Crossing the line? What line? This is Shodan’s MO.
Your post is your cite.
Shame on you, that’s worser than raping 8-year-old dogs …
But not this time.
Look, BG, your schtick is confident predictions of coming disaster for the Republicans, complaining that the Socialist Tea-Snorting Party can’t get into Congress despite their almost fourteen votes, and reposting huge swathes of stuff from The Atlantic giving 57 varieties of voting blocs with side notes on their sex lives and what cars they drive.
But pompous indignation is my schtick. So back off! :mad:
Regards,
Shodan
Eh, what do you know. You’re nothing but a Shodan with a tweed suit and a law degree!
At least you admit it.
[sup]Snipping in Shodan’s post is mine[/sup]
Myself, I have hand lotion and Kleenex, but chacun à son goût.
Regards,
Shodan
OK then, what is yours?
Okay, this was at least a *little *witty. 
Even if I were to concede that the description is true for Bachmann and King, it’s absolutely not true that they are the driving force behind Republican legislative philosophy.
This is the blindness I mean. This thread excoriates Shodan for a sweeping, over-the-top generalization – one that was undoubtedly posted to mock the parallel sweeping, over-the-top generalizations leveled against GOP leadership.
And he’s pilloried because the default assumption is that you’d better be able to defend the literal accuracy of attacks against Democrats, and you’re arguing in bad faith if you fail to take context of remarks into account.
But attacks against Republicans are fine, and context is unimportant, and it’s all ok, because in the end, Democrats are correct, and Republicans aren’t.
Yogsooth is, I think, about the only debater here who has been willing to say that the above is absolutely correct: he cheerfully assigns different standards of proof and different goal post locations to R and D politicians and arguments, because Republicans are simply wrong and must be stopped.
The rest of you do it, and don’t admit it.
Look what you just did: there are over 200 Republican Congresspeople; nearly half the Senate belongs to the GOP. The GOP will control both chambers after the election this year. That will mean that voters in every single congressional district and state that elects a Republican have listened to a Democrat make his case for governance, and they will have still flipped the lever for the Republican.
And yet you’re perfectly comfortable in saying that there’s no Republican plan apart from saying “Cold,” if Obama says “Hot?”
You can’t seriously acknowledge the hyperbole?
Wasn’t really expecting it to be.
No, that just proves that Rovian tactics are unfortunately successful.
It’s obvious to any thinking person that the Republicans have no plan other than opposing Obama, along with a few dog whistles hinting at Obama’s skin color. But most people are not thinking people, and many are easily led astray by sinister propaganda paid for by right-wing PACs and ultimately controlled by the Koch Brothers.
That’s why it’s important that we at the SDMB, whose mission is to Fight Ignorance, redouble our efforts to fight this particular ignorance along with all other forms of ignorance.
Are you comfortable in saying there *is *a Republican plan beyond oppositionism? How about a hint or two, then? :dubious:
Or you could simply end your posts “Regards, Bricker” and save some time.
Bricker, it’s very hard for me to believe that you truly think the GOP and Democrats are equal in terms of over-the-top partisan behavior. And this is not because I think the Democrats are right—actually I have little love for the Democratic party, and think they’re scarcely right about anything—but because the behavior of the GOP has been appalling, exhibiting far worse partisanship, obstructionism, and mendacity than anything I’ve witnessed in my lifetime.
Unless you’re just so partisan that you have to see your team win at all costs, I simply don’t see how any intelligent person could be entirely happy with the current GOP. The former registered Republican in me is truly disgusted by them. (My current state doesn’t require party registration, which I approve of, because I wouldn’t be happy associating too directly with either party.)
Again, this is not because I think the Democrats are right and I want them to win at all costs. Far from it! Either side will be in ascendancy from time to time; that is inevitable, and in the long run a good thing. Therefore it is vital for neither side to treat the other as enemies who must be defeated at all costs, but rather to find a way to work together to accomplish meaningful goals in the interests of the nation as a whole. Yes, this is idealistic. Right now the GOP are objectively much farther from that ideal than the Democrats are.
But yes, Shodan in the case cited by the OP did not do anything especially Pit worthy: just the usual brainless partisan silliness, and as noted, seen on both sides.
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
I’m not “entirely happy” with the Republicans. And I agree they have, since about 2008, exceeded the Democrats’ best attempts at over-the-top partisan behavior.
But that’s not nearly the same as the claim that I’m perfectly satisfied, or that they have no plans at all apart from obstructionism.
You forgot voter ID, feeding the poor to vicious dogs, hunting immigrants for sport, and backgammon.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s exactly how I read it. There was a rather tiresome repetition of the McConnell line, always parsed in a hyper-literal manner, and that was the only way some people said it could be interpreted.
And, true to form, in this thread there is the normal SDMB outrage that we can’t all see why it’s different here. Because Reid is right! And the Republicans are wrong! Only Democratic quotes need to be considered in context. Because Republicans are evil obstructionists who want to see the poor suffer and the country go up in flames. If they take the Senate, that can only mean that their lies have taken root! The horror!
This place is pretty predictable.
I agree. Republicans engage in counter-productive partisanship a lot more than Democrats do, but that doesn’t justify either side doing it.
Finding differences between Reid’s and McConnell’s statements is valid, but ultimately pointless: political parties, like all large organizations, become more concerned with self-preservation than any other goal. Reid’s statement, no what context or caveats may be, reflects the party’s concern for itself. That is worthy of criticism, no matter how much worse the other side is.
Do you disagree?
Then we disagree. Who/what do you think is the driving philosophy these days?
Who says the context is unimportant? The context is why McConnel’s statement is so heavily criticized, and Reid’s is not.
We’ll see… but I like your confidence!
This doesn’t counteract my point.
I didn’t say that. Some Republicans have plans. But I hold that the driving Republican governing philosophy, right now, is the childish one of King, Bachmann, and the like. They are by far the most influential group. And this is at least partly due to the large portion of the Republican base whose highest priority is thwarting Obama.
Sure, there’s hyperbole. I use it too. Maybe it’s more like 98%. 