It would be nice if a day passed without all the strawmen.
Which of these are a lie?
Approximation errors
Summaries
Interpretations of data where hard answers are not available
Selective sampling of contradictory data (ie, accepting one set or the other)
None are.
The OP, it seems to me, is arguing against the dishonest misrepresentation of such things as lies, which partisans on both sides are doing.
People are (largely) responding with semantic arguments, without addressing the substance of the complaint.
I will answer the OP’s intended question: Because partisan politics quickly become identity politics for even the most intellectual, and due to the dehumanization process we subject others to so that we are free to hate them without guilt, we are left with such a suspicion of those “on the other side” that we assume any and all such things are done maliciously.
Look at Annie-Xmas’s posts about the nature and beliefs of pro-lifers in the abortion thread- despite examples of pro-lifers in the thread whose posts are, by their nature an emphatic refutation of her mischaracterization. Or Der Trihs’s characterizations of the right as inherently malicious.
We’re back to the first page. Errors are errors and lies are lies. When a message has been very carefully thought out and meticulously put together and is wrong, I don’t care if it’s an approximation, a summary, an interpretation, or a sampling; it’s a lie. Posts on a message board, not so much. Off-the-cuff political remarks? Depends on the context, but if you’ve done it fifteen times in a row with plenty of time to correct yourself and you still haven’t, then the odds are pretty darned good that it’s a lie.
That may be. I think he’s enough of a thinker and has enough desire to find actual solutions to tweak his plans accordingly given the right information. Even if he tows the party line it seems a better alternative than a repeat of recent years and a further erosion of our democracy. IMHO
All of the above give the accused the benefit of the doubt that they are simply those things and not deliberately so in order to confuse or convey mixed messages. I call your attention again to McCain’s “education” ad in which he claimed that Obama voted for a bill to provide comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners. Into which of your categories does that ad fall?
I don’t mean to imply that Obama hasn’t committed the same deliberate misrepresentations–it’s just that at the moment, McCain’s are the more obvious example.
I understand that from a libertarian/conservative point of view. I’m a registered Democrat who is more independent/moderate. I agree with certain conservative principles and have been chastised on this board for wanting to abandon the poor because I stressed personal responsibility. :rolleyes:
I repeat, I don’t think we can return to a a real debate about principles until both parties make some changes. I remember ORielly criticizing Obama for income redistribution a socialist tenant. In light of recent events do we need to worry about Obama having socialist tendencies? The balance between a society that seeks to create opportunity for it’s citizens and make services attainable for the most people and one that still stresses personal responsibility is something we can continue to work on, if we have public servants in office that actually are willing to serve the public. Almost everything that’s happened in the past eight years leads me to believe the group in power is perfectly willing to tear down the basic principles of our democracy in order to stay in control. The relaxation of FCC rules, the firing of judges to appoint people loyal to them, the expansion of executive power and privilege, the many questions about the last two presidential elections in FL and OH, and worst of all, the criminal negligence in managing the war in Iraq. We’ve accepted too much and looked the other way too often while we were busy with our daily lives. The process of reclaiming and defending our democracy won’t end with this election, but it’s a start.
You’re worried about income distribution having a leftish political orientation and renting an apartment from you? Or did you mean a socialist tenet?
Strato, can you list some of the things that bother you the most? Because I think cosmo’s points about this administration’s corruption of power are so important that they outweigh any ideological reasons for supporting McCain this year. You can argue that McCain wouldn’t have initiated any of the villainies that began over the past eight years had he been elected in 2000, but my question is, will he correct them now? He’s currently being run by the same people who have controlled the White House - what reason do you have to expect that will change if McCain is elected?
Not sure I can expand much more on what I have. I am greatly troubled by politicians who have a bias to increasing social infrastructure, expanding the role of government (even for a “noble” reason), redistributing wealth to fund said changes, who are likely to appoint justices who are not strict constructionists–in short, the sorts of programs and policies that Obama is running on. I don’t believe government is the solution–it is the problem. The larger it gets, the more boondoggle programs it installs, the greater the role it plays, the less are our personal freedoms, the greater the cost for nebulous benefits.
I don’t cede my personal liberties to anyone else, and I don’t want or need someone to solve all my problems. I pay way more taxes than I should, for programs that are, for the most part, wastes of the time and effort. I am offended by the notion that someone else knows better what to do with my money. I want a fiscal conservative, committed to upholding the constitution, not twisting it beyond recognition, someone who is most likely to limit the role of government, not expand it. Again, I am taking Obama at his words, that he will push through all the things he says he will. I am likewise assuming McCain will do the same. I roll the dice with McCain.
Possibly another reason to suspect they want control rather than to honor and protect our democracy.
I understand what you’re saying and agree in principle. There are many factors that influence our society. I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility and believe helping hands need to be structured to encourage people to help themselves. I prefer to see those programs done by the private sector rather than some government agency. The problem is we have to live with the society we are building with all it’s imperfections and problems. I see a sliding meter on the social issues. On the far right we have no programs and people fending for themselves. It doesn’t sound bad except that at times, when things are very imbalanced, there will be a whole lot of people suffering in poverty, with no health care, and few opportunities, in a land where lot’s of people have more than enough. At the far left of that scale there are lot’s of programs to help people but those programs are often wasteful and too costly, taking form those that have motivation and an admirable work ethic and giving freebies to people who don’t deserve it and creating generations of unmotivated moochers and a money hole of a bureaucracy.
As we iron out the details of our society and what makes it work best for the most people we can move that scale back and forth trying to find the proper balance of helping those in need and motivating people to do all they can to help themselves.
In order for that to happen we need to first preserve our democracy and strive to honor the principles it was founded on. Chances are we won’t get a president we agree with on all the issues. I hope we get one who is determined to upholding the constitution and rather than someone trying to slowly erode our civil liberties as it seems this admin has been doing. In that regard I think constitutional professor Obama is the safer bet. If McCain continues the trend we’ve been seeing I’m afraid both you and I will be ceding our personal liberties.
In the third thread today, I will point out that for the past sixty plus years, the Democrats appear to be the party of fiscal responsibility, based on public debt. At the end of WWII, we had a pretty high public debt. This started coming down under Truman and continued to under Eisenhower. It went along with fairly minor ups and downs until Reagan. It then had its largest expansion ever. This continued through Bush 41 and the first couple of years of Clinton, then he turned it around and brought it back down to about the level it was when he came into office. It started skyrocketing again in 2000.
Now, you may not agree about the desirability of social programs. But if you look at Obama’s, they tend very strongly toward the “teach a man to fish” type, rather than the “give a man a fish” sort. Also, the era of the “welfare queen” driving a Cadillac with ten kids, if ever that sort of thing existed more than in a tiny handful of people, has been long gone. Believe me when I tell you, welfare is not a disincentive to work; it is not enough for anyone to live on. In conjunction with food stamps, it might be enough to rent a room (not an apartment) and eat, but you sure as heck had better not get sick.
Also, while I too believe in personal responsibility, how long should you and your children and grandchildren pay for a mistake you may have made in your early teens? Let’s say you were a poor girl who got knocked up at 14. You chose because of your religion and/or social pressure to not abort and to keep the baby. Your parents were either irresponsible themselves (if there at all), or too busy working making ends meet to help you out with the baby, so there was the end of you education. So there you are, a few years later, stuck in minimum wage jobs with no education, no future, and your kid or kids probably headed in the same direction because you don’t have any alternatives to offer them. This isn’t just bad for you. It’s bad for all of us; it costs us money, and it makes us much less competitive as a nation. Isn’t it better for us all in the long run to try to break the cycle? Unfortunately, these days the long run gets short shrift in our thinking.
But frankly, I consider the civil liberties and the corruption/transparency issues even more important than these financial issues. If I thought McCain would fix the abuses of the Bush 43 administration and that Obama would not, this election would be a very tough choice for me, because I don’t hate McCain (although he’s working at getting me to, and Palin is just another W).
In thinking about this I have a couple of questions. What programs do you see as a waste of time and effort?
also; what do you see as twisting the constitution beyond recognition? Are there specific examples?
You’ve already ceded so many of your real personal liberties to Bush. McCain’s certainly not going to fix any of that, not with the campaign staff he has, who will be his ‘advisors’ in the White House.
Clearly, the liberty that matters to you is keeping every possible penny in your pocket. I understand that, but I can’t understand its coming above and beyond everything. Do you honestly think that things like dams and levees are going to fix themselves? Because most people like you won’t vote for tax increasers at any level, down to city council, so those infrastructure things never get fixed.
Are a few programs intended to teach people to fish (as opposed to giving people fish) that terrible that you’re willing to cede the right to have privacy on your phone calls? The right to have a Justice Dept that isn’t politically slanted? The right to feel fairly secure that the books you’re taking out from the library aren’t being reported to the government? Admittedly, McCain probably would not have instituted any of these programs had he been president in 2000. But I see no reason whatsoever to believe that he’s rescind any of them, especially now that the Rovians have taken over his campaign.
You bewilder me when you talk of civil liberties, and yet are willing to accept the current administration with Bush, and it’s continuation with McCain. How can anyone who really cares about civil liberties support this with a straight face? Admit it - it’s taxes. Which is a single civil liberty, and unless you are very rich, hardly the biggest.
Our legal system allows the tactic, (called impeachment) based on very old assumptions about human nature.
From Wikipedia:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
“false in one thing, false in everything”
“A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration.”
