[quote=“AClockworkMelon, post:179, topic:696803”]
I won’t try to get you to watch a Batman video this time - it’s a short political video that basically sums up my opinion of the Republican position:
[/QUOTE]That’s a perfect illustration of how liberals think “debate” should be handled.
And another peek into the mind of a liberal.
It’s perfectly acceptable for the liberal to say that the conservative is far more stupid than was thought, but the conservative transgresses boundaries when he calls the liberal a moron.
Why?
Answer: because you liberals know that deep down, you expect the conservatives to be the grown-ups. You yap and yap about your stupid ideas, and if they works you glory in it – and if not, you are confident that the grownups will come along and save you,
Where do you get these ideas? I would love conservatives to be grown-ups, but nowhere–not even in the deepest recesses of my mind–do I hold any notion that we would need conservatives to save us (or that they’d be able). If a “liberal” idea doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. I wouldn’t go running to the current Rebublican party for a Plan B, that’s for sure.
Well that’s quite the sweeping generalization isn’t it. If you paid attention you’ll notice that I didn’t say “All Conservatives are X”, but apparently you’re comfortable with such statements. To each his own.
Additionally I didn’t say you were far more stupid than I had thought, I offered a second alternative which is more likely.
Followed by…
OK, if you say so :rolleyes:
WAAH! WAAH! I DON’T GET THE SAME REACTION FROM CALLING PEOPLE STUPID THAT OTHERS GET WHEN THEY CALL ME STUPID WHEN I SAY INCREDIBLY STUPID THINGS! WAAAAAAAH!
Case in point: you’re a fucking moron. zoid, on the other hand, was pretty much spot-on.
LOL. Let’s look at how Bricker thinks debate should be handled:
If he thinks a judge (or the right-wing packed SCOTUS) would decide his way on an issue then, no matter what is moral, no matter what is in the country’s interest – natter-natter-natter, he’s got the law on his side and that’s all that matters. If his opponents think the law should be changed, he’ll say, in effect “Good luck, suckers!” (Of course this M.O. reverses completely when the law is not on his side.)
When asked to comment on Karl Rove, and whether he approves of Rove’s borderline-criminal campaign methods, Bricker demonstrated that he knew zero about Rove, couldn’t be bothered to Google him, or even read the OP. He defended Rove against valid charges, apparently assuming either that Republican leaders are as pure-hearted as himself(!) or that all “liberal” charges are wrong. His participation in that thread showed loathsome disrespect to fellow Dopers. He was happy to assume that “liberals” were automatically wrong without considering evidence, not even reading the OP.
I once tried to engage him in serious debate; when asked, I cited the Clean Air Act as something I admired conservatives for. His only contribution in that “debate” was to claim (with a trite legal argument, as is his wont) that Clinton’s adultery was a more serious crime than the Lies that led to the Trillion Dollar War of Halliburton vs Gog and Magog.
I’ve no problem with “conservatism”; indeed my liberal friends often thought I was too conservative. Bricker may have admired GOP conservatives from a saner era. To continue that support for the GOP to the present-day, with the present Party dominated by hypocrites and lunatics rather than rational good-spirired conservatives, proves that Bricker either doesn’t keep up with the details of practical U.S. politics … or that he is simply a dolt.
I vote for dolt.
This isn’t the forum for debating things. This is the forum for pointing and laughing at you.
Consider that its true. Then wouldn’t you expect different reactions?
You’ll get nowhere pointing out the distinction if you cannot prove that Republicans are on the same level as Democrats.
Reid has my trust and a history of doing things for the good of the country. McConnell has not, nor does his party, or his ideology.
I flat out asked for a thread that gave some sort of context that would give context to the McConnell quote and make it seem reasonable. I still haven’t gotten one. I’ve seen several such explanations for the Reid quote.
How can you allege that the issue is being treated differently if no counterarguments were made? I still don’t even see any context given to McConnell’s quote.
I’m also not entirely certain why they are equivalent. Even if we assume both comments are made about politics, what they involve is different. Keeping the Senate is just a matter of going a good job in the election. But making sure the president isn’t reelected: how is a legislature supposed to do that?
One thing is something a legislature can conceivably do, by getting themselves reelected. The other isn’t, unless they start doing something untoward. That’s why McConnell’s quote was so bad. Congress has nothing to do with who the president should be.
But I’m still open to the idea that McConnell had some legitimate tactic in mind, or the context made it where he didn’t mean what “liberals” thought he meant. I’m all ears. Make the argument or show where it’s been made before.
Or just go on about how horrible “liberals” are because one liberal called you a name. That’ll work, too.
Well, not for pointing and laughing at Bricker specifically. I suppose anyone showing signs of being ideologically blinkered to such an extent and lacking all personal integrity in their willingness to embrace any position - no matter the immorality or illogic - in an effort to win arguments is fair game.
For pity’s sake. You’ve heard of this Google thing, haven’t you?
Not gonna bother quoting, you at least have to learn how to click a link.
Yeah, conservatives are the grownups, because we don’t know how the real world works. Always has been, all through American history!
Take child labor, for instance. Fuzzy thinking progressives wanted children out of the coal mines and the factories, and in schools. Crazy fucks actually believed that children should be educated, and for free! For FREE! Claimed it was some sort of human right, even though the Constitution doesn’t say a word about it! A handout, that’s what it is, this “free education”!
And values! Oh, my, yes, values! Teach the children well, teach them the way the real world works, a fair days work for an honest dollar. Work teaches* true *values, not some needless education that will only give them ideas above their station!
Not to mention the increased labor costs, which are simply bound to undermine our competitive stance to the world! No, no, this sort of woooly-headed idealism simply has no place in the real world!
Women’s suffrage? Perfectly legal and Constitutional for only men to vote. And just think of what that might do to voter confidence, the confidence of those who already can vote is bound to be diminished! Besides, its the family that matters, men voting for their families makes perfect sense, no reason to have two people voting for the same thing!
The man is the head of the family, and family values must be preserved!
Just what is it you grown-ups are so desperate to conserve? And how long before it blows away in the wind anyway?
I can’t trust Google. The 9/11 perps were safely based there.
But anyhoo… having seen the larger context and timing for the McConnell remark, I’m not sure what the big deal is about either remark. Republicans think Democrats will damage the country, Democrats think Republicans will damage the country… If we go by actual evidence of who’s done what (or refused to do what) and tally up actual damage, the Republicans don’t come out ahead.
I’m not a liberal. Voting in this country has been subverted nearly to the point of being meaningless. Money iswhat matters and that is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. You get to vote for the candidates they choose. The last liberal who really got it was FDR. He was savvy enough to recognize he and his socio-economic peers were on the edge of The Moment and threw the rabble a few scraps.
The Simpson’s perspective:
Here’s why the contexts seem different to me: McConnell was talking about priorities FOR CONGRESS at the beginning of a term. You’d expect those to be things like “get America back to work again”, or “encourage energy independence”. Things that congress could be doing to make America a better place.
Harry Reid was talking about priorities for Democratic fundraising in the last months before an election. You’d expect those to be things like “win the Georgia governorship” or “prevent the Republicans from getting a supermajority in the house”.
Thoughts?
Well, I gather we can presume McConnell believes Republican ideas for legislation will improve America and Democratic ideas will not, so his goal was to pressure Obama into signing legislation Republicans wanted while Republicans would block legislation Obama and Democrats wanted.
I’m unclear on what specifically the Republicans want, though, and how it is better for America.
Nobody knows what the Republican plan is because they have none, other than cutting taxes and gutting regulation in the hopes that will the “job creators” will finally be pleased enough to create jobs.
And exactly what planet was that experience gained on, might I ask? Because it is obvious as hell, from this paragraph alone, that you do not know jack shit about Republicans. You simply parrot the same ignorant bullshit that has driven almost all the conservative posters away from this board.
But, hey, why let a simple fact like that stop you from your ranting? Carry on.