So, then, you wouldn’t think it wold be helpful for people on one side of the political debate to paint the other side as evil, right? If so, do I take it that you want to retract your first paragraph above. Not only does it seek to give credence to the claim that Republicans are evil, it is, shall we say, less than accurate in what you claim. Hint: what, specifically do you think was being cheered concerning the death penalty?; what, specifically do you think was being booed when the gay marine asked his question?; why, specifically do you think some “had a fit” when Perry talked about illegals?; and who exactly is fine with people dying on the streets?
The state-sponsored execution of black people for the amusement of white Christians.
The existence of homosexuals.
Because Republicans hate Mexicans.
Republicans want people to die on the streets, in prisons, on battlefields in foreign countries, pretty much everywhere. For a party that claims to be “pro-life” they sure do resemble, to all external appearances, a death cult.
I for one stipulate that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been tainted with evil of a kind from the days of the revolution. And the GOP has also been tainted with evil of a different kind for a while now.
Not everyone high up in the Iranian power elite is a total monster. Even Mr Ahmadinejad has his good points, really!
Not all GOP voters are horrible hateful monsters. The party is, however, dogmatic on tax cuts to the point of lunacy, and that should be called out repeatedly until America gets it.
Cheaper, smaller government is not necessarily less corrupt. There is a line below which it is less accountable as a practical matter, because it has no budget for internal oversight agencies. Such a government becomes gangsterish.
The publications who paid him to write it. Frum was probably paid more for that article than I make in three months.
I didn’t read the article, but I generally assume in cases like this that he is writing a book. And he wants the New York Times to review it favorably.
Regards,
Shodan
Or, in other words, “I didn’t read the article, but it attacks the people I support, so I will attempt to shallowly discredit it without putting in any effort whatsoever to understand its content, context, or the like.”
Then anything you say after this point is meaningless. Thanks for dropping by the thread!
Or, in other words, the New York Times is going into another spasm of fapping itself over “aren’t those Republicans just awful”. Gosh, that’s never happened before. :eek:
Look, this is just another Two Minute Hate. We’ll get a lot more of them as the election approaches.
You’re more than welcome.
It amuses the Usual Suspects to vent their bile at the GOP, and it amuses me (sometimes) to snicker condescendingly when they do it.
They don’t seem to get used to it, but there is nothing they can do about it, so they can just deal with someone who doesn’t play along. Or not.
Regards,
Shodan
Fine, but what about the bits quoted in the OP? Any actual opinions on those?
[quote=“Shodan, post:68, topic:604320”]
It amuses the Usual Suspects to vent their bile at the GOP, and it amuses me (sometimes) to snicker condescendingly when they do it.
/QUOTE]
It amuses me when one of the usual suspects drops by a Great Debates topic, and admits up front, he has not even read the article that the debate is about!
It’s classic conservative “thinking”. Dismiss an article without reading it, based on your prior assumptions.
Fine, many people do this, but I have to applaud your hubris in bothering to actually create a post in Great Debates that adds nothing whatsoever to the debate other than glorying in your own lack of interest in the topic at hand.
Yes.
Regards,
Shodan
In his defense, he probably had no intention of actually considering the points of the article. So it saves him time to just dismiss it up front.
What’s interesting is that Shodan is one of those Republican’s that Frum is talking about when he says he’s afraid that the party is moving swiftly into extremism and from there to irrelevancy. Those that are content to stick their fingers in their ears and go “la la la la la” are going to be in for a shock when the find the party is headed into the dumpster.
That’s a quite astonishingly cowardly dismissal of a leading RW pundit who, after decades in the movement, now says, “conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics.” If he’s right, that’s not the fault of the NYT; if he’s wrong, that’s not the NYT’s fault either. Though you seem to be somehow implying the latter.
No, it’s an accurate assessment of how these kinds of threads go on the SDMB.
Spoiled the fun, did I? Too bad. Of course this is a thread where people complain about the GOP’s alternate history and then call them a death cult who don’t care if poor people die in the streets and want to enforce the immigration laws because they hate Mexicans and suchlike nonsense, so it is hard to be too sorry.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Or, in other words, the New York Times is going into another spasm of fapping itself over “aren’t those Republicans just awful”. Gosh, that’s never happened before.
[/QUOTE]
This theory ignores the fact that Frum’s article was one part in a two-part series. The other article was a critique of the Democratic party by a liberal, Jonathan Chait (equally interesting, but Chait doesn’t write as well as Frum).
The other article you mention was Chait’s opinion on why Democratic enthusiasm for Democratic Presidents wanes, not anything like the attacks on the GOP by Frum.
This is the *New York Times *idea of balance - Republicans are delusional, Democrats are disappointed. I need hardly point out why the one article started a thread, while the other didn’t get mentioned until some one dissented from the groupthink.
Regards,
Shodan
I am astonished, simply astonished, that Shodan has chosen to ignore facts and to comment on an article without reading any of it.
But a piece of the equation that Shodan is also ignoring, is that this thread includes some disaffected former Republicans (such as myself), who find a great deal of resonance with Frum’s article. I left the GOP fold a long time ago, but certainly it seems to me that the GOP of today is a horror show of radicalism and intolerance, especially compared to the GOP I was once a registered member of. I saw the writing on the wall of the GOP’s direction into madness back in the H.W. Bush administration, when he lost support among a certain class of “conservatives” for being “too liberal.” (The Republicans’ subsequent drive to destroy Clinton at any cost was another warning sign.) But the truth is, compared to where the GOP was heading and has ended up, H.W. Bush was too liberal. That by itself is enough to tell you that the GOP has lost its way. Although I admit I never thought it would lose its way as sensationally badly as it has.
First you negotiate. If that fails, then calling those who are evil evil is fine. Remember, Obama and the Democrats have tried to compromise throughout, and have been rebuffed. In any case, I’m not about to be negotiating with anyone. If you or our young friend call these people evil it is far more acceptable than Bush doing it.
The dying in the streets reference is to the question asked of Ron Paul, and the reaction of the audience.
What was being cheered about the death penalty? The quantity, one would assume, since no specific cases were mentioned. Especially bad this being Texas, where people with incompetent lawyers fry. For the Marine? I’d suppose gayness was being booed. Do you support booing our servicemen for whatever reason, (except desertion or treason?) As for the illegals, surely you read the reactions of the other candidates?
By the way, the sky is blue, water is wet, and the Pope shits in the woods.
The linked article was published in * New York Magazine*, which has no affiliation whatsoever with the New York Times. Ironically, you have provided a great example of that Republican create-your-own-reality thinking that the article you didn’t read talks about–there are no ready-made stereotypes about * New York Magazine* so just pretend it was published in NYT and attack that! Anyone who points out that it wasn’t published in NYT at all is probably some sort of gay Mexican who should be executed.