that. It seems to be saying that American foreign policy can be a root cause of terrorism, but not the ONLY root cause of terrorism. I would maintain that, just off of the top of my head, poverty, disenfranchisement, extreme ideology (be it religious or otherwise), and greed can also be causes of terrorism, and this was true even before the birth of Amerigo Vespucci.
I apologize. I was replying to another comment about ignoring, well, apparently a group of posters, presumably me included. My reply was too specific.
This hosebag just got on my nerves, and he clearly is not worth the energy. I can ignore him using solely the power of my brain, without any of your hi-falutin’ technological assistance.
Hoenstly, there is no one on my Ignore list, nor do I intend to put anyone there.
I must’ve said, at least half a dozen times, that I knew it was true because of people I’d spoken to and folks I’d debated with on the 'net and that I found the best cite I could on the 'net and it was, indeed, of a nutjob claiming that American foreign policy was solely responsible for terrorism and the guy, when he made the claim, fit Pew’s definition for a Conservative Democrat, a category they place on the Left.
Didn’t end the course of things, unfortunately.
Conservative Democrats are members of the Left.
I’ve already answered this several times I believe.
Pew defined a set of traits which Conservative Democrats have, and I identified how Reese some of them. The rest should speak for themselves.
If you have an actual disagreement with what I’ve said, that’s one thing. But please don’t act as if I simply said he was a conservative, and a Democrat, so thus he was a Conservative Democrat.
Miller made the same claim, but I think he was wrong too. Reese seems to have said “fuck you!” to the Republican party not because they weren’t conservative enough, but because he viewed them as hopelessly corrupt. So that would mean that the only party that he could support as-a-party would’ve been the Dems.
And his politics do show significant alignment with how Pew defines the views of Conservative Democrats, significant enough that I believe inclusion in that category is warranted.
Yep, you overlooked it.
And I’m sorry for biting your head off, but you appeared to be just another person piling on for the fun of it. That you seem to have overlooked a whole bunch of my actual reasoning didn’t/doesn’t help matters, but you seem to be reasonable enough so I’ll meet you half way.
You are of course correct. But, that wasn’t Reese’s argument. If there were other root causes of terrorism, then simply changing American foreign policy might reduce, or modify the amount of terrorism, but he claimed that it would eliminate it.
Quickly, because I’m about to fall asleep…
This does not compute. Suppose I say, “If you get rid of fuel, we can eliminate fire, therefore fuel is the one and only root cause of fire,” I’d be wrong because I’d be overlooking oxygen and heat.
Just because he says that changing American foreign policy would eliminate terrorism doesn’t mean that he’s saying it’s the “one and only cause of terrorism,” which was your original claim. As I said, American foreign policy cannot possibly be the one and only cause of terrorism – and even the most cuckoobananas drinking buddy would admit this – because terrorism is older than America.
Yes, it does.
Because if there are other causes of terrorism, then terrorism would continue. He alleges that it would not be reduced, would not be tapered, would not be modified, but would be eliminated. That allows for no other causes.
Can you come up with a reason why terrorism would be eliminated by a change in American foreign policy if there were other things that would cause terrorism, anyway?
No.
Especially if people consider American foreign policy to simply be an extension/continuation of previous policies (imperialism, militarism, jingoism, etc…).
To someone who (for instance) sees no difference between the politics of America or Imperial Rome, pointing out that terrorism predates America doesn’t mean much, they’ll just respond that terrorism (in its new incarnation) is simply the result of a certain style of politics (in its modern incarnation).
Never underestimate the ability of a kook to create a worldview where their facts make sense.