I have VERY little respect for Shodan as a poster, at least when it comes to politics… If he’s not actually a troll, it’s only by the very narrowest of margins.
That said, this is a pretty weak pitting. I don’t think the comparison he’s making in the other thread is really fair, due to context. But it’s far from a RIDICULOUS comparison. I’m certainly baffled as to what line it’s supposedly crossing.
>Ouch<
Please. I’m a liberal and I didn’t think it was pitworthy. I do recall that it was the official Mitch McConnell statement and strategy that when Obama got elected the first time to make it our number one priority to see he doesn’t get reelected. I can’t remember if they were successful, but I do remember a lot of cliffs, shutdowns and at least one technical default, all of which suggested to me that the Republicans should perhaps be relegated to running state fairs, not the US government.
How about all of them make the number one priority making the US government work? Is that too much to ask? Seeing as it is what we pay them to do.
Dear Og, man. what have you done?!
It’s a fair cop, guv’nor
But society is to blame.
I’m sure they would be happy to do that. As long as you’re OK with their idea of what “making US government work” means. Are you?
Most people here just think you’re a fucking moron.
Regards,
Subterraneanus
You mean starving the beast until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub? No, I’m against that. I’m with Thomas Hobbes that life without government is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. I’m in favor of dragging it out into extra innings for everyone but myself.
This thread reminds me of a Zen Koan:
Why did the Shodan cross the line?
To get to the other side.
Honestly, slightly meta here, but anyone who thinks this forum is bad: get some fucking perspective.
I used to think SDMB was “meh”. Kinda average forum as far as things go. So I went out in search of better. I landed in like 5 different political forums and they were all terrible, especially in comparison. The people here on both sides of the aisle are smarter, the discussions are more sensible, the moderation is better, there’s more activity, and the people are overall just wittier and funnier. I mean, are there forums I’m missing? Given my position on this forum is “step over the line one more time and we ban your ass”, I’D LIKE TO FUCKING KNOW ABOUT THEM!
What this place also has, though, is a liberal supermajority.
The effect of this is that weak liberal arguments aren’t criticized unless they’re truly abysmal. Weak conservative arguments are savaged. The difference is hand-waved away with patient explanations that people have limited time and spend it where they wish, but the cumulative effect is that a GOP leader says the number one priority is to defeat Obama, and people generally agree that means we can infer he intends to convey his intent is to let the country burn as long as Obama is defeated. And at the same time, when a Democratic leader says the most important thing is to ensure a Democratic majority, he is speaking in context and doesn’t mean literally the single most important thing.
Worse is that even when this contrast is highlighted, the initial reaction from a vocal portion of that liberal supermajority is: anger that the contrast is being mentioned, because it’s absolutely fair to treat the two differently. Since, after all, Democrats are CORRECT and Republicans are WRONG.
No – we inferred that his intent is to put defeating the president as a higher priority than getting legislation done to help the country.
The context difference, as I see it, is that McConnell was saying ‘the number one [legislative] priority is to defeat the President’, and Reid was saying ‘the number one [political] priority is to hold the Senate’. But I could be wrong.
This just sounds like whining.
Do you think there’s a meaningful difference in context between the two statements?
I will gladly say that Reid is a tool, and that this sort of rhetoric is problematic. I think that people characterizing McConnell as such weren’t right in their characterization of his statements, but rather got lucky, in that history gave them reason enough to believe that that was the goal (see also: the historical partisan gridlock almost entirely stemming from the right, the fervent attempts to block almost any nominee or policy proposal, the extreme rhetoric). Doesn’t speak well about them, but it speaks a lot worse about the republican party. I used to think that McConnell meant it like that, then I heard the whole speech, and heard things like “you didn’t build that”, and realized “oh god I’m doing it too”. So I stopped. And I think everyone else should too. But I’m not about to come down on people for implying that the republicans have been an intransigent, partisan mess.
I’m reminded of Krugman’s response when people accuse him of being partisan. Something along the lines of “Have you ever considered that I do not reach the conclusions that I reach because I am a liberal, but rather that I am a liberal because of the conclusions that I reach?” He’s totally on point. It’s not some unreasonable double standard to be more critical of one party when they do it in this case, because, surprise surprise, that party has obviously done more harm with it.
No.
Yes. That’s an unreasonable interpretation, one that takes on off-the-cuff comment, takes it through a partisan filter, and assumes that McConnell–even if he held this belief–could deliberately have made a public comment that says, “I’d rather defeat Obama than see the country prosper.”
Isn’t a more reasonable, “in context” inference to interpret it as: “We see a second Obama term as disastrous for our country, and we see it as vitally important to avoid that disaster.” I’m not asking you to agree with the sentiment. But isn’t that the more reasonable inference? No, we were told on this board. He said what he said, words have meanings, etc., etc.
What you seem to be missing is that if the same logic is applied, then Reid wants this priority ahead of all other outcomes. If the country suffers, if the economy tanks, so be it, so long as they retain a majority. That is, of course, an unreasonable inference. A more reasonable, “in context” one would be: “We think a Republican majority would be disastrous for our country, so we think it’s vitally important we hold the majority in the Senate.”
That was Shodan’s point. It was then the trigger for the posts explaining why the difference is that Republicans are wrong, evil, whatever, the Dems are right, virtuous, whatever, therefore it’s not a fair comparison.
Can someone refresh my memory - did the original "stop Obama " remark come before or after an election?
The main problem is not that Cantor said that their number one goal to make sure Obama is a one term president. Those words can have different meanings in different contexts, and even with the worst possible interpretation, without actions, they’re not harmful.
The problem is that the Republicans have decided on a strategy of obstruction and, for that matter, destruction, if they think that they’ll be able to rule the ashes. For example, one cannot in good conscience think that creating debt ceiling crisis and risking one of the main assets the United States has, its unimpeachable credit history and function as the world’s reserve currency, is best for the country.
If you view the actions of the republicans - deliberately trying to make the government dysfunctional so that they can then campaign on the idea of “see! government doesn’t work!” and damage the country in any way they feel will be blamed on Obama - and then you take Cantor’s word, which basically confirm this goal and these actions, then the quote becomes an emblem of the general republican strategy.
But even then, the problem is not the words. The words are merely describing and confirming the actions, which are the problem.
On the other hand, the democrats have not engaged in the same sort of policy of attempting to do damage to the country and government in the hopes that they can pin it on the other side. And so even if they used similar words, they’re not emblematic of similar behavior. And since the behavior is the actual objectionable thing, it’s quite silly to equate Cantor’s words, which are given context by actions, and Reid’s words, which do not have a similar context.
I’m quite sure that nothing I said will honestly be truly considered by you for even a moment. At best, you’ll try to think of a way to Baghdad Bob your way into some sort of apologetics.