Time for some good ol´ Demorats bashing

[Anders]

No. I actually mean it.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=49735

What up wih the rhetoric? Be a (wo)man and take difficult decisions when they are unpopular (AND DON`T BE A F... WALKING OPINION POLL:mad: ) , don´t make racist point and do use whatever LEGAL tools you have at hand TO MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK or go out and be a revolutionary (but don´t attend ordinary peoples political gatherings like you believe in the political process)

[BR]

Anyone else have problems accessing comedy central vids on a mac?

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by BR
Anyone else have problems accessing comedy central vids on a mac?

Same for me : no video displayed

[Northgate]

Not working.

[Flounder]

No problems with the video for me on my ibook

[BR]

Originally posted by Flounder
No problems with the video for me on my ibook
What plugin are you using? I've got that Flip4Mac thingy now for Windows Media and when it launches quicktime it says the URL is invalid.

[trumptman]

The point is much like I have made. John Stewart realizes that Republicans could be weakened electorally but the absolute LACK OF AGENDA and thinking by the Democratic leadership means that nothing will come of it. Two of the three clips have to do with suggesting racism instead of dealing with policy or ideals.

Calling someone an -IST (SEXIST, RACIST, ELITIST) or a phobe does not mean you have the ideals to govern.

Nick

[Flounder]

Originally posted by BR
What plugin are you using? I've got that Flip4Mac thingy now for Windows Media and when it launches quicktime it says the URL is invalid.

I haven't downloaded that yet. I've just got regular WMP 9 or whatever the heck it is.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Flounder
I haven't downloaded that yet. I've just got regular WMP 9 or whatever the heck it is.

That's why it's working. Off to disabling Flip4Mac for websites...

Edit: It does work if you turn off Flip4Mac for websites.

[Anders]

Shawn, did you see the clips?

If you did, what about what the mayor of New Orleans said. He wants to build "a chocolate city". What is different than another mayor said he wants to build a "White City"? Do YOU think his comment can´t be racist (because he belongs to a minority group).

What about Clinton? She is white and she uses a picture taken from the history of black opression to describe how the relationship between the president and Democrat members (mainly white (fat) men) is.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Talking about racism and sexism would indeed require understanding or a willingness to understand what it means today. Same goes for you.

I didn't say anything about being unwilling to understand what it means. If you can't read then don't reply. I said calling someone these things to cover your lack of ideals. A discussion of ideals involves you having some. Same goes for you.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't say anything about being unwilling to understand what it means. If you can't read then don't reply. I said calling someone these things to cover your lack of ideals. A discussion of ideals involves you having some. Same goes for you.

Nick
Crikey. That's a little 'shrill', isn't it?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by trumptman
The point is much like I have made. John Stewart realizes that Republicans could be weakened electorally but the absolute LACK OF AGENDA and thinking by the Democratic leadership means that nothing will come of it. Two of the three clips have to do with suggesting racism instead of dealing with policy or ideals.

Calling someone an -IST (SEXIST, RACIST, ELITIST) or a phobe does not mean you have the ideals to govern.

Nick Why should they have an AGENDA? Why shouldn't politicos just be working for the people. In the end they are just CIVIL SERVANTS. The President included.

AGENDAS cause people to die. Like the Medicaid/Medicare AGENDA.

(BTW, I like writing AGENDA in all caps. Makes it sound mysterious like it's some acronym for some evil political agenda.)

A.G.E.N.D.A. - Agendas Grant Elected Nimrods Dictatorial Access

[Anders]

Try with policy then.

We may not like Trumpt, but try to take the issue serious instead fo picking on the specific wording.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Anders
Try with policy then.

We may not like Trumpt, but try to take the issue serious instead fo picking on the specific wording. The next Democrat that will be elected as president won't have time to enact policy. He'll be cleaning up the 8-12 years of mess the Republicans left behind. The kind of people that voted for Bush don't even remember any of the campaign promises he made; their attention spans have been conditioned to be so short and their ability to follow up later on so limited.

[Anders]

So they should say odd stuff like "I want a chocolate city" and "the congress is like a slave plantation" as long as they remember to say "My policy will be ABB"?

[Outsider]

You want real racism? How about screwing the native Americans over again? How about pitting the tribes against each other just to defraud them out of millions of dollars? Tom DeLay, Conrad Burns, Tom Harki, Bob Ney, and all these douche bags that have had a hand in doing this.

Who the fuck cares about what HRC said? Good for her!

And that mayor is a retard. For all we know he envisions a town full of statues made out of chocolate. In the NO heat they won't last long.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Anders
So they should say odd stuff like "I want a chocolate city" and "the congress is like a slave plantation" as long as they remember to say "My policy will be ABB"? I'll care when it's a crime to say 'odd' stuff. Racist it ain't.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Outsider
I'll care when it's a crime to say 'odd' stuff. Racist it ain't.

"I want a chocolate city"?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Outsider
I'll care when it's a crime to say 'odd' stuff. Racist it ain't.

But we all (excluding Trumptman) hope they will get elected. Its not from a legal view I am questioning what they say. Its from the electability pov.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
That's why it's working. Off to disabling Flip4Mac for websites...

Edit: It does work if you turn off Flip4Mac for websites.

How do you do that?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Anders
"I want a chocolate city"? Hey like he said, how do you make chocolate? Some milk (white people) and some dark chocolate (black people).

Looks like an impromptu CYA.

[Anders]

"White power" = All powerplants should be more environmetal friendly?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Crikey. That's a little 'shrill', isn't it?

Nope. That's polite.

Originally posted by Outsider
Why should they have an AGENDA? Why shouldn't politicos just be working for the people. In the end they are just CIVIL SERVANTS. The President included.

AGENDAS cause people to die. Like the Medicaid/Medicare AGENDA.

(BTW, I like writing AGENDA in all caps. Makes it sound mysterious like it's some acronym for some evil political agenda.)

A.G.E.N.D.A. - Agendas Grant Elected Nimrods Dictatorial Access

So pretty much any agenda that includes government and action is harmful. Got it.

Originally posted by Outsider
The next Democrat that will be elected as president won't have time to enact policy. He'll be cleaning up the 8-12 years of mess the Republicans left behind. The kind of people that voted for Bush don't even remember any of the campaign promises he made; their attention spans have been conditioned to be so short and their ability to follow up later on so limited.

Yeah, of course the people that attempted to elect Kerry don't have to worry about promises because that would denote an agenda. It is so much better to just have a platform of personal attacks and hidden -isms like the Democrats have. The only thing you have to remember then it to hate.

Originally posted by Anders
So they should say odd stuff like "I want a chocolate city" and "the congress is like a slave plantation" as long as they remember to say "My policy will be ABB"?

You don't need policy if the other guy can be called racist. This has been Democratic thinking for decades.

Originally posted by Outsider
I'll care when it's a crime to say 'odd' stuff. Racist it ain't.

It isn't odd. It is simply racism revealed.

Originally posted by Anders
But we all (excluding Trumptman) hope they will get elected. Its not from a legal view I am questioning what they say. Its from the electability pov.

There is no electability for those two outside of the areas where they oppress people in the name of helping them.

Nick

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Anders
But we all (excluding Trumptman) hope they will get elected. Its not from a legal view I am questioning what they say. Its from the electability pov. In a few years people will forget what HRC said (that is until someone digs it up). And I don't see that mayor being elected again for any other office above mayor, but not just because of this.

Look at it this way; Bush got elected as POTUSA despite everyone knowing he was a drunk, drug abuser, and drunk driver in his past.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Anders
If you did, what about what the mayor of New Orleans said. He wants to build "a chocolate city". What is different than another mayor said he wants to build a "White City"? Do YOU think his comment can´t be racist (because he belongs to a minority group).

I saw the show, and it was embarrassing to watch the mayor of N.O. However, I will say that what the Daily Show left until the last minute was the same mayor telling someone (not an exact quote) "you make chocolate by mixing dark cocoa and (white) milk." A foolish metaphor, to be sure, but I think a different category than racist.

Further on this theme on black and white: I once read an interesting analysis of current American culture which pointed out something obvious but unremarked; that is, the "blackness" of American culture. Gone in this analysis was the emphasis on the distinctiveness of black culture and its resistance to assimilation. Instead, the author pointed out that popular culture today was black culture, and then in way Americans were all becoming a little more "black."

I thought that idea was intriguing.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yeah, of course the people that attempted to elect Kerry don't have to worry about promises because that would denote an agenda. It is so much better to just have a platform of personal attacks and hidden -isms like the Democrats have. The only thing you have to remember then it to hate.
Oh this is rich. Because of the 2004 election we have the term "Swift-boated". Republicans invented the platform of personal attacks.

And they did the same to Murtha.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Timo
I saw the show, and it was embarrassing to watch the mayor of N.O. However, I will say that what the Daily Show left until the last minute was the same mayor telling someone (not an exact quote) "you make chocolate by mixing dark cocoa and (white) milk." A foolish metaphor, to be sure, but I think a different category than racist.

He also said "This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be"

[Timo]

Originally posted by Anders
He also said "This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be"

A politician who panders to his base! Incredible! But I'm not defending him, I already think he fucked up handing Katrina (there is, after all, plenty of blame to spread around). I'm just pointing out the Daily Show knew most Americans or even people would interpret "chocolate" city as a "black" city, when he meant mixed.

For a fake news show, they've acheived a pretty deft critique not only of the political buffoons but their viewers as well.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Outsider
Oh this is rich. Because of the 2004 election we have the term "Swift-boated". Republicans invented the platform of personal attacks.

And they did the same to Murtha.

"WE" do not have the term swift-boated. It is simply a hateful term coined by Democrats to describe the fact that they didn't like the fellow officers who SERVED with Kerry defending themselves against his lies. You need to remember who accused who of attrocities.

Nick

[rageous]

Originally posted by Outsider
Hey like he said, how do you make chocolate? Some milk (white people) and some dark chocolate (black people).

Looks like an impromptu CYA.

Okay, seriously this is about as stupid as it gets as far as an attempted rebuttal goes.

you make chocolate by mixing milk and.... chocolate?

bzzzzzzzzt.

that's how you make....
...
......
.........
............
...............
..................
...............
............
.........
......
...


wait for it...


...
......
.........
............
...............
..................
...............
............
.........
......
...


MILK CHOCOLATE!


seriously, wtf?

[rageous]

Originally posted by Outsider
Oh this is rich. Because of the 2004 election we have the term "Swift-boated". Republicans invented the platform of personal attacks.

And they did the same to Murtha.



And you know how you unseat those with power? No, not by doing the same things that they have done to appease their voters. You one-up them. You come out with better ideas, better delivery of your ideas, and you make your opponents ideas seem old and tired in the process.

You don't call them names, you simply embarrass them by out-thinking them. Let your policy deliver the sharp jabs, not your mouth.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
"WE" do not have the term swift-boated. It is simply a hateful term coined by Democrats to describe the fact that they didn't like the fellow officers who SERVED with Kerry defending themselves against his lies. You need to remember who accused who of attrocities.

Nick

Wikipedia is not an organization run by Democrats. Here's their definition of "swift-boating"...

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating)

Swiftboating is American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a political figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, for the benefit of an established political force. Specifically, this form of mud slinging is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections.

The name comes from the portrayal of Presidential candidate John Kerry's military service in Vietnam by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization. Its attack ads against Senator Kerry in the 2004 presidential election campaign featured Vietnam veterans claiming that their fellow veteran Kerry was unfit to lead. The charges were mostly unverifiable but disseminated widely, which led to swiftboating's reputation for being a controversial but highly effective form of smear campaign. Although the Swift Boat Veterans were ostensibly[1] an independent group, their actions worked to the benefit of Kerry's opponent, George W. Bush.

Swiftboating frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations. By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story. Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some liberal writers. Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by rageous
And you know how you unseat those with power? No, not by doing the same things that they have done to appease their voters. You one-up them. You come out with better ideas, better delivery of your ideas, and you make your opponents ideas seem old and tired in the process.

You don't call them names, you simply embarrass them by out-thinking them. Let your policy deliver the sharp jabs, not your mouth.

If only that were true.

But it's just easier to mock and ridicule the purple heart and remind the brave men and women who are currently serving in Iraq that their honorable service to their country could be used against them if they dare run for office (as a Democrat).

[Northgate]

And don't forget Mean Jean Schmidt's attempt at Swift-Boating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating) Paul Hackett in Ohio a couple months ago.

[Anders]

I really hate to say it but the bold parts do prove T´s point.

[Outsider]

He realized how cookey he was sounding and had to spin it no matter how bad the resulting spin was. Even the people behind him in the crowd were like "WTF is he talking about?"Originally posted by rageous
Okay, seriously this is about as stupid as it gets as far as an attempted rebuttal goes.

you make chocolate by mixing milk and.... chocolate?

bzzzzzzzzt.

that's how you make....
...
......
.........
............
...............
..................
...............
............
.........
......
...


wait for it...


...
......
.........
............
...............
..................
...............
............
.........
......
...


MILK CHOCOLATE!


seriously, wtf?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Northgate
Wikipedia is not an organization run by Democrats. Here's their definition of "swift-boating"...

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating)

Wikipedia is a community-based organization.

Did you read your own link to the definition as well?

Let me help you.

political jargon

Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some liberal writers. Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators.

So it is a word used by liberal writers to disparage and belittle.

The fact that your side thinks up cool names to call with does not mean WE all agree to call names or to use their terms.

Nick

[Outsider]

Originally posted by rageous
And you know how you unseat those with power? No, not by doing the same things that they have done to appease their voters. You one-up them. You come out with better ideas, better delivery of your ideas, and you make your opponents ideas seem old and tired in the process.

You don't call them names, you simply embarrass them by out-thinking them. Let your policy deliver the sharp jabs, not your mouth. That sounds an awful lot like marketing.
American politics is like afternoon talk shows now.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by rageous
And you know how you unseat those with power? No, not by doing the same things that they have done to appease their voters. You one-up them. You come out with better ideas, better delivery of your ideas, and you make your opponents ideas seem old and tired in the process.

You don't call them names, you simply embarrass them by out-thinking them. Let your policy deliver the sharp jabs, not your mouth. And someone better tell the Democrats that. Because the memo they got is "Be like the Republicans, except spineless."

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
You don't need policy if the other guy can be called racist. This has been Democratic thinking for decades.

Nick
I don't remember much policy from the Bush end aside from EVERYONE BE SCARED and KERRY'S A COWARD AND TRAITOR!

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Wikipedia is a community-based organization.

Did you read your own link to the definition as well?

Let me help you.

political jargon

Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some liberal writers. Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators.

So it is a word used by liberal writers to disparage and belittle.

The fact that your side thinks up cool names to call with does not mean WE all agree to call names or to use their terms.

Nick

You said:

"WE" do not have the term swift-boated. It is simply a hateful term coined by Democrats ...

What I want to know is how did Democrats put the term into the popular lexicon? Specifically.

But this is part of your usual argument techniques: Let's not discuss the disgusting use of "swift-boating" as a way to tear down Democrat politicians running for office who have a proud military service record ... Rather, let's discuss who created the term and argue about that...because you'd don't really want to discuss the mudslinging tactics used so prominently by your party.

[midwinter]

A) Nagin has an amazing capacity to say really, really stupid things.

B) The fear about the rebuilding of NOLA is that it'll be gentrified (read: whited up).

C) That was a really dumb thing to say.

D) Why is no one paying attention to what he said right after that—something like "surely God is angry at America"?

E) Looks to me like he got caught up in the moment (he sounded awfully preachery)

F) That was a really dumb thing to say.

G) He's already apologized. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

[Anders]

Originally posted by midwinter
A) Nagin has an amazing capacity to say really, really stupid things.

B) The fear about the rebuilding of NOLA is that it'll be gentrified (read: whited up).

C) That was a really dumb thing to say.

D) Why is no one paying attention to what he said right after that—something like "surely God is angry at America"?

E) Looks to me like he got caught up in the moment (he sounded awfully preachery)

F) That was a really dumb thing to say.

G) He's already apologized. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

The point is not about people saying stupid things or not. Its about people saying things that make them electable. Clinton just scored a lot of minus point of an account that was already in deficit.

Do anyone remember when Clinton actually had an idea on what society she wanted? Last time I heard anything about it was just before her universal health care plan failed. Since then she has become a tool.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Anders
The point is not about people saying stupid things or not. Its about people saying things that make them electable. Clinton just scored a lot of minus point of an account that was already in deficit.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Nagin is a mayor—and one that I'll bet you no one in America outside of NOLA could have named before Katrina. He is a black man who is the mayor of one of the blackest large cities in America and he got caught up in the moment on a day honoring the most important black man of the 20th century.

This is not the first time he's said something dumb, and he has already apologized. I do not understand what the fuss is about.

Do anyone remember when Clinton actually had an idea on what society she wanted? Last time I heard anything about it was just before her universal health care plan failed. Since then she has become a tool.

Senator Clinton is a tool and she was a tool as soon as she dropped that health care package and cut her hair and started making trips to Africa with Chelsea. She was re-toolified when she ran for Senate, and re-re-toolified when she voted to confirm Gonzales as AG and re-re-re-toolified when she moved entirely to the center to prop her up for an '08 bid, which she will most certainly lose. Horribly.

But this whole "plantation" thing is stupid and I don't see why this is even an issue unless the Republicans just want to change the subject to "Dems Suck!!!1!1!one!1!" to get it off of Abramoff, domestic spying, or the friggin' bombs that went off in Iraq this morning.

If people want to bash Democrats in a meaningful way—in a way that isn't salacious or ugly or in horrifyingly bad taste (dear god, what will the RNC goers stick to their faces if Senator Clinton runs? Tampax?!)—I'll be the first on the friggin' pile.

But this kind of stuff? Seriously. Non-issue.

[Anders]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I take it you've listened to her speeches beyond meaningless soundbites. Oh. You haven't? Figures.

Blast. You figured me out. And thats from this thread alone :rolleyes:

I do listen in on her speeches. She pops up occasionally in c-spans "Road to the White House" and in other segments. I also followed her in her campaign for the Senate.

I especially remember her recent speech on abstinense on the basis of religion as a way to avoid pregnancy (and this way avoid abortion). She cannot be unfamiliar with statistics showing that it is a very ineffective way of avoiding pregnancy (since it fail to often and they haven´t been taught about condoms and other forms of contraceptives). So she is actually knowingly advocating for a behaviour that will lead to MORE pregnancies to appease religious voters, the worst a politician can do in my book. But this example is only the top of the iceberg.

It is far from the Hillary that wrote "It takes a village" I read just when Clinton became president. Back then I thought "hey she is a courageus person ready to speak her mind and present a bold agenda" but unfortunetly it has gone downhill ever since.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Anders
I especially remember her recent speech on abstinense on the basis of religion as a way to avoid pregnancy (and this way avoid abortion). I'd like to see a link to where Hillary endorsed abstinence-only education. I simply don't believe it.

[Anders]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'd like to see a link to where Hillary endorsed abstinence-only education. I simply don't believe it.

I am not sure its from this speech (http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html), but it present what I am talking about:

Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this -- and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts and evidence -- we have to deal with the choices young people make not just the choice we wish they would make. We should use all the resources at our disposal to ensure that teens are getting the information they need to make the right decision.

Its in a speech that touches many different approaches and she mention this one along with others, like family planning. But if she was honest she would say this is a bad policy because it has been proven to not be effective. The jury is not out. It has looked at the evidence and there is one conclusion: Abstinence doesn´t work! And she should say so. Why doesn´t she? I can´t find any other reason than to appease a particular group.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ah.

As much as I enjoy mimicry, I realize must have stated that too subtly or too confusedly. What I meant was that, indeed, merely leveling accusations of racism or sexism doesn't mean those persons are qualified to legislate on those matters. Of course, no one in the history of the world has ever argued otherwise, so there's no need to knock that argument down. You've got a deft... no make that blunt... touch with the straw there. ;) Must be something ruinous to your grass in the over-priced California soil.


How do you miss the point so badly each time? It is amazing.

But if someone understands what racism and sexism mean today-- if they could identify the problems and offer appropriate solutions-- that would certainly qualify certain people to advance those ideals in government. Hell, even if some people merely expressed a willingness to learn about those things, get in that congress of ours! It's far better than having an apathetic or hostile member of congress in that person's place.

Agreed.

Answer this, why does rooting out racism and sexism continue to miss every Republican list of "ideals." Hmm?

It doesn't miss the list. What you continue to do is associate calling someone a racist and sexist with "rooting out" these traits. You've done this with me when I mention matters like default joint custody or male reproductive rights. I exhibit and ask for the traits you mention above. You avoid the ideals and dismiss them by simply calling me a misogynist. By your twisted reasoning, you've "rooted out" sexism. Instead what you have done is showing an unwilling to indentify problems within the sexism and offer solutions.

So the point is that these issues do "make this list." However when you don't agree with the list, you dismiss any thinking or discussion by using a hateful label. So does the party with which you most often vote.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Northgate
You said:

"WE" do not have the term swift-boated. It is simply a hateful term coined by Democrats ...

What I want to know is how did Democrats put the term into the popular lexicon? Specifically.

You are losing it? Your own article mentions this specifically. I even highlighted it. It is JARGON that has gained currency with LIBERAL WRITERS.

That is why Anders noted that the bold parts prove my point and he even noted that he doesn't care to agree with me. It isn't in the popular lexicon. It is in the lexicon of those wonderful people like yourself who are the KosKids.

(note Koskids is a bit of REPUBLICAN JARGON that floats around on various blogs. It has GAINED CURRENCY because many blogs enjoy posting the various responses from the DailyKos community to show how profane and illogical they happen to be, thus KosKids.)

But this is part of your usual argument techniques: Let's not discuss the disgusting use of "swift-boating" as a way to tear down Democrat politicians running for office who have a proud military service record ... Rather, let's discuss who created the term and argue about that...because you'd don't really want to discuss the mudslinging tactics used so prominently by your party.

Let's not discuss how all the people who worked closely or had leadership roles over Kerry tell the truth about him and do so after he has made claims against them?

This is why you do not move people with your arguments. The leader of the Swiftboat group has followed and disputed Kerry since after their service in the 70's. But defending yourself against being called a baby-killer and others declaring you committed atrocities is a smear campaign to you.

Sad...

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Nonsensical.

You're in denial.

Nick

[midwinter]

Nick:

Your comments have got me thinking... Who is better at the kind of short term lexical constructions (e.g. the right wing folks with "KosKids") or the dems (e.g. I got nothing because I think they suck at the short term ones)? The long term? "swift-boating," I suspect, will be around for a while.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Nick:

Your comments have got me thinking... Who is better at the kind of short term lexical constructions (e.g. the right wing folks with "KosKids") or the dems (e.g. I got nothing because I think they suck at the short term ones)? The long term? "swift-boating," I suspect, will be around for a while.

I can't think of anything that has stuck around longer than.."Borked."

But does this indicate an ability to influence the mainstream or a mindset that does not realize it is outside of the mainstream?

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
I can't think of anything that has stuck around longer than.."Borked."

But does this indicate an ability to influence the mainstream or a mindset that does not realize it is outside of the mainstream?

Nick

No kidding. Although that whole "mainstream" thing is a term the Republicans have co-opted. ;)

[midwinter]

To which I should add:

It seems to me that the Republicans are much, much better at constructing short-term lexical attacks (e.g. flip-flopper), while the Dems seem to construct terms like "swift-boating" that do NOTHING when they're needed but that last.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Let's not discuss how all the people who worked closely or had leadership roles over Kerry tell the truth about him and do so after he has made claims against them?

This is why you do not move people with your arguments. The leader of the Swiftboat group has followed and disputed Kerry since after their service in the 70's. But defending yourself against being called a baby-killer and others declaring you committed atrocities is a smear campaign to you.

Sad... Nick, the authors of that swift boat book were liars. They were proven repeatedly to be liars throughout the campaign. The reason they decided to lie about Kerry may be because he came out very publicly against the war, and was involved in that group that collected admissions of atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've heard the argument that those soldiers' admissions were false, and designed to just hurt the war effort. Maybe that's true. But that doesn't excuse the disgusting lies these swift-boaters told about Kerry faking every one of his medals etc.

There is such a thing as the truth, and there is such a thing as a lie. Throwing up statements that "well Kerry shouldn't have said what he said" doesn't make others' false claims truthful.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Nick, the authors of that swift boat book were liars. They were proven repeatedly to be liars throughout the campaign.

The evidence I read that "proved" they were liars was nothing more than guilt by association. The claim was that since they were given money by Republican donors, they must be liars. That doesn't work for me.

The reason they decided to lie about Kerry may be because he came out very publicly against the war, and was involved in that group that collected admissions of atrocities committed by American soldiers.

It could also be because he released a book called Tour of Duty detailing what he did in Vietnam that named some of these individuals specifically and they felt the need to clear their names.

Maybe that's true. But that doesn't excuse the disgusting lies these swift-boaters told about Kerry faking every one of his medals etc.

My memory isn't so perfect on this anymore but I remember discussing the first one at length. I remember some discussion about Kerry submitting the "wound" for a Purple Heart and his commanding officer declining to sign the card. The card somehow was signed and helped Kerry get the three purples hearts in four months to leave combat service. Didn't the "swift-boaters" include the commanding officer from what I recall?

The point is rather moot now, however no matter what folks care to declare about the SBV's, it is clear Kerry wanted to play up his military service. He invited along his former swift-mates. He had the book written using his memoirs. He "reported for duty" at the convention. You don't throw a pitch and then complain that the other guy hits it.

How many times have the Democrats brought up "Mission Accomplished?" Bush gave them that one. He served it up. They hit it. It's fair game. Now it clearly becomes a short hand for Iraq/quagmire/etc. but so what, Bush made it available.

But what people really are tired of, regardless of party is not political opportunities which mission accomplished represents. They are tired of the -isms. They want an ideal, policy or even a judge defeated because they represent bad ideals. Instead we get, over and over the fact that even if the ideals, policies, outcomes, prior work, etc. was all good, we know under it all that the person must be a racist, sexist, elitist.

Alito was probably the best recent example of this. It is clear he had no legal credential issues. He was an appeal court judge for 15 years. There was no way, other than judicial litmus tests to even attempt to deal with the guy. So we get the smears instead and by now the pattern is well known. We watched it with Bork and his video rental records. We watched it with Thomas. We watched these weak associations that make McCarthism seem like a walk in the park. Even people who are in total agreement shouldn't desire to see their agenda advanced that way.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
The evidence I read that "proved" they were liars was nothing more than guilt by association. The claim was that since they were given money by Republican donors, they must be liars. That doesn't work for me. The evidence that proved they were liars showed that the specific things they said were false. Sure, there was also the fact that they were funded by Bush's friends and supporters. Their leader had been asked by Nixon way back 30 years ago to "destroy Kerry" when he was publicly criticizing the war. But I'm not even talking about those things. I'm talking about the fact that every serious claim they made against Kerry was investigated and found to be either contradicted by evidence or unsupportable by evidence. Everything from a different physician's signature being on a medical report to a guy who claimed Kerry made up the events surrounding a medal not revealing the fact that he got a medal for the exact same events to people claiming to have served with him not really serving with him while those who did really serve with supported him.

It could also be because he released a book called Tour of Duty detailing what he did in Vietnam that named some of these individuals specifically and they felt the need to clear their names. I can understand that. He was critical of some of the people who later came out against him. But they didn't simply clear their names, they lied about Kerry.

My memory isn't so perfect on this anymore but I remember discussing the first one at length. I remember some discussion about Kerry submitting the "wound" for a Purple Heart and his commanding officer declining to sign the card. The card somehow was signed and helped Kerry get the three purples hearts in four months to leave combat service. Didn't the "swift-boaters" include the commanding officer from what I recall? Perhaps that's what he claims today, but Kerry couldn't have been awarded the medal without the commander's consent, and Kerry was awarded the medal, and there's no record of any questioning of it at the time. All the paperwork on it was completely legit. And the physician who claims to have treated Kerry for that injury didn't really treat him, according to the signatures on Kerry's medical report.

The point is rather moot now, however no matter what folks care to declare about the SBV's, it is clear Kerry wanted to play up his military service. He invited along his former swift-mates. He had the book written using his memoirs. He "reported for duty" at the convention. You don't throw a pitch and then complain that the other guy hits it.

How many times have the Democrats brought up "Mission Accomplished?" Bush gave them that one. He served it up. They hit it. It's fair game. Now it clearly becomes a short hand for Iraq/quagmire/etc. but so what, Bush made it available. I completely agree that Kerry campaigned on it. Does that give people the right to lie about it? Come on, that's the worst kind of relativism: If you claim 2+2=4, that means I can claim 2+2=5? If Bush campaigns on his education record in Texas, does that somehow give Democrats a free pass to lie about that record? A lie is a lie. They didn't "hit the pitch," they lied.

But what people really are tired of, regardless of party is not political opportunities which mission accomplished represents. They are tired of the -isms. They want an ideal, policy or even a judge defeated because they represent bad ideals. Instead we get, over and over the fact that even if the ideals, policies, outcomes, prior work, etc. was all good, we know under it all that the person must be a racist, sexist, elitist.

Alito was probably the best recent example of this. It is clear he had no legal credential issues. He was an appeal court judge for 15 years. There was no way, other than judicial litmus tests to even attempt to deal with the guy. So we get the smears instead and by now the pattern is well known. We watched it with Bork and his video rental records. We watched it with Thomas. We watched these weak associations that make McCarthism seem like a walk in the park. Even people who are in total agreement shouldn't desire to see their agenda advanced that way. You talk a lot about unfair labels of racism and sexism. I definitely can understand that, and I agree it's as bad of a charge as, say, claiming someone didn't deserve their medals for heroism in war. But Alito belonged to a group that believed women and minorities should be kept out of Princeton. Alito says he doesn't remember belonging, and that he doesn't agree with what they believed in anyway. OK, that's settled, as far as I'm concerned. But as far as I know there were no lies about the group or the fact that Alito belonged to it.

[dmz]

Did they ever figure out whose medals Kerry pitched over the WH fence?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
The evidence that proved they were liars showed that the specific things they said were false. Sure, there was also the fact that they were funded by Bush's friends and supporters. Their leader had been asked by Nixon way back 30 years ago to "destroy Kerry" when he was publicly criticizing the war. But I'm not even talking about those things. I'm talking about the fact that every serious claim they made against Kerry was investigated and found to be either contradicted by evidence or unsupportable by evidence. Everything from a different physician's signature being on a medical report to a guy who claimed Kerry made up the events surrounding a medal not revealing the fact that he got a medal for the exact same events to people claiming to have served with him not really serving with him while those who did really serve with supported him.


I don't want to yank the entire thread off track with this BRussell, perhaps we should IM each other about this. I just recall many issues where the actual parties that SHOULD have been the ones signing were approached, declined and then other parties somehow got Kerry what he wanted. That doesn't make the true first parties liars about the events that happened. It does show in my view that Kerry knows how to game a system and will seek whoever and whatever is necessary to accomplish this task. We can argue about the particulars, but the actual goal, being out of combat duty in four months readily lends itself to that conclusion.

I can understand that. He was critical of some of the people who later came out against him. But they didn't simply clear their names, they lied about Kerry.

The claim they lied is based off the fact that Kerry and his version of events is infallible. For example of the items cited to disprove these events were filing of Kerry. Even Kerry's own biographer had to distance himself from claims.

Perhaps that's what he claims today, but Kerry couldn't have been awarded the medal without the commander's consent, and Kerry was awarded the medal, and there's no record of any questioning of it at the time. All the paperwork on it was completely legit. And the physician who claims to have treated Kerry for that injury didn't really treat him, according to the signatures on Kerry's medical report.

Again this is the exact opposite of how I remember the discussion going. I remember specifically that his commanding officer didn't sign it. I also remember attempts to look it up at naval archives where such items are kept turned up no paper work.

I completely agree that Kerry campaigned on it. Does that give people the right to lie about it? Come on, that's the worst kind of relativism: If you claim 2+2=4, that means I can claim 2+2=5? If Bush campaigns on his education record in Texas, does that somehow give Democrats a free pass to lie about that record? A lie is a lie. They didn't "hit the pitch," they lied.

Sorry, correcting lies is not a lie. Suppose even then I give you the full benefit of the doubt. It is clear there were still several things Kerry lied about. Cambodia, throwing ribbons that he claimed were his, but later claimed were not, claiming attrocities against people off nothing more than hearsay from very questionable sources, belonging to a very questionable organization and claiming to meet with foreign enemy leadership, etc.

Maybe no one was 100% true by the reasoning of the other. However it still can't be put out there unless Kerry was trying to accomplish something with it. It is clear that Kerry was trying to use four months of combat training and the Vietnam war from so long ago to address the issue of Iraq today.

All this goes back to my main point that I harp on which is INTENT. You don't need to look so far into the past to determine what someone will do today unless you are trying to discredit or credit someone via their hidden intents. Democrats are fixated on this and it loses election after election for them.

The real reason, right or wrong, facts perfect or facts contested, that Kerry brought up Vietnam was to attempt to show SOMETHING (no one was sure what) about the Bush intent in Iraq. No one was sure what because Kerry couldn't really articulate what fighting a better war meant to the populace, but the reality is that Democrats need to get off hidden intent and deal with reality.

If Kerry had a better plan, would it really matter whether he threw medals or ribbons and whether they were his or someone elses? It wouldn't. When that matters is when you are trying to show something wrong with the deepest character of a person in their heart of hearts to use some religious terminology.

Democrats keep claiming this about Republicans and then continually get beat at their own game. What they should do is STOP PLAYING that game and focus on ideals. They should stop trying to show that X event from 1972 shows something deep and evil about a person in 2006, be it Bush or Alito. Inevitably when combing through their own past, the same sort of imperfect crap pops up and then we have a debate about 1972 and who has a better memory instead of who has a better plan in 2006.

But while the Democrats keep making that pitch (the past shows an evil intent) I do expect the Republicans to keep hitting it out of the park. When Republicans tried it with Clinton they had election loses. If Republicans try it again and the other party has good ideals to discuss, then I hope the Republicans lose. I think the Republicans gave up on it because the interest groups clearly keep a political double standard and so it became pointless. Clarene Thomas can be claimed to harass someone and NOW wants him dead. Clnton sticks his d*ck in someone's mouth and tries to buy them off with a job via a friend and all is well in the world. Jessie can have and buy off his mistress and her child but that is fine, Newt gets a book advance and is evil, Hillary gets one and all is well, etc.

Intent and using it to show -ism's is not an effective strategy. It absolutely has not proven to be such for the Republicans and it is about time the Democrats give up on it as well.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't want to yank the entire thread off track with this BRussell, perhaps we should IM each other about this. I just recall many issues where the actual parties that SHOULD have been the ones signing were approached, declined and then other parties somehow got Kerry what he wanted. That doesn't make the true first parties liars about the events that happened. It does show in my view that Kerry knows how to game a system and will seek whoever and whatever is necessary to accomplish this task. We can argue about the particulars, but the actual goal, being out of combat duty in four months readily lends itself to that conclusion.

The claim they lied is based off the fact that Kerry and his version of events is infallible. For example of the items cited to disprove these events were filing of Kerry. Even Kerry's own biographer had to distance himself from claims.

Again this is the exact opposite of how I remember the discussion going. I remember specifically that his commanding officer didn't sign it. I also remember attempts to look it up at naval archives where such items are kept turned up no paper work. I'll admit that some of the charges were not possible to definitively refute. That's quite a standard to use though, isn't it? If I was the Dean of your college, and I say now that you didn't deserve your degree even though there's no record of me saying anything of the kind at the time, and there is a record of me saying lots of very positive things about you, then that's just not a serious charge. Especially when published with dozens of other charges that have been refuted by 30-year-old paperwork, and I'm making money from the charges and got my start-up funds from your political opponents.

In regard to your other comments, you've given your broader political critique, and I respect it. But I want to give you my broad critique too, and I think it dovetails onto what we're discussing in this thread: It's the willingness to disregard questions of fact, and embrace a relativistic approach to empirical questions. Sure, we all have different values: A narrow or broad interpretation of constitutional rights, how much of the economy the government should control, etc. But I believe in an objective world with such old-fashioned things as truth and falsity.

And the left certainly has their irrationalities: Research on gender and ethnic issues, conspiracy theories about 9/11, an anti-medicine attitude. It makes me sick to see Democrat Patrick Kennedy blaming inoculations for the alleged rise in autism, or to see documentaries about 9/11 like those linked to here recently. Absolutely sick.

But the right has simply gone way too far down this road. A rejection of objective truth seems to have become a necessary component of their politics, as one member of the Bush administration showed when he allegedly derided the "reality-based community," preferring to "create reality" over "judiciously studying" it.

In my view, you can't understand this administration and their supporters without appreciating this basic attitude. It shows its face repeatedly, in everything from the type of religion they espouse (e.g., their views on evolution) to Iraq (their using bogus evidence of WMDs to go to war) to their fiscal policies (saying that deficits don't matter).

Again I want to be clear that this anti-reality attitude infects the left too, and it's wrong wherever it appears. But it seems to be central to the politics of today's conservatives, while liberals generally have kept it relegated to the fringes.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
In regard to your other comments, you've given your broader political critique, and I respect it. But I want to give you my broad critique too, and I think it dovetails onto what we're discussing in this thread: It's the willingness to disregard questions of fact, and embrace a relativistic approach to empirical questions. Sure, we all have different values: A narrow or broad interpretation of constitutional rights, how much of the economy the government should control, etc. But I believe in an objective world with such old-fashioned things as truth and falsity.

I agree with and believe in such things as well.

And the left certainly has their irrationalities: Research on gender and ethnic issues, conspiracy theories about 9/11, an anti-medicine attitude. It makes me sick to see Democrat Patrick Kennedy blaming inoculations for the alleged rise in autism, or to see documentaries about 9/11 like those linked to here recently. Absolutely sick.

Agreed on both sides.

But the right has simply gone way too far down this road. A rejection of objective truth seems to have become a necessary component of their politics, as one member of the Bush administration showed when he allegedly derided the "reality-based community," preferring to "create reality" over "judiciously studying" it.

I'm not sure I fully understand where you are coming from with this. From my perspective it isn't that the right is removed from reality but rather there is still room for policy debate. I find most often that the left, regardless of the actual truth has arrived at what they politically believe to be the "one true answer™" and as such, no deviation is allowed from it. For example it seems you cannot care about the poor and be pro-life at all. This is why Catholics have basically been tossed out from the party. There isn't room for being both and no alternatives are tolerated.

That is partially why I brought up the Prospect article with the values question. If Republican voters believe a set of values is determining your decisions to which they can relate, they might go along with you even if you do not come to the same conclusions about certain issues.

Democrats try to claim there isn't a set of values that determines their political manuevering and positions. However that simply isn't true. Most of what is claimed to be "wedge issue" politics is simply something that forces Democrats to show their values.

Democrats claim there aren't any and that the conclusions they arrive at are simply political calculation. Yet time after time, folks like Rove find a way of forcing them to reveal the values they claim do not exist. The truth is most of the time people wouldn't endorse those values.

In my view, you can't understand this administration and their supporters without appreciating this basic attitude. It shows its face repeatedly, in everything from the type of religion they espouse (e.g., their views on evolution) to Iraq (their using bogus evidence of WMDs to go to war) to their fiscal policies (saying that deficits don't matter).

A great thread would be to take each of those and break them down, assume totally lies and still see what conclusions, values and outcomes are under them.

Again I want to be clear that this anti-reality attitude infects the left too, and it's wrong wherever it appears. But it seems to be central to the politics of today's conservatives, while liberals generally have kept it relegated to the fringes.

We will have to agree to disagree there, but perhaps a thread with what I suggested might yield some interesting suprises.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Democrats try to claim there isn't a set of values that determines their political manuevering and positions. However that simply isn't true. Most of what is claimed to be "wedge issue" politics is simply something that forces Democrats to show their values.

Democrats claim there aren't any and that the conclusions they arrive at are simply political calculation. Yet time after time, folks like Rove find a way of forcing them to reveal the values they claim do not exist. The truth is most of the time people wouldn't endorse those values. You say you don't understand me, but I don't understand you here either. I've never heard this idea that liberals claim they don't have any values. That instead sounds like a caricature of liberals by conservatives. Of course we have values. :???: We value civil liberties, improving the situation of the poor and stigmatized, employees over corporations, a fair distribution of wealth, and on and on. I think we all know what liberal values and conservative values are.

There are two relevant constructs: Facts and values. Facts should not differ between political ideologies, values should.

Let me give you an example: Republicans and Democrats differ on how they approach the federal budget. A true values question would be what we want to spend our tax dollars on - defense, health care, retirement, etc., and how much we want to spend. But that's not the debate our country is having right now, is it. Right now, the debate is simply over whether we pay for what we spend. Republicans say we don't have to, Democrats say we do have to. The debate should be over what % of GDP the government should control, and where we should put that money. But it's not, because your party isn't reality-based. If your party would admit that, yes, we have to pay for what we spend, then we could get on with the values debate.

[rageous]

Yeah I'm a bit perplexed too. I mean the Democrats consistantly campaign on value such as their beliefs in how healthcare should be handled in this country, education, right to privacy, civil liberties, and so on.

I don't see anywhere where they hide their values. The one area that continually gets mentioned by Republicans that I can think of would be abortion. But from what I gather, the Reps are wanting Dems to come out and say something to the effect of "I support the killing of children," which is certainly not the Democrats stance on the issue. But anything short of saying such and they are "being misleading."

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
You say you don't understand me, but I don't understand you here either. I've never heard this idea that liberals claim they don't have any values. That instead sounds like a caricature of liberals by conservatives. Of course we have values. :???: We value civil liberties, improving the situation of the poor and stigmatized, employees over corporations, a fair distribution of wealth, and on and on. I think we all know what liberal values and conservative values are.

Nonsense... if those were the true values then there would be no problem. That is why whenever most Democrats claim such things a little probing reveals the truth.

Example:

Civil liberties - Domestic violence laws that prosecute regardless of the victim recanting story or not desiring to prosecute, speech codes at universities, sexual harassment and hate crime legislation that criminalizes thoughts, abortion rights bills that intentionally mislead parents about the actions of their teen children, lawsuits regarding the food we eat, etc.

You push on any of these issues and the true nature of civil liberties are revealed, which is freedom if you agree with me and prosecution if you don't.

Improving the plight of the poor, unless it deals with immigration or trade which is deemed racist, unless they are white and male, unless it interferes with affirmative action and sexist programs, unless you are married, etc.

Same thing, probe a bit, and have the truth revealed. The truth is that Americans should suffer a bit because we exploit the world. Dealing with open borders, letting our jobs be shipped abroad or being poor but not a member of a historically oppressed group is the just desserts we will claim empathy for, but not dare help.

I could go on, but really I doubt you will believe it. It is so easy to prove though. Republicans come up with need based affirmative action for example which, especially if minorities are disproportionately poor should benefit disproportionately and the truth is revealed. They cannot support such a thing. It isn't about need. It really is about race. You can do this on any number of issues and the true values are quickly revealed.

There are two relevant constructs: Facts and values. Facts should not differ between political ideologies, values should.

The problem of course is that facts without context are meaningless. Democrats have mistaken not being willing to share their context as not being willing to deal with the facts.

Let me give you an example: Republicans and Democrats differ on how they approach the federal budget. A true values question would be what we want to spend our tax dollars on - defense, health care, retirement, etc., and how much we want to spend. But that's not the debate our country is having right now, is it. Right now, the debate is simply over whether we pay for what we spend. Republicans say we don't have to, Democrats say we do have to. The debate should be over what % of GDP the government should control, and where we should put that money. But it's not, because your party isn't reality-based. If your party would admit that, yes, we have to pay for what we spend, then we could get on with the values debate.

This is a great issue. I agree about the facts and even the context. However when I watch Democrats frame the context for debate about spending, they do nothing like what you suggest. They continually harp about the already massive spending being not fully funded. Democrats do NOT say we have to balance the budget. I have not seen one suggest less spending, cutting any major program, you name it. Republicans have done this but have always been demonized over it. DNC ads show Bush pushing seniors off a cliff and so forth.

So while I will gladly damn both of them to hell for their budgeting ways, I'll also damn the Democrats double for claiming the Republicans are killing the elderly, starving the young and so forth the second a single cent is cut.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Nonsense... if those were the true values then there would be no problem. That is why whenever most Democrats claim such things a little probing reveals the truth.

Example:

Civil liberties - Domestic violence laws that prosecute regardless of the victim recanting story or not desiring to prosecute, speech codes at universities, sexual harassment and hate crime legislation that criminalizes thoughts, abortion rights bills that intentionally mislead parents about the actions of their teen children, lawsuits regarding the food we eat, etc.

You push on any of these issues and the true nature of civil liberties are revealed, which is freedom if you agree with me and prosecution if you don't.

Improving the plight of the poor, unless it deals with immigration or trade which is deemed racist, unless they are white and male, unless it interferes with affirmative action and sexist programs, unless you are married, etc.

Same thing, probe a bit, and have the truth revealed. The truth is that Americans should suffer a bit because we exploit the world. Dealing with open borders, letting our jobs be shipped abroad or being poor but not a member of a historically oppressed group is the just desserts we will claim empathy for, but not dare help.

I could go on, but really I doubt you will believe it. It is so easy to prove though. Republicans come up with need based affirmative action for example which, especially if minorities are disproportionately poor should benefit disproportionately and the truth is revealed. They cannot support such a thing. It isn't about need. It really is about race. You can do this on any number of issues and the true values are quickly revealed. I disagree with your characterizations of those issues, but those are still questions of values rather than facts. If Democrats really wanted to make laws against thinking hateful thoughts, that's still in the realm of values rather than fact. If Republicans want to outlaw sodomy, that's in the realm of values rather than fact. You may think liberal values are screwed up and inconsistent and dishonest and on and on. But at least we're arguing about values. My contention here is that, on so many issues, we can't get conservatives to agree to basic factual substance so that we can even get to the values questions.
This is a great issue. I agree about the facts and even the context. However when I watch Democrats frame the context for debate about spending, they do nothing like what you suggest. They continually harp about the already massive spending being not fully funded. Democrats do NOT say we have to balance the budget. I have not seen one suggest less spending, cutting any major program, you name it. Republicans have done this but have always been demonized over it. DNC ads show Bush pushing seniors off a cliff and so forth.

So while I will gladly damn both of them to hell for their budgeting ways, I'll also damn the Democrats double for claiming the Republicans are killing the elderly, starving the young and so forth the second a single cent is cut. Why do Democrats have to want spending cuts? :???: There's nothing at all wrong with criticizing Republicans' spending priorities - that's the debate over values - as long as you're willing to pay for what you spend. The problem right now is that Republicans won't accept the basic reality of paying for what you spend. The reality is that Republicans spend more than Democrats, but even if Democrats did want to spend more overall than Republicans, there's nothing at all wrong with that, as long as everyone accepts basic math.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I disagree with your characterizations of those issues, but those are still questions of values rather than facts.

Again is the disagreement really about the facts? It is about the conclusions via values drawn from those facts.

If Democrats really wanted to make laws against thinking hateful thoughts, that's still in the realm of values rather than fact.

Nonsense. To them it is a FACT that white men are racist and that all men are violent.

If Republicans want to outlaw sodomy, that's in the realm of values rather than fact. You may think liberal values are screwed up and inconsistent and dishonest and on and on. But at least we're arguing about values. My contention here is that, on so many issues, we can't get conservatives to agree to basic factual substance so that we can even get to the values questions.

I think what you can't get get conservatives to agree to is some sort of gotcha nonsense where some fact, devoid of context serves as a means of debunking an argument instead of addressing the actual argument.

Affirmative action is a great example of this. The value is diversity. The fact might be that without specific set asides or lowered admission standards black and hispanic enrollment might go down. However that doesn't mean the campus is less diverse. It might mean, as is the case in UCLA that it is Asian and Indian students who are crowding out everyone.

But that context won't be provided, instead the question will only dwell on the selective fact that supports their argument, black and hispanic enrollment going down. When you note that you can still support diversity without supporting race-based affirmative action, that becomes impossible since "the fact is fewer black and hispanic students are enrolled." You can point out the fact that the campus is minority white, majority asian, still incredibly diverse by any measure, etc. None of those facts matter because they are not the right fact to support the racist conclusion.

I often find it is not that conservatives are unwilling to deal with facts. Instead I find it is often liberals who are unwilling to consider more than their one select fact or often extrapolated outcome. I have dealt with this at length on here when discussion family court, custody and domestic violence issues.

Why do Democrats have to want spending cuts?

Because right now the level of spending and promised entitlements will bankrupt the entire economy and enslave the entire next generation. This is true with both REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRATIC spending proposals.

There's nothing at all wrong with criticizing Republicans' spending priorities - that's the debate over values - as long as you're willing to pay for what you spend.

We've had this debate regarding Social Security. Until we have a long discussion about the nature of money, the demographic changes and do so forth, they you will see that in no way has the largest generation ever to come through ever paid for what they have spent. Additionally they will leave a dramatically smaller generation saddled with literally triple to quadruple the costs to pay back per capita.

The problem right now is that Republicans won't accept the basic reality of paying for what you spend.

The reality is that probably both Republicans and Democrats are going to watch their children inflate their way out of this mess, and give their baby boomer parents the old silver inflation bullet.

The reality is that Republicans spend more than Democrats, but even if Democrats did want to spend more overall than Republicans, there's nothing at all wrong with that, as long as everyone accepts basic math.

We had a very, very long talk on this. You couldn't agree with me about how when the government holds bonds with itself, and also has the right to print currency that no obligation is really every redeemable for anything of true value. It is all just accounting gimmicks. Money is just paper. The government could print away the deficits and even the obligations tomorrow or wash them away with the swish of a pen. That is the fact and until people are willing to deal with that, no amount of financial manuvering on top of that will change that fact. Anything that is fiscally irresponsible no matter who proposes it only postpones who will have to drop the true solution. Republicans and Democrats are both willing to tell the same lies here because the issue isn't party, it is generational and demography.

Damn we need a money thread.:lol: I've tried to start a couple and they just thud like a dead horse. Oh well.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Again is the disagreement really about the facts? It is about the conclusions via values drawn from those facts. Yes it's about values rather than facts - that's what I said. :???: Maybe you could re-read what you quoted again, or explain what you mean here.

Nonsense. To them it is a FACT that white men are racist and that all men are violent. There is a fact issue at the root of the racial issues you're talking about - how serious of a problem racism is. But really, the debate over affirmative action is much more focused on values than facts. There's pretty close agreement between liberals and conservatives on the facts. Most conservatives would agree that racism exists and plays some role in diminishing the opportunities of minorities. Most liberals agree that even if you could magically erase all racism, you still wouldn't solve all the problems.

In fact, I'd say the debate over race is a perfect example of the kind of values debate we should be having on all political/social issues we face. Abortion is another example - the debate is over morality and values. You don't have one side denying that abortions occur, or something like that. THose debates center on values and priorities and fairness and the like, rather than factual issues.

Of course it's easy to point to inconsistencies of the kind you mention: Republicans do practice quotas in their Supreme Court and cabinet appointments at the same time they say they don't believe in them, they do believe in legacy admissions, which is a form of affirmative action but mostly for rich white kids, they say they want small government but they support invasive government, etc. etc.

But I'm not talking about those kinds of inconsistencies. I'm talking about how frequently conservatives simply deny reality and empirical facts and science in their policy views (e.g., increasing taxes raises revenues!), and also their world views (e.g., biological evolution is a conspiracy of atheist scientists!). The president's advisors have acknowledged this when they mock the "reality-based community." They simply don't think it's important to study reality.

Because right now the level of spending and promised entitlements will bankrupt the entire economy and enslave the entire next generation. This is true with both REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRATIC spending proposals.

We've had this debate regarding Social Security. Until we have a long discussion about the nature of money, the demographic changes and do so forth, they you will see that in no way has the largest generation ever to come through ever paid for what they have spent. Additionally they will leave a dramatically smaller generation saddled with literally triple to quadruple the costs to pay back per capita. It seems to me that your long discussions of money, while interesting, simply divert attention from the basic problem, which is that one party doesn't bother with basic math. Bush said we had a solvency problem with social security, and then proposed a plan to make it less solvent. He ignored the factual situation, as he and his party habitually do with budgetary matters. He was eventually forced to admit that his plan wouldn't improve solvency, after months of claiming that it would. And when he did, he got all kinds of kudos for his honesty, even though no one seemed to care that he had been dishonest about the facts of his plan in all of the months prior to that admission.

Nick, what I think you're pointing to with your criticisms of liberalism today is valid. I'd state it like this: Liberals don't clearly express their values. They squirm and fudge and hem and haw about whether they support the Iraq war or not, whether they believe in welfare or not, whether they want universal health care or not. Perhaps it's because liberal politicians know that the US is simply not a liberal country, and so they try to moderate their true values. But whatever the reason, it's true. They bob and weave much too much.

But even though (I think) I agree with your basic criticism, my criticism of conservatism is different and independent of your criticism of liberalism. They can both be true: Conservatives can be bad with facts at the same time that liberals are bad with values. Perhaps you won't ever agree with me that conservatives are bad with accepting facts, but that's OK, because you're a conservative, and well, you're bad with accepting facts. ;)