What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be?

[Demorian]

@Demorian

See, it is the comment like this that I can’t comprehend even the most devoted Bush supporter denying that it is a lie… He said they FOUND THEM. If I say that I found a chocolate cupcake on my counter, then you walk into the kitchen and there is no tasty treat awaiting consumption… there are only so many conclusions you can make. One of the most likely is that I WAS LYING. Now, given that the Bush admin didn’t even make a serious attempt to say that the cupcake was moved or eaten by someone else, and the sites where they “HAD FOUND” said cupcakes were mysteriously absent and devoid of any shred of evidence that so much as a single sprinkle had been there… I would have to come back into the other room and punch you in the face for being a dirty liar.

Oh, and note that I had made a power point presentation showing pictures of the exact locations of the cupcake.

[annaplurabelle]

@Evil Captor

No, I’ve tried to address your points very directly. It is possible I have misunderstood what you have been saying.

I can accept that, and take my share of blame for it. I’m a crap writer.

But I still think you have avoided some of my questions. More specifically:

• If they barely believe Fox, what chance is there that they’ll believe you, or any other “lying lefty”? (ie, the importance of value judgements)

• Are you absolutely certain that all of your beliefs are based on facts, and only facts? For example, what about the issues that are debatable by dint of the absence of facts either way?

@Evil Captor

I do not share your conviction that the GOP will be undone by their strategy. If they are undone at all, it will be because they become victims of their own success – there will be fissures as various factions struggle for power with the Dems in disarray.

Are you willing to become a victim of your own success?

This may take awhile. It could be a very long haul if we have to wait for it.

Are you willing to wait, or are you willing to sacrifice principles to win in the short haul?

If the latter, when can the people assume to get back to principles, and how are you any different than the status quo?

[annaplurabelle]

BTW, I’m not asking all this in order to throw you against the wall out of partisan rivalry. I am a leftist (by US standards, anyway). I am one of the rare birds who has accepted facts and altered value judgements and political leanings accordingly. Is it safe to say it’s ironic that I am not considered belle of the ball by leftists here?

In a more pragmatic mode - I am looking for talking points from the left. I’m wondering why there aren’t any. Is that really something to be proud of? Not talking about dissembling, or outright falsehoods, but simply points to talk up, based on what the goals are. What are those goals anyway, beyond taking down Bush? See, I’d hate to expend my valuable time and energy without knowing about the benefits. For all the cognitive dissonance on the right, you shouldn’t discount the rational ignorance propensities of the left. Look up the difference between the two and you’ll know what I’m saying.

[Ludovic]

@Clothahump

We are not stupid. We elected a proven leader. We did not try to get a traitor elected into the White House.

Yet, despite all your attempts to elect a proven leader, Kerry failed to win Texas.

[ElvisL1ves]

@annaplurabelle

And I still think y’all (ie, you and Elvis) are avoiding my questions/points.

Not intentionally. Perhaps we just don’t see what you’re getting at? Hey, you’ve already said you’re not sure yourself.

So what about the people who value substance over style?

You can have both. At no time have either **EC ** or I suggested that substance needs to be discarded. The message is all that stronger with it than flouting it, obviously.

Elvis, are you absolutely certain that all of your beliefs are based on facts, and only facts?

No, an honest person can’t state that without those beliefs being examined and questioned by those with alternative views. But that’s been done, energetically, and we now know we’re right, about Iraq, Al Qaeda, budget management, Social Security, health care, essentially everything that our party of moderation and responsibility has on the menu. Time to move forward, isn’t it?

[Evil_Captor]

@annaplurabelle

BTW, I’m not asking all this in order to throw you against the wall out of partisan rivalry. I am a leftist (by US standards, anyway). I am one of the rare birds who has accepted facts and altered value judgements and political leanings accordingly. Is it safe to say it’s ironic that I am not considered belle of the ball by leftists here?

In a more pragmatic mode - I am looking for talking points from the left. I’m wondering why there aren’t any. Is that really something to be proud of? Not talking about dissembling, or outright falsehoods, but simply points to talk up, based on what the goals are. What are those goals anyway, beyond taking down Bush? See, I’d hate to expend my valuable time and energy without knowing about the benefits. For all the cognitive dissonance on the right, you shouldn’t discount the rational ignorance propensities of the left. Look up the difference between the two and you’ll know what I’m saying.

I’m not sure how you think rational ignorance applies to leftists on the the SDMB … you’ll have to explain that one.

As for talking points, we’ve got plenty, you just must have not explored enough. Mine would be:

1. Let’s fight terrorism by fighting terrorist organizations, not invading nation states. There may be times in which it is necessary to invade nation states because they are impregnable hidey-holes for terrorists, as Afghanistan was, but Iraq sure as hell wasn’t one.

2. Let’s fight terrorism by getting on the ground floor – I’m talking the culture if Islamic states. We need a program to maximize the success of moderate Muslims and marginalize the success of radical Muslims, some of it public, some of it secret. We can no longer pretend that the the actions of a bunch of wealthy fanatics who hate our guts doesn’t matter.

3. The environment – let’s protect it. Along those lines, let’s quietly drop gun control laws and welcome hunters into the fold with the environmentalists of the Democratic Party where they belong.

4. The economy – right now, the default option for the free market is to maximize its operation for the benefit of the wealthy. I think we should maximize its operation for the benefit of the middle class, which I think will produce a more robust economy and a healthier society. Maximizing for the benefit of the wealthy leads to Third World social organization, with a huge underclass barely getting by, supporting a relatively small number of wealthy families/individuals.

5. Health care: the insurance companies, the HMOS and the doctors get richer and richer, the people get less and less service. time to move to a single payer system and get rid of the fat cats. Also make health insurance not dependent on employment. Do really want unemployed people to die before they can find a job?

How’s that for starters?

[Evil_Captor]

Oh yeah, and a big winner for the Dems:

6. Social security – do NOT privatize. It’s just a scheme to destroy it. We could throw the Pubbies out on this one alone if we play it right. Which the Dems won’t.

[annaplurabelle]

@ElvisL1ves

At no time have either EC or I suggested that substance needs to be discarded. The message is all that stronger with it than flouting it, obviously.

I was responding to this:

@Evil Captor

This is exactly right – one reason the right has been drubbing the left in elections is that they have figured out that among the TV watching masses, style points count for a LOT more than substance. Come out swinging and angry and keep it simple. If you want to really think through a problem, this is the place to do it, not on TV or the radio or in real life, where too many people see thought as the same as prevarication same as cowardice same as being in the wrong.

Did I misread it?

@Evil Captor

I’m not sure how you think rational ignorance applies to leftists on the the SDMB … you’ll have to explain that one.

I wasn’t referring to leftists on the SDMB - at least not the ones who post regularly in political threads. I was referring to voters, and potential voters. The people you sometimes fondly refer to as “gucks”. I prefer to think of it as a rational ignorance problem, and deal with it on that basis.

@Evil Captor

As for talking points, we’ve got plenty, you just must have not explored enough. Mine would be:
(snip)
How’s that for starters?

All well and good, but those are positions, not talking points. Not what I was asking for.

The Right frames and controls the debate with those repetitious, unified memes - eg, “Liberals are out of touch with the mainstream”, etc. - and the Left always ends up playing defence against them. Doesn’t leave much time for discussing actual issues and positions, does it? That’s where rational ignorance kicks in: People get sick of the fighting, and tune out.

Plus, as you say, those positions are yours. I’ve got mine too. So do John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and David Cobb. Whose positions speak for “The Left”? All of them?

You want people to do that much reading and analysing to find the common ground message on their own? That’s another example of the rational ignorance problem. It’s hard work!

Is the tent really too big, or could there be a little more effort to present a unified front on the key issues?

What about a pro-active strategy to frame and control the debate, rather than always reacting and defending against the rightwing noise machine?

Come up with a better term or frame than “rational ignorance” if you like, but I don’t think “gucks” is a winner. As I’ve said before, I’m not very pc myself, so tend to overlook your rhetoric. But you’ve already got my vote…

@ElvisL1ves

No, an honest person can’t state that without those beliefs being examined and questioned by those with alternative views. But that’s been done, energetically, and we now know we’re right, about Iraq, Al Qaeda, budget management, Social Security, health care, essentially everything that our party of moderation and responsibility has on the menu. Time to move forward, isn’t it?

I was thinking more about the moral values “wedge” issues, like gay marriage and abortion. Can the Left afford to write-off these faith-based voters? Or ignore the reasons why there are so many of them?

This might say it better than I can:

The soulful way forward we seek for our country and the world is to be found in mending the house divided. Not by the whisperings of fear, the shouts of anger or the whining of victimization, but by joy itself, and creativity, and a confident chuckle at the folly of the old, dead-end ways of life.

It does us no good to rise up every four years and comb through housing projects and poor neighborhoods, begging for votes, when we were needed there all along–needed to bring joy and education to the children, resources to parents, tools for self-representation and community progress. In the current push in the Democratic Party for a new national chairman, the debate centers on how to better reach more people with our political message, when our elections are but report cards for how we have served our communities all along.

The poor of this country are so deprived of options that they now flock to churches, where the government money now comes, so that people can be turned away from the idea that government–democracy–is our common tool for serving each other’s needs.

If a party or a movement is to be successful, it must become that place where people go for personal help, like the union hall or the old Grange hall‚ or the thing we must see next, the party office in every neighborhood that needs help, filled with volunteers who have learned that the joy of life comes only through service.

[annaplurabelle]

C’mon guys. Either shout down my questions or give me better ideas.

BTW, let’s avoid a semantics argument about “substance over style” or pc language. If I misread EC’s post then so be it. I want answers I can use…

As for the pc language: As you already know, using terms like “gucks” just gives the Right ammunition, and alienates potential voters. I usually see it as a bad, careless habit. I’m not personally offended, and don’t see public “correction” as worthwhile. If it’s funny or clever enough, it usually gets a pass. Beyond that, I think “liberals” have shot themselves in the foot with this issue.

But it does affect your own, personal thinking. If you really believe that so many are beyond redemption, as to the “facts”, then I wonder how or why you care to press the issues - here, or anywhere. There are so many individual stories out there, and from the sampling I’ve heard so far, I refuse to see it as a black and white, “stupid v. aware”, standpoint. Maybe politics isn’t your ideal venue if you believe otherwise…

On the other hand, there are those pesky social, “faith-based” issues. Ridicule and/or write them off at your own peril. The right-wing Dopers have said this, but I’m not speaking to their intentions, which I also suspect. We’ve got to deal with it on our own terms. But still, what can you offer that takes the place of the church, of the values that define people’s lives? If you can frame democratic principles as seductively as a religion, than you’re on the right track, IMHO.

So, got anything?

[MaxTheVool]

@MaxTheVool

@Shodan

Well, since it contains no reference on my part to MoveOn, and no mention of American casualties, and nothing that could be construed as the assertion that “MoveOn wishes death on Americans”, it can’t reasonably be said to say anything resembling what you are alleging.

So I guess my best attempt at explanation would be, “don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it.”

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

OK, so, post 195, the post in question, consist of you quoting two snippets, one from me and one from you. First we have this:

@MaxTheVool

Anyhow, you’re avoiding a question:
Do you or do you not withdraw your claim that MoveOn.org is as extreme as strmfrnt?

Given that you are quoting me there, I assume that your intent is to use the rest of your post to answer that question. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps you just pulled out two totally unrelated quotes because you felt, artistically, that they went well together. However, I’ll assume that you intended to answer that question.

@Shodan

It doesn’t matter which is worse - racist statements AND statements like “I hope Americans die” cross a certain line. Call it the Line of Condemnation. It’s like trying to decide how much worse killing thirty people is as opposed to only ten. It doesn’t matter - killing ten people causes you to deserve the maximum penalty under law. So does thirty people. Maybe killing thirty people is worse. Does that mean the killer of ten shouldn’t be condemned?

So, here you are, answering my question. And the only possible way I can think of to read this is that you’re saying “it doesn’t matter if moveon is AS bad as strmfrnt, because they’re both across the Line of Condemnation, one (SF) for racism and one (moveon) for hoping Americans die.” Seriously. I’m not trying to make stuff up here, I just can’t come up with any other reasonable theory as to what they heck your post was talking about.

But if you insist, then I’m going to start debating in the following fashion:

Me: George Bush is just as evil as Jeffrey Dahmer
Some republican: What? How is George Bush just as evil as Jeffrey Dahmer?
Me: Well, killing-people-and-eating-them and torturing-Jewish-babies-with-acid are both so bad that they are across the “Line of Condemnation”
Some republican: Cite that George Bush tortures Jewish babies with acid?
Me: What? Where did I say that? Don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it.

Seriously, dude, help me out here.

Crickets chirping…

C’mon, Shodan, prove yourself to be a basically intellectually honest guy and either point out how I’m greviously misunderstanding you, or admit that you went got a little hyperbolic and withdraw the comparison.

[Shodan]

@Shodan

“don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it.”

Regards,
Shodan

[MaxTheVool]

@Shodan

don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it

Like I said, help me out here. What did your post #195 mean, if not what I think it did?

[Shodan]

@MaxTheVool

Like I said, help me out here. What did your post #195 mean, if not what I think it did?

@Shodan

my best attempt at explanation would be, “don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it.”

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

[MaxTheVool]

OK, please take 30 seconds out of your busy schedule and help this poor dumb liberal out. Use short words if necessary.

What did post #195 in this thread mean?

[Shodan]

It meant that practically every post you have made in this thread has been a pack of ridiculous strawmen and outright lies. And that I am tired of trying to explain things to people who apparently don’t bother to read most of what I have posted.

You are making shit up and trying to get me to defend it. I am not going to defend it, because you are making shit up.

It’s your shit. You deal with it.

[MaxTheVool]

@Shodan

It meant that practically every post you have made in this thread has been a pack of ridiculous strawmen and outright lies. And that I am tired of trying to explain things to people who apparently don’t bother to read most of what I have posted.

You are making shit up and trying to get me to defend it. I am not going to defend it, because you are making shit up.

It’s your shit. You deal with it.

(a) if I have posted even a single outright lie in this (or any) thread, please point it out to me, so that I may defend it, or retract it and apologize. I’m not a liar.

(b) if I were constructing strawmen, I would be saying “Shodan said that MoveOn.org claims they are happy when Americans die. I saw him say it! He said it! My response to that is X Y and Z”. Rather, I have been bending WAY WAY WAY over backwards to ask you to explain your statement (post 195) which SEEMS TO ME to be saying that, because that seems like such a ridiculous thing to say that I don’t want to believe that’s what you intended to say.