how would a lefist reform the conservatives in america [Archive]

The Heart Collector

04-30-2009, 01:36 PM

i wrote this a few days ago:

Today, the Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is switching his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, after it became clear that he would not be able to win in a Republican primary for his seat. The reason why his seat is contested is because of inner campaigns to punish the Republican members of Congress who have given votes to any of Obama’s policies. The actual results of this are probably very small (the filibuster-proof majority so often discussed by the media will never meaningfully happen in a party like the Democrats’, who still wouldn’t be able to convince all of their members to vote). What’s important is the meaning: the Republicans are losing more and more members, and the remaining core are the hardliners, who will only exacerbate the current situation. The GOP finds itself aimless and without a clear plan after resounding defeats in Congressional and Presidential elections. There is no clear leader for the party, and all of the people that have tried to fill the vacuum have been unsuccessful in varying degrees. At their current rate, they are going to find themselves in trouble even if Obama’s presidency is a resounding failure.

How can the Republican Party successfully rebrand itself and succeed, without completely changing itself (since the goal is, after all, to enact policies and not just to get elected)? As someone diametrically opposite to the Republicans and who more or less dislikes all of their policies, how can I answer that question while not simply suggesting they adopt all the policies that I like? Most of this is very general and can apply to the Democratic Party too, but there are some more specific

The great war for America

The modern Republican Party has maintained an aggressive political stance, creating a climate where it is essentially fighting an enemy, and/or suffering from persecution. It clearly defines lines and attacks those outside of them (or creates the perception of attack). There are a variety of examples just from the past few years. The recent criticism of Barack Obama as a socialist falls under this: the party seeks to associate their political rivals with real or perceived enemies that they must be against. From there come accussations of Obama being a terrorist, Obama being a muslim, Obama being a socialist, and other completely preposterous notions. The same tendencies are observed in cultural/social points like abortion and homosexual marriage. There tends to be an undercurrent of antagonism towards certain specific groups or specific behaviors in much of their political push. Politicians rile up their base to portray their membership as being a lead role in some sort of great war for the American country.

The more aggressive and combative the conflicts, the harder it is to put them in the past. Because of this, the party is essentially betting on their groups being the prevailing and faster-growing ones, while the opposition’s groups would either shrink, or grow at a slower pace, and without political power. If that bet turns out to be a bad one, then the party will find itself unable to revert itself quickly enough, or to adapt to the changing political climate.

Additionally, there are many people in the country that simply aren’t aggressive or combative. While partisan politics in the United States are strong, many people switch from Republican to Democrat and viceversa constantly, and have no strong belief that the party that they did not vote for is absolutely wrong on all counts. The more divisive the tone, the less many will feel inclined to lend support to the guilty party.

Currently, Republican identification is extremely low. Specter preferred switching to the Democrats precisely because Republican registration was considerably lower and the remaining elements were more hard-liners than himself, putting him at serious risk of losing a nomination even though the state had not developed a new dislike of their representative. Not only is identification low, but the groups that are taking an ever-increasing share in the country are leaning towards the Democrats. Blacks have leaned Democratic for quite a while, and will probably keep doing so. Hispanics leaned Democratic this election and their Republican support was reduced when compared to the Bush elections. Young people lean Democratic too. The base of the Republican party is shrinking, and the problem with that is that many of the louder voices in the base are resolutely against adding newer members.

There is a time and a place in politics for exclusion and forcefulness, but these are delicate behaviors: if they are used too abundantly, and too early, they lose their effectiveness. In the Republicans’ case, the Tax Day Tea Party protests are probably a good example. When Obama has barely had time in office, and most political analysts are still merely waiting to see how his policies end up working, or if he will actually put them in place, the idea of mass protests is excessive. Its achievement is in getting those who are already worried and in the “conflict/war” narrative riled up while alienating everyone else.

A change in that attitude is vital. The party should try to define itself by the goals it wants to achieve and the people it wants to share those goals with, since these are the people who will hear the message, agree with it, and be inclined to join. Doing this requires actual inclusion, not simply glossing over damaging or exclusive policies via language. The language used when trying to go against specific groups, as covert as it may seem at first, eventually becomes clear in its meaning. People are not going to join a group that is hostile to them, whether that hostility is open or hidden.

Entitlement and admission of failure

There are a variety of social groups in the United States that generally don’t trend Republican. Black and latino minorities, urban residents, homosexuals, arguably the poor (at the very least, they lean more towards the Democrats than more well-off residents of their own states). Similarly, some groups do trend Republican. There are reasons for that. Valid reasons. They are not nefarious reasons. It is the responsibility of the party, or the politicians that belong to it, to get voters to vote for them. Unfortunately, it is easy to overlook that, and assume as a given that everyone should be voting for your party or sharing your beliefs. Therefore, if they are not doing so, they must be wrong. It cannot possibly be the party that is wrong.

To give an example, let’s take the black community. The black community leans Democratic for a variety of reasons. If the Republicans want to make inroads with the black community, they have to admit their failure: they have not done enough to court the black community, not done enough to establish the common bonds they have with the black community, and not done enough to address the grievances that the black community has. This is both hard to admit, and hard to find a solution to.

Instead, the general attitude is to either outright deny any sort of wrongdoing, or minimize/trivialize it. The trivializing perspective comes from groups who believe that they simply need to “be inclusive” towards blacks (or any other minority group) by marketing themselves to them in a more effective way. So it is an admission of having failed in marketing yourself, not in the notion that the ideas you are marketing are unappealing. The denial perspective comes from people whose idea of why the black community does not support Republicans is a variation of “the Democrats have fooled the black community, it is us who have done more things for them, why are they not voting for us?”.

A strong example of this is the recent financial crisis. At the onset of the crisis, certain segments of the conservative media world (commentators, mostly) suggested that what was to blame for the global financial crisis was that the government had forced banks to lend money to irresponsible minorities. This story was reprinted on the pages of the Washington Post, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and was repeated by many commentators at Fox News. The attempt was extremely unsuccessful: all serious discussion of the financial crisis has moved past these stories, because there was no evidence to support them, a considerable amount of evidence to contradict it, and because the story made no sense whatsoever. What the story managed, however, was to create the same justifications as usual: minorities and poor people were idiots and frauds, and the government was effectively giving them gifts (houses) to assure their votes. It is, after all, inconceivable that minorities wouldn’t want to vote for Republicans. There must be some sort of dirty trick at play, such as the government giving them houses and sinking the United States in the process. A few months later, there was a semi-popular television rant by a low-level reporter called Rick Santelli, where he essentially insulted everyone with a failing mortgage, calling them losers and suggesting he, and the other winners, shouldn’t have to help these losers. How can the Republican Party, and conservatives in general, expect votes from social groups if they are calling them, with no basis whatsoever, criminally negligent, stupid, and greedy?

Political parties cannot feel entitled to votes of communities. They cannot expect that communities will just “see” how compatible they are, they have to actually turn into a party compatible with those communities. In the same way, they have to accept responsibility. The Republicans need to accept that the current incarnation of their party is politically incompatible with many social groups. It is not a question of image, or marketing, or perception, or temporary love of “the messiah” or whatever they feel like calling Obama today. It is a concrete political and ideological problem that their party has. If the Republicans simply act like they cannot possibly comprehend how minority groups don’t vote for them, or if they act like they just need a superficial makeover to get minority groups to vote for them, they will only come across as insulting and condescending.

Outdated Ideas

For the past few decades, Republicans have referred to the free market as the basis for many of their economic policies, and as some fundamental part of America. They present themselves as supporting free market policies and are against policies that affect the market. Now that Obama is President, they are criticizing his socialist policies, and claiming that America is on the road to socialism.

This is all completely preposterous. Nothing the Republicans support has anything to do with the free market. Nothing the Democrats do has anything to do with socialism either. No one in America is even remotely interested in creating a free market economy, since that would be an absolute disaster. Businesses are not interested in these things. They are interested in policies favorable to them, which aren’t the same thing.

The problem with using this false language is that the lines between that is real and what is fake can be confused. Discuss the free market too much, and you might actually start believing that you need to pursue some sort of ideological market purity (even though the policies you originally started to pursue were not free market policies, and still aren’t). Additionally, some ideas stop making much sense when discussed from purely ideological frameworks but executed in much more pragmatic ways. It is hard to take seriously criticism of government intervention in the supply and demand of an economy, and then suggest solutions to healthcare and education that consist of nothing other than massive manipulation of supply and demand of the economy.

Perhaps when the Soviet Union still existed, the idea of defining policies that were undesirable by the interests supporting you as “socialist” caused serious fear, and defining your own policies, those that are desirable by the interests supporting you, as “free” caused serious relief. But those days are long gone. The conditions aren’t there. A poor person without healthcare doesn’t care how “free” the market is.

This is still problematic with the party. In comments regarding how to get the party back on track, members have said, to paraphrase, “get back to philosophy of lowering taxes”. How about you get back to the philosophy of solving problems? When high taxes are a problem, they can be lowered and that is a solution. When the problems are other issues, no sleigh of hand or magic trick is going to make cutting taxes a solution.

A Radical, Contradictory Project

The project of the Republican Party in the past few decades has been to radically change the political scene in the United States, and to a certain degree, they have been successful. The services that the American government provides and the care it brings to its citizens are lesser than in other developed countries, and I would argue that many developing countries don’t take the United States as the model to emulate in these terms; rather, they want to create government services for their citizens such as healthcare and stronger public education. On the other hand, many of the social changes that the right (through the Republicans) tried to achieve were not successful, and if they were, they won’t be for long: bigger role for Christianity in the nation, outlawing abortion, outlawing stem cell research, criticism of science, limiting marriage to man and woman, etc.

Like any revolution, there is only so much fervor that can be sustained before the eventual apathy, then backlash, and then defeat.

From my view, many of the attitudes that the Republican Party holds are contradictory; by trying to support both, they inevitably end up damaging one or the other (or cancelling each other out). On one hand, the party encourages the preservation of values and traditions in society. On the other hand, the party encourages a fully capitalist system, which brings about change via destruction and does not have a large concern for the preservation of tradition. On one hand, the party encourages religious values that have a lot to do with using your strength and support to help others. On the other hand, the party encourages individualism and gives praise to those that do not need help (or do not ask for it).

Some of these attitudes and views need to go, or at least they need to be rearranged in a way that they don’t interfere with each other.

The Heart Collector

04-30-2009, 01:37 PM

Ideas

So far everything mentioned here is extremely general and incredibly obvious. So obvious, in fact, that the Republicans have been saying the same things: they need to be more inclusive, they need to appeal to minority groups more, they need to be more youthful, etc. It is clear that it needs to be done; what isn’t so clear is how.

This might be a pipe dream, but it would be effective if conservatives proved their ideas of limited government work. Grassroots movements should be assembled in order to carry out strong and massive community action. The problems that affect any nation are often structural in nature; they cannot be solved by donating some money to charity, or doing relatively simple volunteering work (though this is a start). They could start or join programs that try to solve a lot of these structural programs, and manage to either solve them, or discover that for some of the problems, a different, more thorough approach is needed.

Government officials are elected to govern; whatever their philosophy is, they should have tangible evidence of their success. Someone critical of the conservatives (I cannot recall who right now) said their greatest problem was that their philosophy treated government (and governing) with such disdain, that when in power they were unable to actually use the state to solve problems; they were only good at dismantling it. Republicans are in a different position than, say, Democrats. Democrats want the machinery of the state to build their projects; if Republicans are going to have a viable, long-term project that is more inclusive towards the groups that are taking an ever-increasing share of the demographic pie, they cannot merely dismantle or weaken the state and replace it with nothing (or with extremely ineffectual policies). This is probably one of the key issues of american conservative philosophy that seems so alien to many, this notion that if only we can get the government off our backs, everything will just turn out alright with no effort. Too much emphasis is placed on simply reducing programs, or reducing spending, or reducing taxes, or reducing things. Not enough emphasis is placed on the efforts that will have to be undertaken to cover for those losses, and when they do, they tend to be too focused on individual effort and the “bootstrapping” story that have become a laughable cliche to almost anyone not in their political party. This has given the party a reputation among many as the “I got mine” party, or the party of selfishness and carelessness. If I were a conservative, and I wanted my party to succeed, I would focus on showing how the people can replace those state functions, not on how the market supposedly will replace these functions, and if it doesn’t then maybe they weren’t need.

This idiotic market fetish is, I assume, a strand of the libertarian/supply-side segments of the party. To the pragmatic voter, to the voter not interested in a philosophical discussion of the state, it does not hold a lot of meaning.

Responsibility is a concept that generally gets play from conservatives. Often, the feeling one gets from discussions of responsibility is one of vindictiveness or hostility, as in “people with problems in society are not as responsible as myself”. Responsibility is taken to mean “you’re on your own”. How about the responsibility of individuals towards others? Towards society? Of the government towards its citizens? The discourse on responsibility seems to rest on the assumption that any spending is inherently irresponsible, and any cuts are inherently responsible, without thinking of the important social and political issues that the spending or programs are trying to fix. If conservatives want to reduce government spending, they should do so while trying to uphold the responsibilities of the government towards the people and ensure that they are not leaving those in need out to dry. Fiscal responsibility is not the only type of responsibility, nor is it the most important one. If the party uses a framework of pure financial concern when thinking about all sorts of social policies, they are inevitably going to come across as unconcerned with the common man.

Social issues have been important to the Republicans, at least superficially, in the past few decades. The approach the party has taken towards these issues is, as mentioned before, aggressive and exclusive. They attract a strong, activist group, and come in conflict with other groups. I am not sure what would be a good approach, but I tend to incline towards simply ignoring these issues at a central level. The United States is a large country with varied opinions across and only two viable parties, so the idea that any party should have a hard-line stance on divisive subjects is not necessarily good or useful. There is really no reason why two giant entities (Democrats and Republicans) need to fight in complete opposition for how to redefine an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people. At the local and state level, the variation in opinion is presumably less and so taking a stronger position isn’t as alienating towards the opposition. The reason why I believe this is an effective approach is because it is too transparent to change an entire position (say, opposition to gay marriage), and it is problematic towards the candidates and voters that are genuinely against it. It would reek of political triangulation.

In this sense, the party should adapt to a pattern of government more similar to the Democrats’ own: They hold majorities, but are much less cohesive internally and their majority votes are not necessarily assured. The Republicans operate on a stricter basis: on the important votes for the Bush administration, the votes were mostly unanimous from the Republicans, and split from the Democrats. The Republicans in Congress seem used to this, and it is not particularly useful as a minority party (essentially the only Republicans that the current majorities pay attention to are the moderate ones). A less internally cohesive party achieves less in a short period of time, but can last longer, and its individual members are under less pressure from the people.

As mentioned before, some of the concepts and language that conservatives use are already outdated. Free market and socialism don’t have the same visceral meaning anymore, and they never meant what they were officially supposed to mean. The overwhelming majority of people are not in love with an economic system for philosophical reasons; Your average American does not care about Friedrick Hayek; he simply wants to lead a peaceful life with opportunities. No matter what words you use to refer to them, the economic policies of the past few decades were not beneficial to a considerable number of Americans, and they have legitimate grievances. The American right’s economic view is supporting businesses and generating wealth and opportunities through a purely top-down approach. They can keep this approach if they want to, but it is clear that many people feel unsatisfied with it, and would like at least to be covered in some other ways. Improvement of the public education system, availability of universities at less expensive prices, and healthcare benefits that are administered in a different way, are among the things that many people want or think should at least be addressed. There is nothing that says governments can’t follow pro-business policies and simultaneously do these things (certainly many companies are not opposed to national healthcare. It’s the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries that are opposed to it). These weren’t dramatic problems years ago, but they are now, and the solutions offered by conservatives haven’t been terribly well received. It’s time to accept some economic policies might have gone the wrong way, and try to address the grievances of the people that are adversely affected by them.

Part of this is the desire to do “market-based policies” for everything. As mentioned before, it’s a little disingenuous to rage against market interventions, and then support policies that are massive market interventions for no reason other than the feeling that one has to shoehorn some sort of market aspect to anything. I believe a better approach would be to take some of these problems away from the market, instead of trying to come up with hybrid solutions that satisfy no one, and focus on the responsible management and administration aspects: proper funding, reduced waste, decreased costs while expanding coverage, etcetera. But it is important to come up with solutions to the problems at hand. The problem with healthcare, for instance, is how outrageously expensive it is and the way the industry cuts costs. Giving everyone credits to purchase healthcare is not going to change how outrageously expensive it is or the ways the industry cuts costs. Sure, it is a “market-based solution”, but it doesn’t actually solve anything.

I would finally add that promoting national and cultural values and traditions is a worthy cause, but these can be corrupted. The cultural value of family is not a list with amount of members, their sexuality, and the sex of the two (always two) parents. They can be shared even by those who seem unlikely. On this sense, I believe the conservatives would be better off trying to promote a form of those values among everyone, rather than the approaches they have taken (or are perceived to take). As mentioned earlier, some of the things that the Republican party supports directly harm these values and traditions by creating more vulnerable environments where they’re not allowed to develop; since money isn’t everything, they should take their economic policymaking much more seriously to account for these changes that reckless capitalism will bring about.

Would this resemble the current conservative party? Some of it would. The people that have probably already left the party are the ones that most resemble these approaches, so in that sense, it’s going to take a while for the de-radicalization of the Republicans.

Potter82

04-30-2009, 01:58 PM

oh where to begin;

*If you're going to criticize something, offer a constructive alternative or STFU, you're not helping anyone by bitching alone

*Acknowledge that there are more problems in America than your belief that taxes are too high

*Don't treat compromise like it's a dirty word, it's how stuff get's done. No one can get 100% of what they want all the time and to believe differently is just naive.

*Accept diverse views in your party and stop trying to get everyone to march lockstep

*Stop trying to declare war on science. I would never support anyone who questions evolution. To me that signals that a person prefers ideology over fact and that they prefer to view the world as they would like it to be rather than what it actually is. It's a sign of delusional thinking.

*Adopt a neutral live and let live attitude about religion and stop trying to convert everyone. The US is not and never was a Christian nation so stop trying to turn it into one!

*Stop the belligerent, bullying, disrespectful, and hypocritical chest thumping, saber rattling foreign policy, it just turns friends into enemies and only consolidates your enemy's power further (Bush has been great for Chavez, Ahamdinejad, etc.) & stop treating every other country as a lesser entity instead of an equal partner.

*For the love of god stop with the damn "you are vulnerable and will be attacked by evil doers!" fear mongering hysteria which reared it's ugly head in the Gitmo debate, the wiretapping debate, the interrogations, and the Iraq War. It's dishonest and cheap.

*Disown Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They do nothing but inject hate, fear, negativity, and bile into the national political discourse and offer zero positive solutions. These people are hateful demagogues who should have zero influence over national policy. Why not provide constructive ideas and optimism and hope instead?

*and number 1; stop trying to degrade, demonize, and dehumanize large segments of the US population, in particular; athiests, homosexuals, latinos, blacks, muslims, etc. Acknowledge that these people are every bit as American as you, stop using them as a ficitional boogyman to gain votes, and just leave them the hell alone.

If anyone wants to know why I don't consider myself a conservative, now you know lol

gayzilla

04-30-2009, 05:54 PM

oh where to begin...
*and number 1; stop trying to degrade, demonize, and dehumanize large segments of the US population, in particular; athiests, homosexuals, latinos, blacks, muslims, etc. Acknowledge that these people are every bit as American as you, stop using them as a ficitional boogyman to gain votes, and just leave them the hell alone.

If anyone wants to know why I don't consider myself a conservative, now you know lol

Way to go potter, I agree with pretty much everything. Sorry HeartCollector, yours was so long I'll have to come back and delve into it once I have more time.

I would add that conservatives should stick to fiscally conservative ideals and leave the social conservatism at home. I never understood their virulent push to legislate everything. YOu can be agains gambling and gay marriage and whatever else your against, but Why the Fuck do you feel you have to right to make rules so that other people can not do what you don't want to do. The incredible selfishness of such an attitude really amazes me. Nobody is saying that religious people have to marry a gay person if same-sex marriage passes, so why are they trying so hard to ban it. I don't care if you think I'm going to hell, just don't try to deny me my rights as an American

stefanb

04-30-2009, 06:46 PM

Flip a coin. It lands on heads. It lands on tails. Maybe it lands on heads 3 or 4 times in a row, or lands on tails 3 or 4 times in a row. We can analyze the heads vs tails paradigm but we miss the point that it's still two sides of the same coin. Welcome to politics.

South Park got it right in their “electing a school mascot” episode... i.e. EVERY election is a choice between “a giant turd” and “the world’s biggest douche”, because you have to be one of those things to make it very far in politics.

I find it helps to get a sense of people when talking on these subjects, so if you’re the same way, here’s “me” in a quick glance: I don't identify with any political party or movement. I’m not religious. I dislike most main-stream politicians and tend to see them as opportunists before all else. I’d describe myself as socially left-of-center, and fiscally right-of-center. i.e. I don’t care if the gays are getting married at a marijuana-selling abortion clinic; just don’t ask me to pay for any of it.

Now, on to the topic...

When Bush came to office, someone could have written your exact pointless spiel in bizzar-o world. Want me to do it as proof?

You wrote:

There are a variety of social groups in the United States that generally don’t trend Republican. Black and latino minorities, urban residents, homosexuals, arguably the poor (at the very least, they lean more towards the Democrats than more well-off residents of their own states). Similarly, some groups do trend Republican. There are reasons for that. Valid reasons. They are not nefarious reasons. It is the responsibility of the party, or the politicians that belong to it, to get voters to vote for them. Unfortunately, it is easy to overlook that, and assume as a given that everyone should be voting for your party or sharing your beliefs. Therefore, if they are not doing so, they must be wrong. It cannot possibly be the party that is wrong.

To give an example, let’s take the black community. The black community leans Democratic for a variety of reasons. If the Republicans want to make inroads with the black community, they have to admit their failure: they have not done enough to court the black community, not done enough to establish the common bonds they have with the black community, and not done enough to address the grievances that the black community has. This is both hard to admit, and hard to find a solution to.

Let’s see… I’ll bet I can re-translate this pretty easily...

There are a variety of social groups in the United States that generally don’t trend Democrat. White and upper-middle class majorities, rural residents, arguably the wealthy (at the very least, they lean more towards the GOP than poorer residents of their own states, and turn out to vote in much larger numbers). Similarly, some groups do trend Democrat. There are reasons for that. Valid reasons. They are not nefarious reasons. It is the responsibility of the party, or the politicians that belong to it, to get voters to vote for them. Unfortunately, it is easy to overlook that, and assume as a given that everyone should be voting for your party or sharing your beliefs. Therefore, if they are not doing so, they must be wrong. It cannot possibly be the party that is wrong.

To give an example, let’s take the religious community. The religious community leans Republican for a variety of reasons. If the Democrats want to make inroads with the religious community, they have to admit their failure: they have not done enough to court the religious community, not done enough to establish the common bonds they have with the religious community, and not done enough to address the grievances that the religious community has. This is both hard to admit, and hard to find a solution to.

I could keep going… I could do almost every paragraph this way, from start to end. Frankly, YOU could likely easily re-write it start-to-end in this manner. Anyone can do it. I think it speaks to the over-all lack of substance in what you wrote. You took a lot of political pot-shots without actually stopping to tackle any one issue head-on.

When you talk about “tea party protests”, but what about some of MoveOn.org’s protests? Pot/kettle/black?

Here’s a particularly terrible 2 paragraphs:

For the past few decades, Republicans have referred to the free market as the basis for many of their economic policies, and as some fundamental part of America. They present themselves as supporting free market policies and are against policies that affect the market. Now that Obama is President, they are criticizing his socialist policies, and claiming that America is on the road to socialism.

This is all completely preposterous. Nothing the Republicans support has anything to do with the free market. Nothing the Democrats do has anything to do with socialism either. No one in America is even remotely interested in creating a free market economy, since that would be an absolute disaster. Businesses are not interested in these things. They are interested in policies favorable to them, which aren’t the same thing.

I cringed when I read that. You have to realize just how wrong it is, don’t you? Of course it ALL has to do with “free markets”, in BOTH parties. We’re not talking about government-built housing, and government-run utilities, and government-run banks... Where do you get off saying none of it has to do with free markets? This all has A FUCK OF A LOT to do with free markets. I’m supposed to believe it doesn’t because you say it doesn’t? Why?

Now Socialism, at its core, is about government control of major business enterprises. As the government’s stake in Citigroup and Chrysler keeps going up, this clearly does have SOMETHING to do with socialism. As the Democrat calls for universal healthcare go up, this has SOMETHING to do with socialism (or does the money to pay for it come from a magical money tree?). I support universal healthcare (I am Canadian, after all), but I do acknowledge it has something to do with Socialism. We’ve been toying with socialist elements in government at least as far back as the creation of the income tax. We’d do well to eliminate our fear of the word and just recognize we have both capitalist and socialist elements in our government, and that’s not really a bad thing. We take the best of all worlds.

* * *

When Nixon left office, the GOP was in as bad of a state as it’s ever been… EVER All-time lows. Yet, since 1980:

GOP Reagan, 8 years
GOP Bush 1.0, 4 years
Dem Clinton, 8 years
GOP Bush 2.0, 8 years

For those of you keeping score, that’s 20 of the last 28 years.

Seriously… don’t fool yourself into thinking the party of Lincoln is dead just because we’re finally living in a long long looooooooooooong overdue democrat year. In 7 to 11 years the GOP will be back in power, and the Democrats will be the ones in need of an image overhaul, and people will be writing more of this same pointless crap, in reverse. This is how politics works.

You’re clearly all fired-up, and ready to tackle some important issue to death. My honest suggestion to you is to make the politics (particularly party-alignment) an afterthought. Focus, and PICK A SPECIFIC ISSUE that means something to you (drugs, abortion, religion, sexuality, gay marriage, racial inequity, unions in America, corporate executive greed, WHATEVER), write an open-and-shut argument about it from completely non-political terms, focus on the rights of the individuals involved, THEN (after you’ve blown the issue to dust, and made your case) attach a political argument to it by saying, “The GOP have been missing the boat on this issue for over two decades by pandering to...”

Your political leanings NEED to be more of an after-thought in your writing... Tackle the issue on moral grounds alone, and then attach a political leaning if one still fits.

Again, this is not my attempt to be a jerk to you. I’m just saying what I felt about your writing. You started by asking “how would a lefist reform the conservatives in America?”

Well, to start, don’t come out saying, “I’m a leftist, you’re out to lunch, and you just need to be smart enough to see why you’re wrong about everything.”

Would a Republican talking like this to you stand a chance of changing your mind? I mean it... think about it in those terms. Talk to them the same way they might talk to you, if they had a chance of changing your mind.

Cheers,
S

stefanb

04-30-2009, 08:28 PM

I don’t care if the gays are getting married at a marijuana-selling abortion clinic; just don’t ask me to pay for any of it.

I made a serious error there.

I WILL pay for the marijuana.

I won't pay for the gay wedding or the abortion.

My god... I can't believe I said I wouldn't pay for the MJ. What was I thinking? :D :p

-S

The Heart Collector

04-30-2009, 09:27 PM

EVERY election is a choice between “a giant turd” and “the world’s biggest douche”, because you have to be one of those things to make it very far in politics. I find it helps to get a sense of people when talking on these subjects, so if you’re the same way, here’s “me” in a quick glance: I don't identify with any political party or movement. I’m not religious. I dislike most main-stream politicians and tend to see them as opportunists before all else. I’d describe myself as socially left-of-center, and fiscally right-of-center. i.e. I don’t care if the gays are getting married at a marijuana-selling abortion clinic; just don’t ask me to pay for any of it.

You already started off on the wrong foot with this notion that you are some sort of impartial judge. You do in fact fit in a political party or movement, and a very cliche one at that: the pseudo-libertarian.

Let me go through the check list:

1) South Park? Check.
2) "Not my taxes!!!"? Check.
3) "I'm a little bit left on some things, little bit right on some other things"? Check.
4) "I hate all politicians"? Check.

It is what China Mieville once referred to as the "philosophy of venal petty-bourgeois dissidence", a political movement whose members "recast their most banal avarice—the disinclination to pay tax—as a principled blow for political freedom". These exact beliefs are the type of beliefs held by the people that gave the big financial push to Ron Paul's presidential candidacy, as well as organized a considerable part of the Tax Day Tea Party Protests.

I don't agree with the idea of being socially left and fiscally right. Being socially left of center does not mean one supports indulgences like drugs, it means one supports social equality and an appropriate standard of living for all. Policies like 'gay marriage' are an extension of this, an extension of giving everyone the ability and the resources to achieve a life free of injustice. Real crusaders for social equality understand that these goals require considerable financial and structural support. That considerable financial and structural support is paid for by society through our collective efforts via taxes and other organizations.

The belief that you can be socially left and fiscally right is a refusal to accept the responsibilities and realities of real progress. That is why the things you mention in terms of being socially left are only in terms of what you don't have to put the minimal amount of effort in achieving: after all, you don't have to foot the bill for gay marriage. But are you willing to foot the bill for a guaranteed basic income, healthcare for all, a revamped system of education, and all the additional expenditures that society needs to correct its ills? Those things cost money.[/] It is extremely ineffectual and useless to say you are socially liberal, but want problems to solve themselves for free or something. That is not how these things work.

Now, on to the topic...When Bush came to office, someone could have written your exact pointless spiel in bizzar-o world. Want me to do it as proof? You wrote:... Let’s see… I’ll bet I can re-translate this pretty easily...I could keep going… I could do almost every paragraph this way, from start to end. Frankly, YOU could likely easily re-write it start-to-end in this manner. Anyone can do it. I think it speaks to the over-all lack of substance in what you wrote. You took a lot of political pot-shots without actually stopping to tackle any one issue head-on.

Yes, the Democrats had problems. No kidding. It's how they got out of those problems that is important.

The Democrats had problems after the 2004 elections. However, they did not have the same type of problems; they had not been in power for awhile, their last President was not widely hated, and the party registration numbers weren't abysmal, as far as I know (I doubt they were as low as the Republicans' numbers, which are at the low twenties).

The Democrats knew they had problems and had no real leadership. Several factions in the Democratic Party had different approaches to solving those problems, the most notorious being the DLC (which proposed moving towards the center as much as possible and battling only 'swing' elections).

After the 2004 elections and the showing of Howard Dean (who managed to get reasonable donations and numbers considering he was to the left of a considerable part of their voters), he was given the position of DNC chairman. When Howard Dean was the DNC chairman, he took these issues into account and came up with a different strategy.

The first point of his strategy is what is called the 50-state strategy. Democrats decided to focus on all the states and tried to go away from the notion that some races are completely lost; candidates ran for many states and their political positions varied; some were left-of-center, some were center. Another thing the Democrats did was concede a point, which was gun control. Though Dean is to the left of a lot of the party, the issue of gun control has been mooted in general. Another thing the Democrats did was focus on a specific point, in that case the war in Iraq. The war was becoming more and more of a disaster at the time, and the political climate was appropriate to directly oppose it.

And so, the Democrats ran in 2006, and managed to win a bunch of seats and take back the House and the Senate. Dean was considered a successful guy.

For the 2008 Presidency, Obama ran. He had a different message, and it was a mixture of the whole "hope" thing and a message of civility. Republicans were running (and are still running) on a message of conflict: there is always some big conflict against terrorism, or gay marriage, or whatever. Obama's version of conflict was much more understandable: the conflict was against the poverty that was being felt in America.

Adding to that, he harped on a few specific points. One of the most important ones was healthcare. Hillary Clinton actually did that much more, Obama just kinda stole the idea of talking about healthcare, and his plan was inferior. But the idea was the same: fixing healthcare for Americans. Democrats favor government programs, so they are in a different position than Republicans: it is easier for them to suggest proposals to give things directly through the people through government. Republicans had no meaningful counter-proposal to healthcare because their own fiscal "responsibility" ideas prevent them from offering a serious rehaul. All they can suggest are "tax credits" and other proposals which sound slight and ridiculous. Another specific point that he harped on was national security (I did not address national security in what i wrote about Republicans): he saw that the political mood of the country was one of exhaustion regarding the war. Everyone was tired of the notion of fighting that great enemy or whatever. Finally, he rejected the idea of centrism in the Clinton mould: his rhetoric was heavily anti-neoliberal, he rejected the notion that government was the enemy or that it needed to be contained, he rejected the notion that people needed to help each other out on their own, and he rejected the notion that there shouldn't be social fairness and equality.

Finally, the Democratic Primary lasted a long time. This allowed a serious number of people to get involved in the state organization, and some of it was held over from Dean's 50-state-strategy attempt during the 2006 elections. This allowed them to have organizational capabilities that the Republicans did not possess. This is why Obama was able to destroy Clinton in many states, and why McCain lost so many states.

Obama was close to John McCain throughout most of the elections, but he won in the end. He won for a variety of reasons: Republicans were still using an old script (the same script they are using right now), he was using a new script, and the Democrats created a strong grassroots system.

Because of all these things, the Republicans currently have a very small proportion of the total population registered to their party, while Democrats have a much higher one.

In your attempt to make some sort of point, all you did was actually prove mine. Were you not paying attention, or did you totally ignore that the Democrats changed substantially in approach, coalition building, and campaign from the past two presidential elections? You seem to be arguing from some sort of notion that the Democrats had to do nothing to get back in power. They had to do a lot to get back in power. and the Republicans have to do that too.

The Democrats had an advantageous position, which is that a lot of the groups they back are more accepted nowadays and are growing. Minorities in the country are growing, and they trend more Democratic. George Bush understood, and he tried to get the Hispanic vote, but the rest of his party torpedoed his attempts. Opposition to gay marriage is decreasing; opposition to government programs is decreasing; resentment towards the moneyed classes is increasing. The Republicans [i]don't have this.

See, even if the Democrats had done nothing, they would have still had the votes of the black community and some of the votes of the hispanic community, because the Republicans are rejecting those votes. Right now the Republicans are not building up their coalition, they are decreasing it. They are still alienating minorities (which are growing in size).

This is why, in my paragraph about ideas, I suggested that the conservatives should start grassroots movement in support of privately-run programs that can compete with public sector initiatives. This unifies the party and creates support groups that can be used to mobilize voters (taking a similar role as the Religious Right had in its heyday), while giving their ideas a practical validity. They have to do this because unlike the Democrats, they cannot really take the state and use it for these purposes directly (they can point to 'credits' and 'rebates' but that is not as tangible). This would serve a similar use as Dean's 50-state-strategy, but for more practical reasons and with good results regardless of victory.

That is also why I supported conceding some issues, especially the ones that they are going to lose: gay marriage, abortion, etc. Social issues can be conceded in those concrete terms while still focusing on a more general view of 'values'. The party can still appeal to the religious without alienating the non-religious and the religious-but-not-hateful. This is not only better in terms of where things stand (the religious right losing power and members, people being generally more liberal) and also morally correct.

When you talk about “tea party protests”, but what about some of MoveOn.org’s protests? Pot/kettle/black?

I am not sure what you mean by this. I am not opposed to protests. My point is that the protests against Obama about two months into his Presidency are childish, because there is no way the people protesting have actually felt the alleged damage of his policies. If conservatives want to protest Obama in a few months, and if the political climate is somewhat negative towards him, that's understandable. But it's clear to most people that Obama's approval is high, most people aren't really worried about him, and then there's this little group of people acting hysterically over having lost power. They come across as childish.

I cringed when I read that. You have to realize just how wrong it is, don’t you? Of course it ALL has to do with “free markets”, in BOTH parties. We’re not talking about government-built housing, and government-run utilities, and government-run banks... Where do you get off saying none of it has to do with free markets? This all has A FUCK OF A LOT to do with free markets. I’m supposed to believe it doesn’t because you say it doesn’t? Why?

Because there are no free markets anywhere in America. Free markets don't exist in any meaningful way whatsoever, certainly not the way "pure free market" libertarians would want them to exist. You don't seem to have an understanding of what a free market is. You are confusing a free market with any market. A free market is a market with the regulatory body of the state removed from it, except for handling legal affairs (but that in itself isn't much since the composition of the law will affect the balance of this market).

Every single market in America is full of a billion regulations. Corporations are interested in allying themselves with the government because they want to use the state's regulatory body to craft laws that push capital towards them and give them advantages. For example, many businesses are not particularly opposed to illegal immigration because they want to accumulate more capital by reducing the costs of their labor. Groups like the American Medical Association restrict the number of practicing doctors in the United States and the amount of doctors that can emigrate from other countries. Many other professions do the same. The government restricts the amount of professionals from other countries and the inflow of labor in general (but not the inflow of capital obtained from outsourcing labor). Banks and financial institutions use the government's regulatory machine to craft laws that allow them to increase the size of their reserves, to apply less regulation on the financial products they use, and in the current case, to give them money. Government regulatory bodies such as the FDA and EPA impose strict measures on the ways that businesses can operate and the things that they can sell. Credit and loan institutions use the regulatory body to make laws that are lenient on the limits by which they can loan (extremely high interests rates are legal) and the way that bankrupcy law operates (they want bankrupcy law to work in the way that allows them to recoup losses and prevent the person from getting off scot-free from the debt). There are hundreds of tariffs in place to prevent cheaper international goods from flooding the market, in order to protect American business. There are hundreds of subsidies in place in order to protect American businesses. There are hundreds of tax writeoffs in place in order to coddle American industries and allow them to prosper.

The institutions that make the United States economy are not interested in free markets because they are not interested in unfettered competition, they're interested in maintaining their profits. If they can maintain their profits by preventing entry into their marrkets

When Republicans talk about "free markets", they are simply talking about policies that are in favor of business. When they talk about "growth", they are simply talking about policies that are in favor of business. When they talk about responsibility, they are simply talking about policies that are in favor of business.

That is my point. If they want to just be pro-business, be pro-business. The problem is when they want to be pro-business but criticize things they don't like out of some "free market purity" that they do not actually hold.

Now Socialism, at its core, is about government control of major business enterprises. As the government’s stake in Citigroup and Chrysler keeps going up, this clearly does have SOMETHING to do with socialism.

That is not socialism at its core. Government control of major business enterprises is not socialism, it is merely public ownership of segments of the economy. Almost every country on the planet owns major business enterprises. Chile, the so-called free-market miracle, owned all of the coal-mining industry (which accounted for a massive amount of the country's profits) and repurchased many other industries after its financial crises in the eighties, yet was called a wonderful place by the public spokesman of privatization, Milton Friedman. Most countries and cities provide citizens utilities by owning the public utility companies (for water, electricity, gas). Many American companies used to be state-owned, and some still are (Seattle offers water and electricity though the public-owned Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City Light). In short, governments own many things and it doesn't set them on a path towards socialism.

Socialism seeks to be an alternative to Capitalism. What could possibly be more capitalist than a bank?

As the Democrat calls for universal healthcare go up, this has SOMETHING to do with socialism (or does the money to pay for it come from a magical money tree?). I support universal healthcare (I am Canadian, after all), but I do acknowledge it has something to do with Socialism. We’ve been toying with socialist elements in government at least as far back as the creation of the income tax. We’d do well to eliminate our fear of the word and just recognize we have both capitalist and socialist elements in our government, and that’s not really a bad thing. We take the best of all worlds.

You are simply talking about public ownership of segments of the economy. There is nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I don't even understand why someone cheap like you would be opposed to the government paying things via offering services (you do realize we pay for many public companies out of our pockets, and not through taxes, right?). Many countries have universal healthcare, and they're not particularly socialist. America wanting universal healthcare has nothing to do with socialism and it has everything to do with their healthcare system being a problem. People are complaining about their system. Their system is broken. Therefore, there is a push for healthcare. Since the Democrats are corporate whores and the healthcare industry sees an opportunity to profit, they are trying to collude to make some sort of system where the government foots the bill to the healthcare companies so that they provide insurance to the people. That is the healthcare system being pushed for in America. It has exactly nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with an industry (the healthcare industry) using the regulatory system (through forced mandates and the government's coffers) to make a profit in a heavily controlled market.

The Heart Collector

04-30-2009, 09:28 PM

When Nixon left office, the GOP was in as bad of a state as it’s ever been… Yet, since 1980: GOP Reagan, 8 years
GOP Bush 1.0, 4 years Dem Clinton, 8 years GOP Bush 2.0, 8 years

No fucking shit that the GOP was in a bad state. In 1976, Ronald Reagan tried to make a run for the Republican Primaries, and he was unsuccessful. Ronald Reagan was an outsider, and politically he was very different fron Nixon and Ford (though he had some use for Nixon's old coalition). Reagan ran under a considerably different platform, and he is in fact the person that began the current Republican coalition, which has lasted until now. That is my entire point: The Republicans need to develop a new coalition of voters that takes into account the realities of the new demographics and the current mood of the country. Reagan did this. The Republican Party of 2008 aren't doing this and don't seem to show signs of wanting to. The old guard is still very much in power. They are trying to appeal to an old coalition. The Republicans right now are not Reagan; they're Ford.

You are also using an example that is not particularly good because the coalitions that the Democrats had were finally collapsing: Carter was the last straw. The Vietnam War had been very unpopular and government was widely perceived as being bloated and not helping people; today, people don't have negative memories of the Democrat presidents, they have positive ones. Your example is backwards: It's Obama who is the Reaganesque figure, not whatever new Republican shows up.

Your analysis of my post is precisely what is wrong with the current Republicans and what I mentioned repeatedly: this refusal to accept that new coalitions, new ideas, and new groups have to be made. You are analyzing this situation as if the coalitions that got the GOP back in power and the coalitions that got the Dems back in power were all constant throughout 30 years, which is obviously not the case.

Seriously… don’t fool yourself into thinking the party of Lincoln is dead just because we’re finally living in a long long looooooooooooong overdue democrat year. In 7 to 11 years the GOP will be back in power, and the Democrats will be the ones in need of an image overhaul, and people will be writing more of this same pointless crap, in reverse. This is how politics works.

This is not how politics work. This isn't the fucking business cycle. Nothing of what you posted actually discussed the realities of the coalitions built by both parties, their ideologies, and the state of the country during those times.

You’re clearly all fired-up, and ready to tackle some important issue to death. My honest suggestion to you is to make the politics (particularly party-alignment) an afterthought. Focus, and PICK A SPECIFIC ISSUE that means something to you (drugs, abortion, religion, sexuality, gay marriage, racial inequity, unions in America, corporate executive greed, WHATEVER), write an open-and-shut argument about it from completely non-political terms, focus on the rights of the individuals involved, THEN (after you’ve blown the issue to dust, and made your case) attach a political argument to it by saying, “The GOP have been missing the boat on this issue for over two decades by pandering to...”

My honest suggestion to you is to read the history of the political victories of Ronald Reagan during the late seventies and throughout the eighties, the political victories of Clinton in the nineties, and the political victories of Barack Obama and Howard Dean in the middle of this decade.

stefanb

05-01-2009, 12:55 AM

someguy

05-01-2009, 01:56 AM

stefanb

05-01-2009, 08:38 AM

Pretty damn rude on your part there stefanb. I mean if you want to go around this forum telling people what you think that's fine, I just hope no one is gonna waste their time and try to discuss with you if that's the case.

Rude? No no sir. Look for the personal attack. It's not there.

He opened the thread titled "How would a leftist convert reform the conservatives in america?"

REFORM? Reform, like a drug addict, or alcoholic, or some other loser with an addiction? REFORM? Doesn't sound like partisan bullshit even before the end of the title is reached? If I was a conservative, am I not already annoyed at him and less likely to be "reformed"? The whole thing reads like that, and I said so.

My reply:

You already started off on the wrong foot with this notion that you are some sort of impartial judge. You do in fact fit in a political party or movement, and a very cliche one at that: the pseudo-libertarian.

Not much "pseudo" about it. I identify with a lot of libertarian ideas, obviously, and I find it funny he points it out to me as if I wasn't smart enough to see it on my own.

Fair enough. I don't fully identify with their party, and I don't call myself a libertarian, but if you insist on labeling me, go nuts... You're so much closer to "reforming" me already, by insisting on labeling me, then insulting the label you've given me. I can almost feel the "reform" pumping through my veins. From there, I see it goes on for 2 more pages, and no, I didn't feel like reading anymore because I stopped caring what he thinks.

AND THIS IS ON TOPIC, SOMEGUY.

Hello?!??

The title of this thread is "How would a leftist convert reform the conservatives in america?"

If I'm a "pseudo-libertarian", and I'm too annoyed at the personal and political innuendo to even keep reading, I'll say so... and I did... I just don't care what you think anymore. Period.

I'm not the one trying to "reform" people, so if reading partisan tripe annoys a pseudo-libertarian like me, just imagine how stupid real conservatives are going to find it?

EXAMPLE:

Similarly, some groups do trend Republican. There are reasons for that. Valid reasons. They are not nefarious reasons.

Why even try to imply anything about Republicans or Conservative beliefs using words like "nefarious"... Oh, he said it's NOT nefarious to vote Republican... much better. Then why use the word at all? We're trying to "reform" conservatives, so clearly calling their party nefarious will get them right on board.

Partisan bullshit. No substance. I couldn't care less to read another word of it. Good luck "reforming" Conservatives... whatever that stupid bullshit means.

Potter82

05-01-2009, 11:25 AM

When Nixon left office, the GOP was in as bad of a state as it’s ever been… EVER All-time lows. Yet, since 1980:

GOP Reagan, 8 years
GOP Bush 1.0, 4 years
Dem Clinton, 8 years
GOP Bush 2.0, 8 years

For those of you keeping score, that’s 20 of the last 28 years.

Seriously… don’t fool yourself into thinking the party of Lincoln is dead just because we’re finally living in a long long looooooooooooong overdue democrat year. In 7 to 11 years the GOP will be back in power, and the Democrats will be the ones in need of an image overhaul, and people will be writing more of this same pointless crap, in reverse. This is how politics works.

S

I think people are making this assumption for too easily. People seem to think that there will be a Democrat party and a Republican party in the US until the end of days and frankly, there is no reason why either can't go kaput. Political parties come and go. Or they change.

Consider the Republican party of today is almost NOTHING like the Republican Party in the era of Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln. They have changed radically over the past few decades since the rise of Reagan. Same goes with the Democrats, they used to be the pro-slavery party for god sakes! Now they are the part of minorities.

What I sincerely believe is that if the GOP continues on in it's current course it will die - simply because enough conservatives will eventually become sick of it and form their own party (which is hopefully more sane and rational and less negative than the current GOP). Or the GOP can adapt to the changing political environment and prosper. Like the GOP learned to adapt during the age of FDR by becoming more moderate and changed their demographic appeal after the advent of Civil Rights. They reformed themselves in order to capitalize on changing political realities (for better or worse, they adapted).

Right now, there is almost zero sign that the GOP is attempting to adapt or reform to the changed political reality. They don't seem to realize that what passed for conventional political wisdom for the past 20-30 years may no longer apply.

I sincerely belive that the GOP is so dogmatically and ideologically rigid and that they are on the wrong side of so many sweeping demographic trends (a factor NOT present to nearly the same degree as in previous election) that if they keep adhering to their current politicies and style of rhetoric than they will become even less powerful and eventually sane conservatives (especially fiscal conservatives) will grow so tired of the social conservative absurdity that they will form a Conservative Party or Libertarian party and thus leave the GOP to the social conservatives, where the GOP will either remain as a regional party with a small yet vocal base or it will die out all together.

I bet they adapt though. Even though the GOP is hositle to the concept of evolution, the urge to survive is a powerful one, often even more powerful than ideology (as demonstrated by Specter's defection) so if they do manage to adapt with the times (by say, following some of my above suggestions), they will survive.

I am absolutely certain that the GOP in it's current form can not survive. It's just too alienating, negative, downright nasty, and devoid of constructive ideas to survive. All they can do at this point is yell no and throw fits. When it comes down to it, people will take positiveness/optimism over doom and gloom negativity any day of the week.

someguy

05-01-2009, 12:57 PM

...

Yeah guy, I didn't even bother reading your post because I don't really care about what you're gonna say in response. All that matters is what I wanted to tell you which is that it was rude so whatever.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-01-2009, 02:20 PM

Ya, anyway... I quit reading. Sorry. I just don't care what you think that much, and it goes on forever. Hey, if you think it's great writing, and will convert conservatives, whatever floats your boat. Just my humble opinion... I got nothing from it and felt it was hallow partisan tripe; more of the same from a long line of it on both sides.

What a shameful cop-out. It's fine if you don't want to read everything in his response, but don't just say he's a partisan hack without reading his own defense first. You have no argument, so don't dismiss someone who actually has one. He didn't go in there saying, "Dems are a great party and are never wrong about anything and have always shown guts and spine." He simply said that the Dems implemented a good strategy in the last two elections. By the way, you didn't even answer this argument, you just dismissed it as partisan grandstanding. You don't belong here if you can't debate like a normal and civilized human being.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-01-2009, 02:29 PM

He opened the thread titled "How would a leftist convert reform the conservatives in america?"

REFORM? Reform, like a drug addict, or alcoholic, or some other loser with an addiction? REFORM? Doesn't sound like partisan bullshit even before the end of the title is reached? If I was a conservative, am I not already annoyed at him and less likely to be "reformed"? The whole thing reads like that, and I said so.

You don't know what reform means in this case, do you? This word is thrown around all the time in politics. "Tax reform," "campaign finance reform," "tort reform," etc. There's even a damn political party called the Reform Party, which used to be a very successful third party.

Badbird

05-01-2009, 02:51 PM

The Republicans sold their soul to the religious right in the early 80s and they are paying for it now.

They are not inclusive. They do not reach out. They alienate their own people. The party is defined by what they are against.

And they are shrinking.

When you look at the map to see how people vote, there's a reason that densely populated areas tend to vote Democratic/liberal. Those people know what it's like to live in a multicultural environment and they accept everyone's differences. That is the future.

Right now the Republican party is for whites and Christians only, with the occasional token minority.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-01-2009, 02:54 PM

Potter82

05-01-2009, 04:23 PM

My god, I still...I'm speechless. Really? Someone accuses someone else of political narrow mindedness and stupidity, and meanwhile describes himself as a "libertarian" and believes that the word "reform" only applies to rehabilitation. As if labeling oneself a "libertarian" isn't, if not partisan hackery, then at least some form of ideological hackery. And I still can't get over the whole "reform" thing. I wonder how Ayn Rand would feel right now if she saw that this is what her movement has reduced itself to. She would probably write another 10,000 page book in really tiny font denouncing everything she had said before about objectivism and being selfish.

I think I'm just going to take a page from someguy's book and just ignore everything he says from now on.

In addition to being a poorly written piece of trash, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is perhaps one of the most destructive works of literature to arise during the 20th century.

It's a monument to narcissim, greed, and to a general lack of empathy.

It served to reinforce the myth that all rich people deserve their wealth and if someone is poor it's not because they were born into unfortunate circumstances but hell, they were just lazy and weak and thus deserving of that fate. This book teaches people that they are inherently so damn special and valuable that if they were to somehow drop out of society, things would fall apart without them - GET THE HELL OVER YOURSELVES! We're all in this together! Not all the poor are lazy, many are unfortunate just like many of the rich aren't deserving of shit and are just lucky. Stop judging a man's worth by his wallet.

The market and big business has a role to play in society, and so does the government - and that role includes regulating big business so they don't, say, take part in a huge amount of transactions involving credit-default swaps which benefits a few people in the short term but puts absolutely everyone else at risk in the long term, even people who were never involved in their transactions! The current financial crisis arose during a time when markets in the US were perhaps at their most "liberal" or unregulated in decades and look what happened? Greed beat out common sense and logic.

That is why I think Ayn Rand style libertarinism is fundamentally flawed; it underestimates the destructive power and prevalence of greed and contrary to what Gorden Gecko once said, greed is definitely not good. It is rightfully considered to be one of the 7 deadly sins for a reason.

People who try to villify the government, like Rand, fail to understand that the government is supposed to represent you! It is not an inherently evil thing, but it is a major part of civilization. Without government, we would have barbarism and a true cut throat society (that's right, I subscribe more to the views of Locke than Hobbes).

Jon Lyrik

05-01-2009, 06:59 PM

I think you have Locke and Hobbes mixed up.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-01-2009, 07:43 PM

I don't think he got them mixed up. Hobbes' views on self-preservation resemble Rand's moreso than Locke's. However, it is incorrect to assert that Hobbes didn't support government. Few philosophers had views that were as authoritarian as Hobbes'.

Potter82

05-01-2009, 07:58 PM

I think you have Locke and Hobbes mixed up.

hmm, oh shit, you're right :( I was thinking that Locke was more in favour of government being a civilizing force but come to think of it, it would be more accurate to say that would apply to Hobbes given his view of life as naturally being nasty, brutish, and short. From what I recall Locke discussed the corrupting influence of government but admittedly it's been a while since I learned this stuff.

stefanb

05-01-2009, 09:05 PM

What a shameful cop-out. It's fine if you don't want to read everything in his response, but don't just say he's a partisan hack without reading his own defense first. You have no argument, so don't dismiss someone who actually has one. He didn't go in there saying, "Dems are a great party and are never wrong about anything and have always shown guts and spine." He simply said that the Dems implemented a good strategy in the last two elections. By the way, you didn't even answer this argument, you just dismissed it as partisan grandstanding. You don't belong here if you can't debate like a normal and civilized human being.

If someone STARTS by labeling me (you're just a libertarian), and follows by attacking the label they just applied to me (even though I don't apply it to myself, or think it fits) -- the very definition of a"straw man argument", I really don't care what stupidity follows that. It's not a difficult chasm to bridge.

If I start a political argument in the sincere belief that I can turn invisible using strawberry jelly, you might quit reading to.

To those who are saying they'll just ignore me from here on... Good. That's your right. You can re-engage anytime you see fit, read only as much as you feel like reading, and reply in any way you like. I just don't care. Whatever floats your boat.

I never attacked anyone. Prove otherwise.

I called the writing hallow partisan hackery that doesn't stand a chance of "reforming" any conservatives. I still believe it is.

stefanb

05-01-2009, 09:08 PM

You don't know what reform means in this case, do you? This word is thrown around all the time in politics. "Tax reform," "campaign finance reform," "tort reform," etc. There's even a damn political party called the Reform Party, which used to be a very successful third party.

in all cases listed, the "reform" is of something the "reformer" says is "broken".

Conservatives are "broken". got it

The Heart Collector

05-02-2009, 01:35 AM

Brando @$$ Fat

05-02-2009, 12:25 PM

in all cases listed, the "reform" is of something the "reformer" says is "broken".

Conservatives are "broken". got it

It doesn't have to be "broken." Again, your definitions are all mixed up. Reform is generally meant to improve upon something. The Republicans are pretty fractured right now. Shifts in power do occur cyclically, but they don't occur with people sitting on their lazy asses waiting for something to happen. THC already explained this, but I'll explain it again anyway. If the Republicans don't do anything, they will not win. Period. It isn't enough just to wait for Obama to massively fuck everything up, they'll actually have to mobilize and change their strategy. This can be proven historically.

Take a look at Tony Blair and the Labour Party in Britain, for example. From 1979 to 1997, they lost four consecutive elections by wide margins. For most of that time they were running on the same old platforms, using the same old strategies, and were being led by the same elderly leftists. Then they chose Tony Blair as their leader, who was politically closer to the center and knew how to appeal to working and middle class people. In the next election, they won by one of the biggest landslides in recent political history. For fifteen years they were getting their asses handed to them, and three years after choosing Blair as their leader Britain witnessed a major overhaul in political power.

In other words, they reformed their party and found success after doing so.

The Postmaster General

05-02-2009, 01:53 PM

The Heart Collector

05-02-2009, 04:42 PM

I am going to be honest and say I'm confused by your post. Are you complaining about stefanb, or about me and brando?

The Postmaster General

05-02-2009, 08:59 PM

Brando @$$ Fat

05-03-2009, 07:51 PM

I'm not complaining at all. As far as I can tell, we share the same correct concept of the word.

Being in the social services field, I was just showing a non-political example of how the word is applied. Telling a drug addict that they are broken and need to be fixed is pretty obviously wrong; I would think anyone here would see that. Hence me making the connection that the word doesn't suddenly take on a different meaning when applied to political parties, and it's kind of silly to start harping that it does.

It's still not 100% clear. It sounds like you're criticizing his posts, since he was the one implying that people/institutions in need of reform are "broken," but it also sounds like you're criticizing my posts since I was the one who explained the difference between reforming drug addicts and political reform.

The Postmaster General

05-03-2009, 08:25 PM

I agree with you that it's stupid to harp on the use of reform, and am pointing out that even if we did, it's not fair to paint drug addicts and alcoholics in a negative light as the basis for saying it's offensive to use that word.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-03-2009, 09:09 PM

Potter82

05-03-2009, 10:10 PM

Do you really think you are making good arguments? really now, douche vs. turd arguments from South Park, are you serious? The last eight years decisively, resolutely proved that no, the two candidates running are not equally bad. Even the most cynical critics of American government didn't think Obama and McCain were going to be the same. Fuckin' Noam Chomsky told people to vote for Obama, for crying out loud. Noam Fuckin' Chomsky!

I think this is called the sin of symmetry in politics, assuming that both parties suck equally. I guarantee you, the longer a political discussion goes on, the more likely it is that someone will say "both parties suck".

I mean clearly both parties have had their share of fuck-ups, bad ideas, and idiocy - but just because they're both guilty doesn't mean they're guilty of it to the same degree, which is something I think a lot of people are quick to assume - especially the media.

On the topic of the "they're both the same" style arguments, one argument I find laughable is that Obama represents the Third Term of Bush. An argument you will hear from many of the same people who believe that Obama is a socialist/communist/marxist/stalinist. So how do these people reconcile these two apparently contradictory beliefs? By saying Bush was never a real conservative anyway and was a closet liberal/socialist! Pretty amazing.

Vong

05-04-2009, 12:22 AM

All this talk about reform is taking me back to the days of Preston Manning...

http://www.airfarce.com/video/images/9NYE/011231h.gif

"Reform!"

Potter82

05-04-2009, 10:27 AM

All this talk about reform is taking me back to the days of Preston Manning...

http://www.airfarce.com/video/images/9NYE/011231h.gif

"Reform!"

LOL,

ah the good old days, when members of Canada's Progressive Conservative Party and Reform Party (which subsequently merged to form Canada's Conservative Party for you non-Canadians out there) were the objects of ridicule (Preston Manning, Stockwell Day) as opposed to members of the Liberal Party (Dion).

Preston_79

05-05-2009, 03:47 PM

If someone STARTS by labeling me (you're just a libertarian), and follows by attacking the label they just applied to me (even though I don't apply it to myself, or think it fits) -- the very definition of a"straw man argument", I really don't care what stupidity follows that. It's not a difficult chasm to bridge.

If I start a political argument in the sincere belief that I can turn invisible using strawberry jelly, you might quit reading to.

To those who are saying they'll just ignore me from here on... Good. That's your right. You can re-engage anytime you see fit, read only as much as you feel like reading, and reply in any way you like. I just don't care. Whatever floats your boat.

I never attacked anyone. Prove otherwise.

I called the writing hallow partisan hackery that doesn't stand a chance of "reforming" any conservatives. I still believe it is.

From the title of this thread I pretty much knew what to expect, so I just chose till this point to not be involved.

It's easier to form an attack if you label someone, you just don't have to think as much about what the person you appose is actually saying and it helps rally the sheep. It's insulting to not label yourself, it insinuates you're better than everyone else who does. This makes you a coward becuase you must fit a catagory and to not proclaim it leads me to believe you can't really defend it. Now I must make personal attacks becuase to carry on a rational argument where I'd be forced to think would be exhausting.

Why don't you go watch some Fox News or something. Go pray in front of your shrine of Ron Paul.

stefanb

05-06-2009, 10:33 PM

The label fits you perfectly. That is the issue. You waltzed into this thread acting like you were above politics or something, like we were a bunch of silly plebes identifying with political movements, unlike you the enlightened, edgy guy whose politics are a little-bit-o-this, a-little-bit-o-that, totally unpredictable, man! (even though your cliche views perfectly fit in the political spectrum. They fit in the box of "childish South Park contrarianism utterly unfit for the real world") It's completely preposterous. Who gives a shit? Are you under some delusion that labeling yourself as a member of a general ideology or movement somehow makes your opinions less worthy, or that nonsensical pick-and-choosing (a guy that's against government paying for things but supports universal healthcare? what the fuck) is somehow stronger? You obtain political views because you start from basic points or axioms and from them you construct a philosophy. You don't just take points from one and then the other. What do you want me to do, randomly adopt some right-wing position that goes against everyhting I believe in and contradicts all my bases of government so that I can appear more "centered" or something? Is that your idea of political soundness?

Do you really think you are making good arguments? really now, douche vs. turd arguments from South Park, are you serious? The last eight years decisively, resolutely proved that no, the two candidates running are not equally bad. Even the most cynical critics of American government didn't think Obama and McCain were going to be the same. Fuckin' Noam Chomsky told people to vote for Obama, for crying out loud. Noam Fuckin' Chomsky!

You can't say anything about my writing since you didn't read my retort. But here, I will summarize it for you: your criticisms are completely useless. The reason they are useless is because you seem to be assuming that the process by which Republicans won the White House again, and the process by which Democrats won the White House again, was merely some sort of shift of the balance, or the clock swinging back towards their direction.

This was, in fact, not the case. Both the Republicans in the late 70s and the Democrats in the 90s and the mid-2000s changed their strategies, their voting bases, and their ideological system. They had to go think up, plan, and do things. New things. In order for them to do those things, someone had to yell at them and call them retarded.

When you criticize my post by saying "b...bbuut the Republicans won the White House again!", what you are actually posting is "I have no idea how the Republicans won the White House again. I don't know anything". It shows your complete ignorance of the political processes of American politics in the past 30 years. The view you seem to be espousing is extremely myopic: you're looking at a few decades, and sort of extrapolating that things are eternally going to be like that and there's some sort of unmoving political spectrum where the pendulum swings towards its two extremes every couple of years, regardless of the actions of the parties or the people.

Conservatives are broken. Two consecutive lost elections, plus a dramatic decrease in party membership is the definition of being politically broken. How can you possibly pretend this is not the case? Most of the conservative party knows they're broken! They're not fucking stupid!

I only quoted that entirely to keep it preserved in it's original form...

The label fits you perfectly.

How do you presume to know what label fits me perfectly? You don't know me. Yet there you go. You build a caricature of me, and then you hack away at the caricature. It’s the very definition of a straw man argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'll ask anyone reading this to take a moment, click the link above, and become familiar -- if you're not already -- with what's called a "Straw Man" argument. You just saw a textbook example of one, quoted above, in full.

Observe…

You waltzed into this thread acting like you were above politics or something

No I didn’t. I identified myself who doesn’t align with either of the two major political parties. You completely made up the “above politics” part yourself.

I also shared a general belief that individuals who make it far in politics are generally opportunists in nature. This is an easily defensible position, but since I alluded to a South Park episode, you seem to believe that it is too ridiculous of an opinion to have been stated aloud. It was a mere allusion, not to be taken nearly so seriously. Might I remind you that you are, in fact, on a movie website right now. If you Google the words “movie review of south park” THIS VERY WEBSITE comes up on the FIRST PAGE.

Take just a moment and let the gravity of that reality sink in.

Then… Fucking let it go already.

You called me a libertarian. I only said that I identify with many of their positions. I also like to read Christopher Hitchens weekly column on Slate, as he is one of my favorite writers. I also identify strongly with a lot of Ralph Nader’s positions on the dangers of corporate influence in government. This discussion has nothing to do with any of that, but maybe you can spin some lie up about me from those little tidbits. What more do you want to make up about me while you beat this man of straw to death? You are making it all up. You simply do not know me. You do not know anything about me. You appear to be attacking your caricature of me simply because I called your writing hollow partisan tripe.

I don’t know you. I’m not attacking what you believe. I’m telling you that your writing was hollow partisan tripe. There’s nothing there. No substance. Demagoguery wrapped over hollow core. However, I’m not claiming to know anything about you, I’m only offering feedback on your writing, as you submitted it here presumably for criticism. I feel the nonsense you’re writing isn’t going to “reform” conservatives, and I still don’t think I even know what the hell “reform conservatives” is supposed to mean.

Are you under some delusion that labeling yourself as a member of a general ideology or movement somehow makes your opinions less worthy…?

No, you made that up again. You’ve made up a lot of things about me. I do hope anyone reading this has the fair-mindedness to recognize that. Your arguments against me are almost fully an ad hominem attack on a caricature of a caricature.

a guy that's against government paying for things but supports universal healthcare? what the fuck)

I never said I was against the government paying for anything. You completely made that up as part of the caricature you’ve created to attack in your straw man argument against me.

What I said, in that very sentence, was that gay marriage should be legal, as well as marijuana and abortions, and that none of the three need be government funded.

Again, to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this tripe, is he not attacking a completely made up position? Where did I say the government shouldn’t pay for healthcare, or education, or policing, or the military, or child welfare, or any one of the hundreds of things that I think the government (i.e. “WE THE PEOPLE”) should pay for? I didn’t say that. He fucking MADE IT UP.

What do you want me to do, randomly adopt some right-wing position that goes against everyhting I believe in and contradicts all my bases of government so that I can appear more "centered" or something? Is that your idea of political soundness?

No, and no.

I think you should (as I already stated) write more about the issue, and less about the politics. It doesn’t matter THAT African-Americans vote for Democrats. It matters WHY African-Americans vote for Democrats. You didn’t talk about WHY. You said exactly this:

To give an example, let’s take the black community. The black community leans Democratic for a variety of reasons. If the Republicans want to make inroads with the black community, they have to admit their failure: they have not done enough to court the black community, not done enough to establish the common bonds they have with the black community, and not done enough to address the grievances that the black community has. This is both hard to admit, and hard to find a solution to.

It’s completely lacking any “WHYs”?

The black community leans Democratic for a variety of reasons.

What are they?

If the Republicans want to make inroads with the black community, they have to admit their failure

What failure?

they have not done enough to court the black community

How so?

not done enough to establish the common bonds they have with the black community

by doing what?

and not done enough to address the grievances that the black community has

which are what?
And need to be addressed how?

This is both hard to admit

Admit what? You didn’t say anything real yet!

and hard to find a solution to.

And I see you’ve offered absolutely none whatsoever.

Again… It’s hollow partisan bullshit. No substance. Cheap Demagoguery. No solutions, no insight, no real opinion, just partisan bullshit wrapped in the mantle of “how can I reform conservatives?” Here’s a thought, don’t just state an opinion in your writing; Try backing it up with some insight into something other than your ability to type partisan bullshit into a word processor.

I’m not saying you CAN’T answer these questions. I’m saying you DIDN’T answer these questions. You skipped right over it all, and now you’re attacking a picture you’ve created of me in defence of your hollow partisan bullshit.

This is not an attack on you. I’m merely telling you that I feel what you wrote is bullshit based on nonsense. If you don’t like my opinion of your hollow partisan bullshit, well, by all means, build a man of straw and proceed to hack away at it until you feel that you have vanquished your enemy. Whatever floats your boat.

Maybe you can obsess about South Park a little longer. That’ll be fun for everyone.

Do you really think you are making good arguments?

I’m only making the argument that you’re not making a good argument. I didn’t expect you to agree with me, for what it’s worth.

All the arguments you think I’m making are the ones you’ve invented out of thin air as part of your amazing straw man argument capabilities.

The last eight years decisively, resolutely proved that no, the two candidates running are not equally bad. Even the most cynical critics of American government didn't think Obama and McCain were going to be the same
Neither did I. Two growingly familiar words: Straw man.

(I won’t return to the South Park allusion since it seems to preoccupy far too much space in your rebuttals) I said that every election came down to a choice between people who are, above all else, opportunists. Now, this is my belief because I know I can go through every politician from Ghandi to Reagan and point out gross examples of opportunism at it’s worst. If you disagree with me, that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick up the ball and start making up things I didn’t say. I think any fair-minded reader understands as much.

Fuckin' Noam Chomsky told people to vote for Obama, for crying out loud. Noam Fuckin' Chomsky!

So did Christoper Hitchens.
http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

And so what?

You can't say anything about my writing since you didn't read my retort.

I wasn’t criticizing your retort. I was criticizing the original writing that you posted here for criticism.

As for your retort, I’m not obligated to keep reading after you’ve caricatured me, and then attacked the caricature. I’m not going to waste time on your straw man argument. I hope I’ve finally been clear enough on this point.

You can stop reading any time you see fit. I simply don’t care.

This was, in fact, not the case. Both the Republicans in the late 70s and the Democrats in the 90s and the mid-2000s changed their strategies, their voting bases, and their ideological system. They had to go think up, plan, and do things. New things. In order for them to do those things, someone had to yell at them and call them retarded.

That’s wonderful. It’s not a debate against anything I wrote, but it’s certainly wonderful to see that you’re still debating this straw man to death. To be clear, I never said political parties were dogmatic in their ideology. I merely said that power swings every 8-12 years, and I have history on my side to back that opinion up. Everything else you attribute to me, is completely your own creation.

When you criticize my post by saying "b...bbuut the Republicans won the White House again!", what you are actually posting is "I have no idea how the Republicans won the White House again. I don't know anything". It shows your complete ignorance of the political processes of American politics in the past 30 years.

No, I think it shows just how creative you can be in a debate. I have never said anything even remotely close to the opinions your are attributing to me. Straw man.

The view you seem to be espousing is extremely myopic: you're looking at a few decades, and sort of extrapolating that things are eternally going to be like that and there's some sort of unmoving political spectrum where the pendulum swings towards its two extremes every couple of years, regardless of the actions of the parties or the people.

WHERE did I say the pendulum swings “regardless of the actions of the parties or the people”. I NEVER said that. That would be a completely idiotic thing to say. Isn’t it wonderful how you can invent an idiotic opinion out of thin air, attribute it to me, then criticize me for holding the idiotic opinion that you attributed me against my will.

Almost every sentence you type is another straw man argument.

Conservatives are broken. Two consecutive lost elections, plus a dramatic decrease in party membership is the definition of being politically broken. How can you possibly pretend this is not the case? Most of the conservative party knows they're broken! They're not fucking stupid!

Partisan.
Hollow.
Bullshit.

...Everything I told you it was to begin with. Glad to see you finally agree.

Good day,
Stefan.

stefanb

05-06-2009, 10:54 PM

Just to point out here that a reformed alcoholic is still an alcoholic (in remission). An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic, but a reformed alcoholic isn't going to be some kind of asshole that no one wants anything to do with because he spends all of his money on booze and becomes belligerent at weddings.

Just because the term "reformed" is applied to things like drug users and so forth doesn't mean shit. You can have an aggressive drug addict which could be a bad thing, and you could have an aggressive defensive lineman on a pro football team, which would be a good thing.

It's always groovy when people attempt to base counter arguments on semantics without understanding the meanings of the words they are singling out.

Seriously, just because a criminal becomes reformed, that doesn't mean they never committed any crimes ever and are no longer a criminal. They are a reformed criminal. A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. You can't fix that, and to say they are broken is a load of shit from someone who claims to have liberal leanings.

No disagreement here.

Something "reformed" is now GOOD.

Before it was reformed, or had it not been reformed, it would be _________________.

Now, fill in the blank, without insulting anyone, as part of a greater attempt to "reform" them. Do this as a supposed opening to "rational dialog" you hope to have with them.

For the record, you already filled in the blank saying:

some kind of asshole that no one wants anything to do with because he spends all of his money on booze and becomes belligerent at weddings

So that's what it means to NOT be reformed. Ok. Try telling someone that you think they're an asshole, and you want nothing to do with them because they spend all their money on booze, and are belligerent, THEN... try to have a rational discussion to change their mind about something based on real issues. Have fun.

Fill in the blank with anything you like... It's the game any political idealogue will love to play.

I agree with you that it's stupid to harp on the use of reform, and am pointing out that even if we did, it's not fair to paint drug addicts and alcoholics in a negative light as the basis for saying it's offensive to use that word.

I never said it was "offensive". It simply doesn't make any sense to anyone except a political idealogue. Reform what? It's not an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or a tax cut for a billionaire oil company. Conservatism isn't even an ideology defined completely by the Republican party, so you can't talk about "reforming conservatives" in the same breath as "reforming republican politics". They're not even the same thing, nothwithstanding Ron Paul. It's the wrong choice of word. I think using "convert" in place of "reform" would suffice. Moving on...

It wasn't intended to offend. Merely semantics, but important to the topic at hand.

Regards,
Stefan.

stefanb

05-06-2009, 11:14 PM

From the title of this thread I pretty much knew what to expect, so I just chose till this point to not be involved.

It's easier to form an attack if you label someone, you just don't have to think as much about what the person you appose is actually saying and it helps rally the sheep. It's insulting to not label yourself, it insinuates you're better than everyone else who does. This makes you a coward becuase you must fit a catagory and to not proclaim it leads me to believe you can't really defend it. Now I must make personal attacks becuase to carry on a rational argument where I'd be forced to think would be exhausting.

Why don't you go watch some Fox News or something. Go pray in front of your shrine of Ron Paul.

The force is strong in this one. ;)

(I hope The Heart Collecter doesn't get mad at my Star Wars reference... at least it's a step up from South Park, right?)

stefanb

05-06-2009, 11:48 PM

I think this is called the sin of symmetry in politics, assuming that both parties suck equally. I guarantee you, the longer a political discussion goes on, the more likely it is that someone will say "both parties suck".

I mean clearly both parties have had their share of fuck-ups, bad ideas, and idiocy - but just because they're both guilty doesn't mean they're guilty of it to the same degree, which is something I think a lot of people are quick to assume - especially the media.

On the topic of the "they're both the same" style arguments, one argument I find laughable is that Obama represents the Third Term of Bush. An argument you will hear from many of the same people who believe that Obama is a socialist/communist/marxist/stalinist. So how do these people reconcile these two apparently contradictory beliefs? By saying Bush was never a real conservative anyway and was a closet liberal/socialist! Pretty amazing.

You are quoting The Heart Collector's straw man argument against me, then running with the ball as if what he said actually characterized my opinions correctly. No thanks.

Look... say what you will about Ralph Nader on the left, or Ron Paul on the right, but don't you dare say either man has compromised their integrity for political opportunity. These are men doing what they feel is right and what they believe in (be it ideologically correct or not -- I just don't care), whether it costs them a vote or not. I see why people on the left and right follow these men. There's an integrity there that will never see high office because of opportunism in politics.

Example:
http://www.slate.com/id/2215894/

When you see Obama (pre-election) telling Armenian-Americans that he'll fight to have the Armenian genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks recognized, that's a very moral stance to take. Then he gets elected and speaks from the Turkish parliament, specifically skirting the issue to score political points in Turkey. Well... you've just seen opportunism defined. It's revolting to me, and I imagine as well to many hundreds of Armenian-Americans. It's disgusting opportunism.

That's not a defence of George W Bush.
That's not a vote for John McCain.
That's a criticism of Barack Obama.
It's not even an outright hatred of Barack Obama.

To not be politically aligned is to understand this. Any politician who gets far acts this way, because they have to "have strange bedmates" to win (although I kinda dig Dwight Eisenhower, it's just too long ago to still be relevant.) If I can't align myself with a political party because of these sorts of issues, it doesn't mean I never support a candidate in either party. It means I don't support a candidate from the same party every year. It doesn't mean I don't vote. It means I don't vote for the same party every time. It doesn't mean I cast protest votes for parties with no popular support or hope of winning, because - suprise - I do want my vote to mean something.

If I hold any serious political belief, it's this:
send new pigs to the trough, every 8 years, minimum.

When I say the two main parties are "two sides of the same coin", I'm not quite sure how you turned that into "the same side of the same coin". Clearly there are differences in ideology which are significant, and the parties change to keep up with trends in populism from year to year. So we get these opportunists, or those opportunists. Pick the side that suits your view of the world, just don't leave either side on the grill for too long... It always starts to smell burnt before the egg timer dings.

Luckly, presidential term limits agree with my point of view. I think we should extend them to the Senate and Congress. I'd make an argument for this, but I just assume my opinons would be ignored, and I'd spend the day defending myself from more of The Heart Collector's absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments.

Now, I've had quite enough of my opinions being misstated, mischaracterized, and misrepresented.

Respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off.

Badbird

05-07-2009, 01:35 AM

Respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off.

Ya, anyway... I quit reading. Sorry. I just don't care what you think that much, and it goes on forever.

^^What the second guy said.

Oh, wait.

The Postmaster General

05-07-2009, 01:46 AM

No disagreement here.

Something "reformed" is now GOOD.

I never said that. Actually what I said was to the contrary.

What I said was that once something is reformed, it doesn't cease to be what it was before, such as an alcoholic is still an alcoholic and a drug addict is still a drug addict. I said the alcoholism/drug addiction is not what makes something inherently bad, so to say a comparison to alcoholism/drug addiction is bad is off the mark.

Before it was reformed, or had it not been reformed, it would be _________________.

Now, fill in the blank, without insulting anyone, as part of a greater attempt to "reform" them. Do this as a supposed opening to "rational dialog" you hope to have with them.

Before it was reformed, or had it not been reformed, it would be unreformed/in need of reform/not in need of reform/seeking to be reformed/not seeking to be reformed...

For the record, you already filled in the blank saying:

So that's what it means to NOT be reformed. Ok. Try telling someone that you think they're an asshole, and you want nothing to do with them because they spend all their money on booze, and are belligerent, THEN... try to have a rational discussion to change their mind about something based on real issues. Have fun.

Fill in the blank with anything you like... It's the game any political idealogue will love to play.

No, I didn't already fill in the bank.

I gave an example that, I myself, found kind of funny, as in Steve Buscemi's character from The Wedding Singer. If you think, for the sake of your argument, that this is the example I would give to a homeless drug addict who I think needs reform, OR a political party, then surely you are joking.

I could have just as easily painted the picture of a closet alcoholic, or of a fun loving uncle whose liver is shot to shit and everyone is crying because he's such a fun loving guy and it's sad to know that he drank himself to death. There's a lot of examples! Have you ever lost a loved one under these circumstances?

I could have easily said that they need to be reformed, like many great men needed to be, Winston Churchill, for example (that example pertains to the alcoholism)

I never said it was "offensive". It simply doesn't make any sense to anyone except a political idealogue. Reform what? It's not an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or a tax cut for a billionaire oil company. Conservatism isn't even an ideology defined completely by the Republican party, so you can't talk about "reforming conservatives" in the same breath as "reforming republican politics". They're not even the same thing, nothwithstanding Ron Paul. It's the wrong choice of word. I think using "convert" in place of "reform" would suffice. Moving on...

It wasn't intended to offend. Merely semantics, but important to the topic at hand.

Okay, so when I say it implies "offense" and you say it implies a need to "convert", we're supposed to act like this is all the difference in the world, because telling someone they need to be converted is something they won't take offense to?

Semantics are important, but not for the reasons you are saying they are.

The Heart Collector

05-07-2009, 03:14 AM

So what exactly was your point, after all this time? That politicians are opportunists? That they often do things that we might disagree with for shady reasons? Well THANKS! I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!

who gives a shit if ron paul has integrity? you're not even talking about integrity. you're talking about consistency. yes, ron paul consistently votes rigidly by following his inhuman ideology, no kidding. that's why most people consider him a laughingstock.

someguy

05-07-2009, 03:14 AM

You are making it all up. You simply do not know me. You do not know anything about me. You appear to be attacking your caricature of me simply because I called your writing hollow partisan tripe.

http://i37.tinypic.com/99opis.jpg

The Heart Collector

05-07-2009, 03:39 AM

Man, seriously, you lost this argument like a thousand replies ago, so I don't understand why you continue to make these silly posts. Do you think if you keep repeating I am a 'hollow partisan hack' or whatever, it's magically going to turn true?

You are out of your league in this argument. We are discussing 1) voting patterns 2) Coalitions 3) General evolution of party's ideology 4) Historical process. Those are specifics. You are discussing generalities. Generalities are good if you want to be amusing, or if you want to defuse a political conversation, but they're not useful for actual argument.

I don't know why you posted that example about the Armenian Genocide, or what you think that might prove. An example of Barack Obama doing politician shit has nothing to do with how the Republican Party got in its current situation and how it might escape it. Do you not understand that or something? What the fuck are you even talking about? Jesus christ.

I don't even know what you're babbling about anymore. How can you say you don't want to vote for fringe parties or cast protest votes because you want your votes to mean something, and then criticize politicians who take the same pragmatic approach to politics? How the fuck does that make sense?

You keep having the same attitude, and you still do, which is "I'm some sort of fucking maverick because I don't vote straight party" or something. As if it's some sort of great achievement. It isn't. More often than not, it's just a sign of total lack of consistency. How the fuck does Ron Paul have 'integrity' then? His votes in Congress are as wasted as the votes of people who vote for parties that stand no chance of winning!

You're not impressing anyone with this because everyone has gone through 'everyone sux' phase already. What happens after that phase is you realize that some politicians are incredibly worse than others. That's where most of us here are at. Not as some 'partisan hackery' stage where we read Paul Begala books and watch Rachel Maddow. We are ahead. Stop.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 08:56 AM

Man, seriously, you lost this argument like a thousand replies ago, so I don't understand why you continue to make these silly posts. Do you think if you keep repeating I am a 'hollow partisan hack' or whatever, it's magically going to turn true?

Once again, I'm only making the argument that you're making an idotic argument. I never expected you to agree. Suprise, you don't. Wow. I'm shocked.

I didn't just SAY it was hollow partisan tripe. I told you WHY it was partisan hollow tripe. I don't care if you didn't read that part, or disagreed with it, but I certainly didn't expect anything to happen by way of magic.

I don't know why you posted that example about the Armenian Genocide, or what you think that might prove.
Because we have a sitting president who has chosen not to acknowledge the murder of over 500,000 people because it's good for political relations with the country of the murderers. He did this after telling Armenian-Americans (pre-election) that he would do the opposite, to get their vote. I'm not going to declare a political allegiance with this sort of dishonesty, even if I support many of his policies in other areas.

You are out of your league in this argument. We are discussing 1) voting patterns 2) Coalitions 3) General evolution of party's ideology 4) Historical process. Those are specifics. You are discussing generalities. Generalities are good if you want to be amusing, or if you want to defuse a political conversation, but they're not useful for actual argument

I beleive the discussion was actually about "how would a leftist 'reform' the conservatives in America". You'll just have to forgive me if I stayed with the real topic, and decided to talk about why your writing won't convert anyone, and will actually annoy anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

I don't even know what you're babbling about anymore. How can you say you don't want to vote for fringe parties or cast protest votes because you want your votes to mean something, and then criticize politicians who take the same pragmatic approach to politics? How the fuck does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense if you're not trying to caricature me, and attack the caricature. I don't fit in one of your pre-determined pigeon holes. Sorry.

I think your writing is garbage. I never expected you to agree with me. Suprise, you didn't.

I'm not the one trying to reform or convert anyone, you are. So I didn't fail, you did. I read it and felt it was idiotic stupidity. Next time you post something for criticism, expect that you might actually get some, and try something other than ad hominem straw man attacks againt a caricature.

Someguy... I'm very glad to see you're still reading my posts. Thanks.

Sorry Bubba, I'm just not going to make a 9 page conversation about why I feel "reform" is a bad choice of word for the title. I've made my case, if you disagree, that's fine. Use "rehabilitate" if you like... It's already hollow partisan tripe. Can't hurt to go even further.

Regards,
-Stefan

stefanb

05-07-2009, 10:26 AM

So what exactly was your point, after all this time? That politicians are opportunists? That they often do things that we might disagree with for shady reasons? Well THANKS! I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!

I could not have said it better myself. I mean, if it is as obvious as you say it is, then it shouldn't be so difficult to understand why I don't declare an allegiance to the parties of this behavior.

who gives a shit if ron paul has integrity?

The people who vote for him, and donate money to his political campains. The very people that you're trying to reform with your hollow partisan tripe writing.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+record+fundraising

Hello?

you're not even talking about integrity. you're talking about consistency. yes, ron paul consistently votes rigidly by following his inhuman ideology, no kidding. that's why most people consider him a laughingstock.

In the right circles, Ralph Nader is thought of a laughingstock. I notice you only selected one of my two examples for this criticism. More hollow partisan tripe. Nothing new.

Regards,
Stefan

Preston_79

05-07-2009, 12:32 PM

Stefanb, it's adorable how your political awarness is still evolving. You're at that early stage where you don't trust politicians. This will someday pass. You'll come to understand there are noble ones out there, then you'll also notice how most of them are on the left, and you'll be all the more wise once you've pledged your allegiance to them and their party. The Democrats *cough*

You've struggled long enough trying to make sense. It's confusing to live in a world that's not black and white. Come to the winner circle and let us embrace you. Once you've done this you won't have to back up statements with facts, becuase you'll have our support. You've heard there's streangth in numbers, well, in these threads there's also truth in numbers. You can coast by on this hollow partisan hackery you speak so negatively about. Partisan attacks will replace any original thought, thus freeing the mind. This my friend is the final stage.

Switch sides now and we'll disregard all your previous statements. We can pretend like none of this happened. Truth is you're way out of our league and this is just becomong embaracing for us, you. You're embarrassing yourself. Now, let's end this nonsense at once.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 01:10 PM

Stefanb, it's adorable...

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self−willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin−scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Regards,
Stefan.

Potter82

05-07-2009, 01:14 PM

You are quoting The Heart Collector's straw man argument against me, then running with the ball as if what he said actually characterized my opinions correctly. No thanks.

Look... say what you will about Ralph Nader on the left, or Ron Paul on the right, but don't you dare say either man has compromised their integrity for political opportunity. These are men doing what they feel is right and what they believe in (be it ideologically correct or not -- I just don't care), whether it costs them a vote or not. I see why people on the left and right follow these men. There's an integrity there that will never see high office because of opportunism in politics.

Example:
http://www.slate.com/id/2215894/

When you see Obama (pre-election) telling Armenian-Americans that he'll fight to have the Armenian genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks recognized, that's a very moral stance to take. Then he gets elected and speaks from the Turkish parliament, specifically skirting the issue to score political points in Turkey. Well... you've just seen opportunism defined. It's revolting to me, and I imagine as well to many hundreds of Armenian-Americans. It's disgusting opportunism.

That's not a defence of George W Bush.
That's not a vote for John McCain.
That's a criticism of Barack Obama.
It's not even an outright hatred of Barack Obama.

To not be politically aligned is to understand this. Any politician who gets far acts this way, because they have to "have strange bedmates" to win (although I kinda dig Dwight Eisenhower, it's just too long ago to still be relevant.) If I can't align myself with a political party because of these sorts of issues, it doesn't mean I never support a candidate in either party. It means I don't support a candidate from the same party every year. It doesn't mean I don't vote. It means I don't vote for the same party every time. It doesn't mean I cast protest votes for parties with no popular support or hope of winning, because - suprise - I do want my vote to mean something.

If I hold any serious political belief, it's this:
send new pigs to the trough, every 8 years, minimum.

When I say the two main parties are "two sides of the same coin", I'm not quite sure how you turned that into "the same side of the same coin". Clearly there are differences in ideology which are significant, and the parties change to keep up with trends in populism from year to year. So we get these opportunists, or those opportunists. Pick the side that suits your view of the world, just don't leave either side on the grill for too long... It always starts to smell burnt before the egg timer dings.

Luckly, presidential term limits agree with my point of view. I think we should extend them to the Senate and Congress. I'd make an argument for this, but I just asusme my opinons would be ignored, and I'd spend the day defending myself from more of The Heart Collector's absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments.

Now, I've had quite enough of my opinions being misstated, mischaracterized, and misrepresented.

Respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off.

awwww, why so serious? do you need a kleenex or a hug? Seriously, way to get all personal and whiny.

You did equate Republican garbage with Democratic garbage when anyone who bothered to pay attention over the last few years knows that's BS. Way to go into ad hominem attacks by the way, something I went out of my way to avoid. I guess one can't discuss things intelligently with conservatives without invoking the WHHARGGABL.

Seriously, the country and the world would be better off once all people having your view point die, or as you so succintly put it, fuck off.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 01:18 PM

awwww, why so serious? do you need a kleenex or a hug? Seriously, way to get all personal and whiny.

You did equate Republican garbage with Democratic garbage when anyone who bothered to pay attention over the last few years knows that's BS. Way to go into ad hominem attacks by the way, something I went out of my way to avoid. I guess one can't discuss things intelligently with conservatives without invoking the WHHARGGABL.

Seriously, the country and the world would be better off once all people having your view point die, or as you so succintly put it, fuck off.

I don't think you actually know what ad hominem means. Or (as it would appear) you're just trying to be inflammatory. I don't think I care beyond asking you to cite an example of an ad hominem attack I've made in this thread.

Preston_79

05-07-2009, 02:11 PM

Seriously, the country and the world would be better off once all people having your view point die, or as you so succintly put it, fuck off.

This is the most intelligent sentence so far. Just takes the wind right out of your sails doesn't it. Should have typed this a few days ago, instead of humoring people into thinking this was going to be something constructive with the actual goal of helping those conservatives reform. You hit the nail on the head when you called stefanb out for having a view point and not points. He's so one dimensional.

Yes, fall in line with the rest of the herd or die. There is no reform, or reeducation for you conservatives. Yes, you're a conservative, despite the fact you don't mind if same sex couples marry, abortions take place, support universal health care, and smoke marijuana. If you want to be left of center you'll have to do better than that.

Potter82

05-07-2009, 03:41 PM

Potter82

05-07-2009, 03:44 PM

This is the most intelligent sentence so far. Just takes the wind right out of your sails doesn't it. Should have typed this a few days ago, instead of humoring people into thinking this was going to be something constructive with the actual goal of helping those conservatives reform. You hit the nail on the head when you called stefanb out for having a view point and not points. He's so one dimensional.

Yes, fall in line with the rest of the herd or die. There is no reform, or reeducation for you conservatives. Yes, you're a conservative, despite the fact you don't mind if same sex couples marry, abortions take place, support universal health care, and smoke marijuana. If you want to be left of center you'll have to do better than that.

Okay, I will do something rare on this board; I take that statement back and apologize for the above sentiment.

Yes, it was inflammatory because I was the target of what I considered to be an unduly hostile response after trying to state things in neutral terms and I admittedly reacted too quickly. I responded in similar terms and I regret doing so and not being more articulate in the process.

I wish there would be a constructive dialgoue about politics without the personal attacks & venom (Which is so easy to succumb to when talking politics, it's just so easy to become really frustrated when talking about these things) and I'll personally try to limit such sentiments in the future. Consider it a momentary lapse of reason on my part.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 03:47 PM

Yes, you're a conservative, despite the fact you don't mind if same sex couples marry, abortions take place, support universal health care, and smoke marijuana. If you want to be left of center you'll have to do better than that.

I have never entirely understood why gay marriage, abortion, and drug laws are all considered conservative issues. The legalization of all three has always struck me as a rather decisive call for less government, regardless of their somewhat opposite track record within republican party policies... but I think we've already covered my "psuedo-libertarian" leanings.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 03:51 PM

Now, I've had quite enough of my opinions being misstated, mischaracterized, and misrepresented.

Respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off.
-------------

I'm sorry but your entire post was incredibly hostile and saying "fuck off" is quite personal and inflammatory whereas my original post did not intend to be. It ends the debate and if I insulted, I believe in returning the favour and not pretending as though it never happened.

So let's just agree not to address each other again on this board since it obviously wouldn't benefit either of us.

Yes, respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off. I'm not going to stand for people making up things I've never said, attributing it to me, and then attacking me based on that false attribution. It's vile and disgusting, and I've done nothing of the sort in this thread.

Now, I don't have to agree to stop addressing anyone, including you. If you can't debate without telling people to just die, that's entirely your problem, not mine. Go ahead and be as mean as you want to me. I trust in the fair-mindedness of the readers to decide what they want to believe, and what they don't.

Okay, I will do something rare on this board; I take that statement back and apologize for the above sentiment.

Yes, it was inflammatory because I was the target of what I considered to be an unduly hostile response after trying to state things in neutral terms and I admittedly reacted too quickly. I responded in similar terms and I regret doing so and not being more articulate in the process.

I wish there would be a constructive dialgoue about politics without the personal attacks & venom (which is so easy to succumb to when talking politics) and I'll personally try to limit such sentiments in the future. Consider it a momentary lapse of reason.

If you felt you were "the target of what {you} considered to be an unduly hostile response", then I still think you owe it to me to cite an example of an ad hominem attack I've made in this thread.

Regards,
Stefan.

Reigh Kaufman

05-07-2009, 04:03 PM

If you felt you were "the target of what {you} considered to be an unduly hostile response", then I still think you owe it to me to cite an example of an ad hominem attack I've made in this thread.

Regards,
Stefan.

Jesus, Stefan - you can be banned for your comments and he has offered you a life-jacket AND an apology.

You're throwing the life-jacket back at him because it's not the right shade for your complexion.

Show some magnanimity. Shake hands and pipe down.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 04:14 PM

Jesus, Stefan - you can be banned for your comments and he has offered you a life-jacket AND an apology.

You're throwing the life-jacket back at him because it's not the right shade for your complexion.

Show some magnanimity. Shake hands and pipe down.

I seriously doubt I can be banned for anything I've said in this thread. I'm still waiting for someone to cite one of the ad hominem attacks I'm being accused of making. Now, he didn't apologize to me. He re-stated his claim that he was hostilely attacked. I'm saying, "prove it". Quote me. Make the case.

I don't need a life jacket, nor am I requesting one. It’s certainly not a life jacket he's offering, and your analogy really makes no sense to me. That said, I don't think I care to have it clarified anyway. It's entirely up to you. If you want forget about it and just blame me for my inability to understand whatever reference you're trying to make here, I'm fine with that.

Lastly, I don't have to pipe down for anyone sir, least of all, you. I don't need to shake hands with someone who has falsely accused me of attacking him personally, and whose brilliant solution is that we simply never address each other again.

Regards,
Stefan.

Potter82

05-07-2009, 04:32 PM

oh well, I'll consider it a one sided resolution. Life's too short for flame wars.

Any way, back to the subject at hand.

It was reported today that the GOP has begun trying to recruit people like Charlie Christ to run for the senate in 2010. With that and recent high profile attempts to recruit people like Tom Ridge (though he recently said he wouldn't run) it seems that despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the GOP is actively recruiting moderates - a good sign I think for conservatives. From what I heard Charlie Crist has been quite a good governor and a moderate one at that.

Here's the thing though, even though these people would do well in a general election, do you think they would pass the Republican primary smell test?

Like if Ridge did in fact run against Toomey in the Republican primary, who do you think would win? Based on a recent hypothetical poll, Ridge would beat out Specter by a few % points in a general election whereas Specter beats Toomey by at least 20% points! Yet given his pro-choice stance, Ridge would be deeply unpopular with the base and would be unlikely to win a Republican primary.

This is one of the biggest immediate problems with the Republican party in my opinion; the preferences of the GOP's base is not in sync with that of the mainstream electorate. They do have some decent politicans but it seems like they can't get the support of the base so you end up with people like Toomey who have extremely limited appeal. How do you reform your base?

They seem to be at crossroads - should they choose ideology or pragmatism?

Is it better to get only say, 50-70% of what you want now? or is it better to wait and hope that one day (even though it may never come) you'll be in a position to get 100% of what you want? For me the former makes much more sense but for the most part, they seem to be trending towards the latter.

Honestly if they decide in favour of pragmatism they could shorten their time in the political wilderness but, somehow, I doubt that is going to happen since the prevailing view among Republicans seems to be that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough (which I think is really wrong).

Reigh Kaufman

05-07-2009, 05:08 PM

I seriously doubt I can be banned for anything I've said in this thread. I'm still waiting for someone to cite one of the ad hominem attacks I'm being accused of making. Now, he didn't apologize to me. He re-stated his claim that he was hostilely attacked. I'm saying, "prove it". Quote me. Make the case.

I don't need a life jacket, nor am I requesting one. It’s certainly not a life jacket he's offering, and your analogy really makes no sense to me. That said, I don't think I care to have it clarified anyway. It's entirely up to you. If you want forget about it and just blame me for my inability to understand whatever reference you're trying to make here, I'm fine with that.

Lastly, I don't have to pipe down for anyone sir, least of all, you. I don't need to shake hands with someone who has falsely accused me of attacking him personally, and whose brilliant solution is that we simply never address each other again.

Regards,
Stefan.

I don't care about the political debate. You can be banned for telling another poster to "fuck off", whether implicitly or explicitly.

I am neither for or against anyone in this debate, but I did think that your choice of words were uncalled for - and then you refused to accept an apology despite the fact you are breaking the rules of the board.

Carry on.

You're not on my friend list. Just thought I would try to warn you is all.

Jon Lyrik

05-07-2009, 05:23 PM

stefanb

05-07-2009, 05:27 PM

I don't care about the political debate. You can be banned for telling another poster to "fuck off", whether implicitly or explicitly.

I am neither for or against anyone in this debate, but I did think that your choice of words were uncalled for - and then you refused to accept an apology despite the fact you are breaking the rules of the board.

Carry on.

You're not on my friend list. Just thought I would try to warn you is all.

The statement I made was specifically so people would start addressing things I've actually written, rather than attributing false arguments to me, and then attacking me based on the falsely attributed position. This is a libel far beyond a label even as friendly as "disgusting"; It's intellectually dishonest. If anyone wishes to claim that I told them to "fuck off", they are admitting in that same breath that they were misstating, mischaracterizing, or misrepresenting my words. In which case I have two words for them: fuck off.

If I do get banned, well I guess that JoBlo's Movie Emporium isn't the last bastion of free speech that I'd hoped it was.

I do welcome anyone to report me to a moderator. I feel quite comfortable with any/all positions I've taken.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 05:34 PM

This bickering is unacceptable, yes. But I can definitely see why people are getting pissed at Stefan. He makes this massive post about how he's above it all, man, Heart Collector refutes it quite well, then Stefan had the balls to be all like "too long, didn't read, lulz".

The whole thread's devolved from this, though.

I didn't say I wouldn't read it because it was too long. I quit reading because I stopped caring what he thinks. As I've repeated several times now, I won't read the rest of it because he started by applying a label to me which I do not apply to myself...

You do in fact fit in a political party or movement, and a very cliche one at that: the pseudo-libertarian.

...then proceeded to attack the falsely attributed label...

It is what China Mieville once referred to as the "philosophy of venal petty-bourgeois dissidence", a political movement whose members "recast their most banal avarice—the disinclination to pay tax—as a principled blow for political freedom".

This is the very definition of a straw man argument. I simply don't fit in to the libertarian political movement. They have a lot positions I identify strongly with, but that's as far at the comparison goes.

Now, I just don't feel obligated to keep reading after that. Surely I've been clear enough on this point already, and I should not have to repeat myself so many times. I have better things to spend my time on than reading attacks on positions falsely attributed to me.

Again, if I start a commentary in the sincere belief that I can harness the powers of strawberry jelly to turn myself invisible, you have the right to stop reading at that point. To keep reading would be a waste of your time. You don't keep reading stupidity in the hope that it turns around for the better.

Regards,
Stefan.

gayzilla

05-07-2009, 05:43 PM

Yeah, this thread quickly devolved into a bitch slap cat fight. oh well.

The Postmaster General

05-07-2009, 06:20 PM

Hey Stefan, why didn't you reply to me? As we last left off you had falsely attributed me as someone who would try to help a suffering alcoholic or drug addict by telling them they are comparable to assholes. That doesn't sit well with me, and I'd rather not leave it as that.

Thanks
xoxox
Bubba

The Heart Collector

05-07-2009, 06:38 PM

No one is strawmanning you. You specifically said you don't want to pay for anything with your taxes. I suggested that is an irresponsible approach towards 'socially left of center' positions, since advancing those positions tends to require money and the strong arm of the government. I think the quote from Mieville still stands: "not my taxes" political positions are simply an attempt to cast your own unwillingness to personally pay taxes as a political stand, even when it clearly is not a political stand at all. This applies to you regardless of how you want to label yourself. I know this because of your statements regarding taxes and healthcare.

The libertarian movement has very specific philosophical bases. There are very specific assumptions or a priori statemens accepted as the base of the theory, and the positions and approaches towards governing flow from that. The distinction between negative and positive rights is probably the most commonly known one.

When you sympathize with some libertarian positions, but don't really fit as a libertarian, what you are saying is, essentially, that you are picking those positions because they sound superficially appealing. How is it that you are able to hold 'right-of-center' and 'not my taxes' positions and then support universal healthcare? Simple: by not actually understanding why libertarians are opposed to healthcare.

That is why I am being critical of you. If you truly understood why libertarians oppose those things, you'd oppose all those things. I mean what does it even mean to be anti-spending and taxes, but then support universal healthcare? What, are negative rights the only rights, except for this absolutely random exception that I'm considering only because I was born in a country with Universal Healthcare? That is completely senseless.

Now, there's nothing wrong with pragmatism, and there's nothing wrong with re-evaluating your political philosophies depending on either the results, or new situations that throw a curveball at your understanding. That's all perfectly fine, it's part of the process. In fact, it is part of the very process we are arguing the G.O.P. should engage in. But that's a completely different thing from jumping here and being all PARTISAN! PARTISAN!!!! Your arguments have had no substance. You don't seem to understand that. I explained it in my post, but I'll explain it again: all those moments when political parties seemed doomed, and they came back, they did it because they changed their strategies. Those examples all support my point. They don't support your point, which seems to be "inertia will bring them back to power". You have a shallow understanding of the political process of the past 40 years, so your criticism is shallow and nonsensical.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 06:44 PM

Hey Stefan, why didn't you reply to me?

Yes, I did reply to you. I said this:

Sorry Bubba, I'm just not going to make a 9 page conversation about why I feel "reform" is a bad choice of word for the title. I've made my case, if you disagree, that's fine. Use "rehabilitate" if you like... It's already hollow partisan tripe. Can't hurt to go even further.

That said...

As we last left off you had falsely attributed me as someone who would try to help a suffering alcoholic or drug addict by telling them they are comparable to assholes. That doesn't sit well with me, and I'd rather not leave it as that.

I see. You think quoting you is falsely attributing an argument to you. Ok. Fair enough.

Just to point out here that a reformed alcoholic is still an alcoholic (in remission). An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic, but a reformed alcoholic isn't going to be some kind of asshole that no one wants anything to do with because he spends all of his money on booze and becomes belligerent at weddings.

The Postmaster General

05-07-2009, 07:03 PM

Yes, I did reply to you. I said this:

Sorry Bubba, I'm just not going to make a 9 page conversation about why I feel "reform" is a bad choice of word for the title. I've made my case, if you disagree, that's fine. Use "rehabilitate" if you like... It's already hollow partisan tripe. Can't hurt to go even further.

I didn't see that. If I had I would have just asked why you brought it up to begin with and said it was important.

I see. You think quoting you is falsely attributing an argument to you.

I didn't say that. Taking an example I've made on a movie message board and attributing it to how I would act in a serious situation is making a false attribute. Especially now that you are doing it in light of a post where I said that was an offhanded an example and not intended to be applied to real life and you've acknowledged reading that post.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 07:09 PM

No one is strawmanning you.

I've made the case for it already. I won't repeat it.

You specifically said you don't want to pay for anything with your taxes.

No I didn't. I said almost exactly the opposite. I said that gay marriage, marijuana, and abortions can all be legal, just don't ask me to pay for it. I also said clearly that we should expect to pay for heathcare, policing, the military, child welfare, and "hundreds of other things".

Nice to see you're not reading either. See:

Again, to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this tripe, is he not attacking a completely made up position? Where did I say the government shouldn’t pay for healthcare, or education, or policing, or the military, or child welfare, or any one of the hundreds of things that I think the government (i.e. “WE THE PEOPLE”) should pay for? I didn’t say that. He fucking MADE IT UP.

Straw Man.

I suggested that is an irresponsible approach towards 'socially left of center' positions, since advancing those positions tends to require money and the strong arm of the government.

I've donated to NORML, and I really don't care enough about gay marriage to put my own money into it. Abortion is already legal, and NONE OF THESE THREE EXAMPLES I USED REQUIRE ANY TAX DOLLARS. The debate can be, and should be, funded privately.

I think the quote from Mieville still stands: "not my taxes" political positions are simply an attempt to cast your own unwillingness to personally pay taxes as a political stand, even when it clearly is not a political stand at all. This applies to you regardless of how you want to label yourself. I know this because of your statements regarding taxes and healthcare.

What about this statement I made?:

Again, to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this tripe, is he not attacking a completely made up position? Where did I say the government shouldn’t pay for healthcare, or education, or policing, or the military, or child welfare, or any one of the hundreds of things that I think the government (i.e. “WE THE PEOPLE”) should pay for? I didn’t say that. He fucking MADE IT UP.

The libertarian movement has very specific philosophical bases. There are very specific assumptions or a priori statemens accepted as the base of the theory, and the positions and approaches towards governing flow from that. The distinction between negative and positive rights is probably the most commonly known one.

I'm not a libertarian. I've been clear on this.

When you sympathize with some libertarian positions, but don't really fit as a libertarian, what you are saying is, essentially, that you are picking those positions because they sound superficially appealing. How is it that you are able to hold 'right-of-center' and 'not my taxes' positions and then support universal healthcare? Simple: by not actually understanding why libertarians are opposed to healthcare.

I also said I identify stongly with a lot of Ralph Nader's positions on the dangers of corporate influence in government. Why not take that and try to staple Ralph's entire political philosophy to my name? I also said Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorite authors. Why not staple his entire political philosophy to my name?

I'm not a fucking libertarian. I only said I identify with a lot of their positions. I think the call to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and abortions (keep them as such), is simply a call for less governement intrusion into personal lives. It's not a fight that needs tax dollars. In fact, it would take less tax dollars to simply get out of people's personal lives in those areas.

That is why I am being critical of you. If you truly understood why libertarians oppose those things, you'd oppose all those things. I mean what does it even mean to be anti-spending and taxes, but then support universal healthcare? What, are negative rights the only rights, except for this absolutely random exception that I'm considering only because I was born in a country with Universal Healthcare? That is completely senseless.

I'm not a fucking libertarian. Get it?

I support universal heathcare because telling someone you won't save their life because they can't afford it is, in my opinion, immoral. If that's not a libertarian position, it's because I'm not a libertarian.

ONE MORE TIME... (I posted this a long time ago, if you're reading)

Again, to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this tripe, is he not attacking a completely made up position? Where did I say the government shouldn’t pay for healthcare, or education, or policing, or the military, or child welfare, or any one of the hundreds of things that I think the government (i.e. “WE THE PEOPLE”) should pay for? I didn’t say that. He fucking MADE IT UP.

When most people reach the bottom of a hole, they quit digging. Not you. Just keep going.

Now, there's nothing wrong with pragmatism, and there's nothing wrong with re-evaluating your political philosophies depending on either the results, or new situations that throw a curveball at your understanding. That's all perfectly fine, it's part of the process. In fact, it is part of the very process we are arguing the G.O.P. should engage in. But that's a completely different thing from jumping here and being all PARTISAN! PARTISAN!!!!

I've been clear enough in previous posts as to why I feel the initial posting is hollow partisan tripe. I see no need to return there again.

stefanb

05-07-2009, 07:14 PM

I didn't say that. Taking an example I've made on a movie message board and attributing it to how I would act in a serious situation is making a false attribute. Especially now that you are doing it in light of a post where I said that was an offhanded an example and not intended to be applied to real life and you've acknowledged reading that post.

I felt it stood as a decent example of how "reform" is a loaded word. I merely used your words as an example. You have to admit... you at least drew an innuendo link between "needing reform" and "being an asshole who..."

If it was unfair, hey fair enough... I'll withdraw that.

However, I don't withdraw the general claim that "reform" is a loaded word not very far from "rehabilitate" and it would be far more neutral to simply say "convert". This is as far as I wish i'd taken the point, and so i'll simply leave it to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this. Disagree at free will.

RicochetShaw

05-07-2009, 10:54 PM

I seriously doubt I can be banned for anything I've said in this thread. I'm still waiting for someone to cite one of the ad hominem attacks I'm being accused of making.

Are you saying that, because you haven't made an ad hominem attack, you can't be banned?

stefanb

05-07-2009, 11:21 PM

Are you saying that you can't be banned because you haven't made an ad hominem attack?

To be clear, I'm saying I don't care. I don't require the endorsement of a JoBlo moderator to speak my mind, nor do I seek it. If my thoughts are too offensive for this community, ban away. However, I don't suspect they are, that's all. I think I've been quite moderate. The only thing I've taken any level of offense to is the flagrant mischaracterizations of my opinions, and while I've been quite blunt in my opinions of the writing at subject here, I've certainly not defamed or libeled it's author in any way.

That said, if you're challenging my claim that I will not be banned, my official response is: whatever.

There's always, of course, always something to be said for the censorial instinct... It usually involves people who genuinely WANT to be offended... who will dig through a treasure trove of english to find a reason to be offended. Dig away.

Potter82

05-07-2009, 11:26 PM

As for the reformation of conservatives, how about getting them to stop aligning themselves so closely with Fox News. Here's a recent example of what I'm talking about;

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090507/Obama_mustard_090507/20090507?hub=TopStories

"WASHINGTON -- The United States is in the midst of a devastating recession, mired in two overseas wars and grappling with a swine flu outbreak, but conservative critics are assailing President Barack Obama on another pressing issue: his choice of burger topping."

Fox's Sean Hannity has been telling his viewers that MSNBC -- and reporter Andrea Mitchell in particular -- are trying to hide Obama's Dijon-loving ways from the public.

Hannity has been referring to the president's lunch as his "fancy burger."

hahahahahahaha, "what an elitist with his dijon mustard and everything!, hey isn't that from France!?" Seriously, this is the kinda of stuff that you used to see in The Onion.

I don't see how this never ending parade of the silly and absurd coming from Fox News, Limbaugh, etc. can't be damaging to the Republicans over the long term given their extremely close associations (more close than any relationship between the democrats and another network in my opinion). I mean honestly, how do they expect to be taken seriously? They should save the criticism for things that actually matter & stop being so damn petty.

The Heart Collector

05-07-2009, 11:45 PM

I also said clearly that we should expect to pay for heathcare, policing, the military, child welfare, and "hundreds of other things".

You described yourself as fiscally right-of-center. Fiscally right-of-center people don't support hundreds of government spending areas. Paying for national healthcare is pretty much the definition of a fiscally left-of-center proposal. You can't just call yourself "fiscally right-of-center" or "fiscally conservative" and then, when criticized on every fiscally right-of-center position, take a left-of-center position!No one is strawmanning you: you are describing yourself poorly.

Anyway, that doesn't change much. I don't even understand what you're doing on this thread anymore. I refuted your points. I did so by actually showing the specifics of the general issues you were discussing: when described in general terms, they might appear as if they support your case, but when looking at the specifics, they support my case. In general, people here agreed that I answered your criticisms properly. Yet you didn't read the reply and just keep insisting "no, I already refuted that, whatevs". What are you hoping to get out of this thread? For me to take back my reply to your criticisms without doing anything?

stefanb

05-08-2009, 12:15 AM

You described yourself as fiscally right-of-center. Fiscally right-of-center people don't support hundreds of government spending areas. Paying for national healthcare is pretty much the definition of a fiscally left-of-center proposal. You can't just call yourself "fiscally right-of-center" or "fiscally conservative" and then, when criticized on every fiscally right-of-center position, take a left-of-center position!No one is strawmanning you: you are describing yourself poorly.

You don't think the republican party supports "hundreds" of spending measures? Hundreds is not very many when you're running a country with 300 million people. I wouldn't hesitate to say they supported THOUSANDS of spending measures during the Bush administration. To only support "hundreds" would be a serious spending cut for for any republican administration, or any conservative, or any fiscally right-of-center person. "Hundreds" is hardly a drop in the bucket.

Ron Paul supports "hundreds" of spending measures. Let the gravity of that reality sink in for just a moment before you reply again.

Where the fuck do you get off saying I've described myself poorly? I said in the very first reply I made to you:

We’ve been toying with socialist elements in government at least as far back as the creation of the income tax. We’d do well to eliminate our fear of the word and just recognize we have both capitalist and socialist elements in our government, and that’s not really a bad thing. We take the best of all worlds.

You try to caricature me, then when I don't fit into your caricature, you blame ME for your mistaken beliefs caused by your constantly making shit up about me. It's almost enough to make a cat laugh.

The fact you SAY you're not making straw man arguments doesn't make it so. There's a whole thread of them here. I made that case quite clearly already, anyone can read it, I will re-post it all if I have to, and you haven't refuted one word of it.

Anyway, that doesn't change much. I don't even understand what you're doing on this thread anymore. I refuted your points. I did so by actually showing the specifics of the general issues you were discussing: when described in general terms, they might appear as if they support your case, but when looking at the specifics, they support my case. In general, people here agreed that I answered your criticisms properly. Yet you didn't read the reply and just keep insisting "no, I already refuted that, whatevs". What are you hoping to get out of this thread? For me to take back my reply to your criticisms without doing anything?

All these claims, with nothing specific to back any of them up. Somewhat typical of your political arguments. Hollow.

Translation:
"I won, you lost, because I say so. And because people who agreed with me before still agree with me now, and I seek refuge in the false security of consensus, so I'll use that to declare victory."

Good for you. If you think you won, I guess you won. I didn't even realize it was a game. I thought it was a discussion about how to reform conservatives. I'm not trying to "win" anything. I don't really even care if you're reading anymore.

The Postmaster General

05-08-2009, 12:35 AM

However, I don't withdraw the general claim that "reform" is a loaded word not very far from "rehabilitate" and it would be far more neutral to simply say "convert". This is as far as I wish i'd taken the point, and so i'll simply leave it to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this. Disagree at free will.

I think the thing is, though, is that I believe THC was speaking (in his OP) from the perspective of leftist to leftist, and not meaning "reform" as an insult, but as its meaning - "improved". --- Why is it any different to say "healthcare reform"? You wouldn't accuse someone asking how to reform healthcare as being a christian scientist or someone against modern medicine/healthcare...

You say it was unfair though, which is where I was coming from, but I was speaking more on behalf of drug addicts, or alcoholics who were labeled as "losers" -- err, I mean drug addicts who don't do drugs we like to to. ;)

stefanb

05-08-2009, 12:45 AM

I think the thing is, though, is that I believe THC was speaking (in his OP) from the perspective of leftist to leftist, and not meaning "reform" as an insult, but as its meaning - "improved". --- Why is it any different to say "healthcare reform"? You wouldn't accuse someone asking how to reform healthcare as being a christian scientist or someone against modern medicine/healthcare...

You say it was unfair though, which is where I was coming from, but I was speaking more on behalf of drug addicts, or alcoholics who were labeled as "losers" -- err, I mean drug addicts who don't do drugs we like to to. ;)

"Healthcare reform" doesn't mean it's "improved". "Heathcare reform" is the effot to "improve" heathcare. As in: "heathcare needs improving, so we will REFORM it." Reformed heathcare means it's "improved", but that's an entirely different verb tense.

To tell someone they need reform, is to say that they need improving... at the very least they might take it that way and it would be a less loaded word to simply say "convert".

You are free to disagree, and your disagreement is not absurd in any way to me. It's just my own feelings on the choice of wording.

I think I've now been as clear on this as I can be. I do hope to put it to bed now.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 12:49 AM

No one is strawmanning you: you are describing yourself poorly.

I really don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this claim is so patently absurd that I simply must re-post just a few of the unrefuted straw man arguments The Heart Collector has made against me in this thread. So here they are:

* * * * * * * * * *

You waltzed into this thread acting like you were above politics or something

No I didn’t. I identified myself as someone who doesn’t align with either of the two major political parties. You completely made up the “above politics” part yourself.

You called me a libertarian. I only said that I identify with many of their positions.

Are you under some delusion that labeling yourself as a member of a general ideology or movement somehow makes your opinions less worthy…?

No, you made that up again.

a guy that's against government paying for things but supports universal healthcare? what the fuck)

I never said I was against the government paying for anything. You completely made that up

Again, to the fair-mindedness of anyone reading this tripe, is he not attacking a completely made up position? Where did I say the government shouldn’t pay for healthcare, or education, or policing, or the military, or child welfare, or any one of the hundreds of things that I think the government (i.e. “WE THE PEOPLE”) should pay for? I didn’t say that. He fucking MADE IT UP.

What do you want me to do, randomly adopt some right-wing position that goes against everyhting I believe in and contradicts all my bases of government so that I can appear more "centered" or something? Is that your idea of political soundness?

No, and no. You made both of those up, as I said neither.

The last eight years decisively, resolutely proved that no, the two candidates running are not equally bad. Even the most cynical critics of American government didn't think Obama and McCain were going to be the same

Neither did I. Two growingly familiar words: Straw man.

This was, in fact, not the case. Both the Republicans in the late 70s and the Democrats in the 90s and the mid-2000s changed their strategies, their voting bases, and their ideological system. They had to go think up, plan, and do things. New things. In order for them to do those things, someone had to yell at them and call them retarded.

That’s wonderful. It’s not a debate against anything I wrote, but it’s certainly wonderful to see that you’re still debating this straw man to death. To be clear, I never said political parties were dogmatic in their ideology. I merely said that power swings every 8-12 years, and I have history on my side to back that opinion up. Everything else you attribute to me, is completely your own creation.

The view you seem to be espousing is extremely myopic: you're looking at a few decades, and sort of extrapolating that things are eternally going to be like that and there's some sort of unmoving political spectrum where the pendulum swings towards its two extremes every couple of years, regardless of the actions of the parties or the people.

WHERE did I say the pendulum swings “regardless of the actions of the parties or the people”. I NEVER said that. That would be a completely idiotic thing to say. Isn’t it wonderful how you can invent an idiotic opinion out of thin air, attribute it to me, then criticize me for holding the idiotic opinion that you attributed me against my will.

Regards,
Stefan

The Postmaster General

05-08-2009, 01:46 AM

"Healthcare reform" doesn't mean it's "improved". "Heathcare reform" is the effot to "improve" heathcare. As in: "heathcare needs improving, so we will REFORM it." Reformed heathcare means it's "improved", but that's an entirely different verb tense.

To tell someone they need reform, is to say that they need improving... at the very least they might take it that way and it would be a less loaded word to simply say "convert".

You are free to disagree, and your disagreement is not absurd in any way to me. It's just my own feelings on the choice of wording.

I think I've now been as clear on this as I can be. I do hope to put it to bed now.

Ok, that was a typo on my part, instead of saying "improved" I should have said "improve upon" or "to improve"... I'm not sure why you went ahead and explained that reform equates to improve. It should have been pretty clear we were past that part, but at any rate....

How exactly does "convert" apply here because I don't see where THC, in his OP, is asking how leftists can convert conservatives. He asks flat out:

How can the Republican Party successfully rebrand itself and succeed, without completely changing itself (since the goal is, after all, to enact policies and not just to get elected)?

He's not asking how conservatives can convert to anything - he's asking a straight-up definition of the word "reform"

The Democratic Party claims to aim in improving the lives of working Americans (http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/improverural).

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone arguing that to suggest a need for improvement cannot be done in a positive manner, or that it will only bring negative connotations.

Still though, I can see how reform might be construed negatively by someone, but like I said, it's just wrong. On the other hand, I think flat-out that convert is totally the wrong word, and don't understand how you arrived at that being a better word. THC never claimed that he aimed to convert anyone. Convert implies a change in base functioning, whereas reform implies an improvement to better function at the base. Clearly THC, in his postings, was aiming to question leftist to leftist how to accomplish the latter.

Also, please help me be clear. It seems you are making contradicting points in a) you say that you never said the word "reform" was offensive, but b) your entire basis for why the word shouldn't be used implies that it is something people will take offense to.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 09:35 AM

He's not asking how conservatives can convert to anything - he's asking a straight-up definition of the word "reform"

The straight-up DEFINITION of the word reform, according to merriam-webster's dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform

1 a: to put or change into an improved form or condition b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses

2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action

3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways <reform a drunkard>

This is a loaded word or it isn't. You have the dictionary definition, and it's completely consistant with everything I've already said on the subject to this point.

Forgive me if I was using the REAL definition of the word all along. My appologies.

Now, Bubba, you are bending over backwards to argue that "reform" means something other than what it actually means. It's calling conservatives "evil", "with faults", and "needing improvement" by the dictionary definition of the word "reform". That's either partisan nonsense, or it isn't. I say it is.

Now, on to MY choice of word: Convert.

The dictionary definition of "convert" is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convert

1 a: to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another b: to bring about a religious conversion in

2 a: to alter the physical or chemical nature or properties of especially in manufacturing b (1): to change from one form or function to another (2): to alter for more effective utilization (3): to appropriate without right c: to exchange for an equivalent <convert foreign currency into dollars> <convert a bond>

4: to subject to logical conversion

Now, "convert" clearly means as a non-partisan way of changing someone's opinions. THAT IS THE SUBJECT HERE. "Reform" is clearly a partisan attack on something which "has faults", or is "evil", or something which "needs improving". This is as open and shut as it can be, using dictionary definitions. If you insist on arguing further, it's because you don't believe the dictionary definitions of the words, thus do not understand the english language. Or you think conservatives are "evil", with "faults", and "need improving", which I argue is partisan nonsense.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone arguing that to suggest a need for improvement cannot be done in a positive manner, or that it will only bring negative connotations.

I never said that at all. Straw man. And you know it is. Cheap bullshit game you're playing Bubba... misquoting me, and attacking the misquotation of your own creation.

Regards,
Stefan

Reigh Kaufman

05-08-2009, 11:27 AM

"Cheap bullshit game you are playing Bubba..."

That's an ad hominem attack.

Well done. Nobody has to look for one anymore.

Reigh Kaufman

05-08-2009, 11:32 AM

I never said that at all. Straw man. And you know it is. Cheap bullshit game you're playing Bubba... misquoting me, and attacking the misquotation of your own creation.

Regards,
Stefan

Websters defined ad hominem as:

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You are implying that Bubba is being deliberately inflammatory or obtuse just to "win" a debate. That is an insult to the poster. You also accuse him of dirty tactics rather than respond to his argument.

I never thought I'd see the return of using dictionaries to try and resolve futile arguments.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 11:32 AM

"Cheap bullshit game you are playing Bubba..."

That's an ad hominem attack.

Well done. Nobody has to look for one anymore.

No it isn't, and you clearly don't know what ad hominem means.

THAT, was an attack on Bubba's misquoatation of my words... something i'm getting very tired of in here.

Regards,
Stefan.

Reigh Kaufman

05-08-2009, 11:35 AM

No it isn't, and you clearly don't know what as hominem means.

THAT, was an attack on Bubba's misquoatation of my words... something i'm getting very tired of in here.

Regards,
Stefan.

Look up.

I'm an English teacher, dude. Ya have to learn what shit means in order to teach it.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 11:35 AM

You are implying that Bubba is being deliberately inflammatory or obtuse just to "win" a debate. That is an insult to the poster. You also accuse him of dirty tactics rather than respond to his argument.

His argument is a lie.

His argument is that I said something I didn't say.

To address his argument is to address cheap bullshit.

His argument is evidence of the cheap bullshit game he's playing with my words.

This is not ad hominem.

I didn't call him a cheap piece of bullshit.

I called his argument a cheap bullshit game he's playing.

This is not difficult to understand. If you misquote me, and attack the misquote, you are playing a cheap bullshit game, and saying so is simply not the same as insulting your character.

Reigh Kaufman

05-08-2009, 11:45 AM

I don't know why I am responding.

Instead of throwing accusations around the place, try refuting his argument with reasoned debate. We can all read, and if he is not making valid responses and you are, we will all agree with you.

Seem fair?

That's how debate works.

Who cares if they are misquoting or misrepresenting you? Credit us with brains enough to make up our own minds.

Or report it.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 11:47 AM

I'm an English teacher, dude. Ya have to learn what shit means in order to teach it.

That's exactly how my english teacher spoke too... dude.

-S

Reigh Kaufman

05-08-2009, 11:52 AM

That's exactly how my english teacher spoke too... dude.

-S

You've lost me.

What are you implying now?

That because I do not bother to type formal English prose on a movie website, I can't possibly be a teacher?

PM me.

I'll send you a photograph of me in teaching in my classroom.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 11:52 AM

Instead of throwing accusations around the place, try refuting his argument with reasoned debate. We can all read, and if he is not making valid responses and you are, we will all agree with you.

Seem fair?

That's how debate works.

Who cares if they are misquoting or misrepresenting you? Credit us with brains enough to make up our own minds.

Or report it.

I do not have to have a reasoned debate against an outright mischaracterization of my opinion. I can call it bullshit.

I've refuted many straw man attacks in this thread. I'm getting tired of them. Again, people can respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off. If they continue to misquote me and mischaracterize my statements, I will call this a "cheap bullshit game". I claim the right to respond to these attacks, and I do not have to leave it to readers to figure it out on their own unless I want to do so. I don't need to report it, because I'm capable of defending myself from it. This is not ad hominem, and I leave it to any fair-minded reader to understand as much.

Regards,
Stefan.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 11:55 AM

That because I do not bother to type formal English prose on a movie website, I can't possibly be a teacher?

PM me.

I'll send you a photograph of me in teaching in my classroom.

I don't care. It's simply not relevant to this debate. You might work on the space station for all it matters to me.

Saying, "I'm an English teacher, dude. Ya have to learn what shit means in order to teach it." is a very inarticulate and inept case in support of the claims you're making about my apparently ad hominem attacks.

Where did I insult his character? Quote me. I just don't care what you do for a living.

He's playing a cheap bullshit game with my words, and my pointing it out is not an attack on his character. It's an attack on his mischaracterization of my statements as part of his argument against me.

Potter82

05-08-2009, 01:05 PM

stefanb

05-08-2009, 01:06 PM

oh for the love of god, can we just end this drama & take this discussion back to the topic at hand?! This is getting absurd.

If a particular poster wants to make the conversation entirely about himself why don't you do us all a favour and start your own thread so the people who actually do give a damn can go read about it there instead?

pot / kettle / black.

I'm replying to posts in this thread. If you want to get back on topic, do so. This commentary doesn't help the matter.

If people start replying to things I've actually said, rather than making them up, it might even stay on topic.

Badbird

05-08-2009, 02:55 PM

stefanb

05-08-2009, 03:18 PM

Uh, weren't you the one who derailed this thread in the first place?

No. But make the case for it, if you think you can.

Badbird

05-08-2009, 04:41 PM

stefanb

05-08-2009, 05:20 PM

I think it was right about here.

I've already answered this charge twice. Maybe you should read the thread, then participate?

...or simply repeat the same charge over and over, and hope to get a different answer the third time around.

Regards,
Stefan.

REPOST:

I quit reading because I stopped caring what he thinks. As I've repeated several times now, I won't read the rest of it because he started by applying a label to me which I do not apply to myself...

You do in fact fit in a political party or movement, and a very cliche one at that: the pseudo-libertarian.

...then proceeded to attack the falsely attributed label...

It is what China Mieville once referred to as the "philosophy of venal petty-bourgeois dissidence", a political movement whose members "recast their most banal avarice—the disinclination to pay tax—as a principled blow for political freedom".

This is the very definition of a straw man argument. I simply don't fit in to the libertarian political movement. They have a lot positions I identify strongly with, but that's as far at the comparison goes.

Now, I just don't feel obligated to keep reading after that. Surely I've been clear enough on this point already, and I should not have to repeat myself so many times. I have better things to spend my time on than reading attacks on positions falsely attributed to me.

Again, if I start a commentary in the sincere belief that I can harness the powers of strawberry jelly to turn myself invisible, you have the right to stop reading at that point. To keep reading would be a waste of your time. You don't keep reading stupidity in the hope that it turns around for the better.

Regards,
Stefan.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-08-2009, 06:40 PM

I also said Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorite authors. Why not staple his entire political philosophy to my name?

I don't even think your philosophy is what matters at this point. You came into this thread with an incredibly condescending and arrogant approach that was somehow beyond politics.

Here is a collection of things that Christopher Hitchens has said that are no more or less "partisan" than what THC has said:

On the Obama endorsement:
It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

On McCain/Palin foreign policy
Who cares that it made the United States of America look thuggish and ignorant and petty in the eyes of any thinking person in the Middle East?Anyone who does care should be getting ready to vote against this humiliating ticket, a team that so farcically and horribly unites the senescent and the puerile.

On Palin
This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured.

Again, according to your way of thinking, this means Christopher Hitchens is some Michael Moore fan who works for MoveOn.

stefanb

05-08-2009, 06:48 PM

I don't even think your philosophy is what matters at this point. You came into this thread with an incredibly condescending and arrogant approach that was somehow beyond politics.

No I didn't. Maybe saying it makes it true. I came in here and told him why I felt his writing was shit. I still think it is. When you post something for criticism, you might just get some.

Here is a collection of things that Christopher Hitchens has said that are no more or less "partisan" than what THC has said:

Again, according to your way of thinking, this means Christopher Hitchens is some Michael Moore fan who works for MoveOn.

WHY SHOULD I FUCKING CARE?!?!?!? Just like people trying trying to staple the entire libertarian philosophy to my name, now I have you quoting christopher hitchens like it's something relevant to anything I've said. Because I identify with many libertarian positions, I'm now a libertarian, according to THC. I said I like to read Hitchens, suddenly we find it relevant to post some of his quotes in here as if I need to defend his words as well. I'm waiting for someone to quote something Ralph Nader said and attribute it to me, then we'll have a trifecta of completely moronic straw man attacks.

Again, according to your way of thinking, this means Christopher Hitchens is some Michael Moore fan who works for MoveOn.

Hitchens is giving opinions, regardless of who reads it or cares. This thread was about "reforming conservatives". It's a different fucking topic.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-08-2009, 08:55 PM

WHY SHOULD I FUCKING CARE?!?!?!? Just like people trying trying to staple the entire libertarian philosophy to my name, now I have you quoting christopher hitchens like it's something relevant to anything I've said. Because I identify with many libertarian positions, I'm now a libertarian, according to THC. I said I like to read Hitchens, suddenly we find it relevant to post some of his quotes in here as if I need to defend his words as well. I'm waiting for someone to quote something Ralph Nader said and attribute it to me, then we'll have a trifecta of completely moronic straw man attacks.

It's relevant because you have a huge fucking problem with what THC says, and you accuse him of shallow partisanship even though you don't know anything about his politics outside of this thread (then have the balls to whine when he labels what he perceives is your political philosophy). When Christopher Hitchens, someone you claim to like, says that everyone who endorses a particular political candidate should be widely repudiated...how is that any different from saying that a political party in this country should change? I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in your logic...that is why you should care. Then again, you seem to have your cries of "straw man" to fall back on whenever someone points out every illogical little thing you say.

But then again, I'm the idiot for not backing out of this thread a long time ago. I don't need to defend THC, but from the onset of this thread you've been totally unfair. Yes, it is unfair to label you as well, but it doesn't really change the fact that the discourse went sour the moment you posted.

Potter82

05-09-2009, 01:11 AM

pot / kettle / black.

I'm replying to posts in this thread. If you want to get back on topic, do so. This commentary doesn't help the matter.

If people start replying to things I've actually said, rather than making them up, it might even stay on topic.

*Facepalm, Here are some of your recent posts.

"Straw man. And you know it is. Cheap bullshit game you're playing Bubba... misquoting me, and attacking the misquotation of your own creation."
I do not have to have a reasoned debate against an outright mischaracterization of my opinion. I can call it bullshit."

"I've refuted many straw man attacks in this thread. I'm getting tired of them. Again, people can respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off. If they continue to misquote me and mischaracterize my statements, I will call this a "cheap bullshit game". I claim the right to respond to these attacks, and I do not have to leave it to readers to figure it out on their own unless I want to do so. I don't need to report it, because I'm capable of defending myself from it. This is not ad hominem, and I leave it to any fair-minded reader to understand as much."

"Ya, anyway... I quit reading. Sorry. I just don't care what you think that much, and it goes on forever. Hey, if you think it's great writing, and will convert conservatives, whatever floats your boat. Just my humble opinion... I got nothing from it and felt it was hallow partisan tripe; more of the same from a long line of it on both sides."

"No I didn't. Maybe saying it makes it true. I came in here and told him why I felt his writing was shit. I still think it is. When you post something for criticism, you might just get some."

"WHY SHOULD I FUCKING CARE?!?!?!? Just like people trying trying to staple the entire libertarian philosophy to my name, now I have you quoting christopher hitchens like it's something relevant to anything I've said. Because I identify with many libertarian positions, I'm now a libertarian, according to THC. I said I like to read Hitchens, suddenly we find it relevant to post some of his quotes in here as if I need to defend his words as well. I'm waiting for someone to quote something Ralph Nader said and attribute it to me, then we'll have a trifecta of completely moronic straw man attacks."
I don't care. It's simply not relevant to this debate. You might work on the space station for all it matters to me."

"Saying, "I'm an English teacher, dude. Ya have to learn what shit means in order to teach it." is a very inarticulate and inept case in support of the claims you're making about my apparently ad hominem attacks.

Where did I insult his character? Quote me. I just don't care what you do for a living.

He's playing a cheap bullshit game with my words, and my pointing it out is not an attack on his character. It's an attack on his mischaracterization of my statements as part of his argument against me."

JUST LOOK AT WHAT YOU POSTED RECENTLY! It's all about me, I'm being attacked, I'm being criticized, I, me, I, blah, blah - you make every damn post about you, you take every single comment personally, get extremely defensive, and you lash out personally at posters repeatedly.

How many people have you managed to offend on this board in a matter of days with your statements? But I suppose you're in the right and it's us who has the problem?...

Frankly, I don't think you're mature enough to be posting on the politics section any longer and I'm going to do my part to have your status revoked so you don't completely ruin the entire politics board.

someguy

05-09-2009, 01:17 AM

We can appreciate this thread as a nostalgic reminder of the Lynn7 days

Badbird

05-09-2009, 02:07 AM

We can appreciate this thread as a nostalgic reminder of the Lynn7 days

Not enough Bible quotes, but yeah.

The Postmaster General

05-09-2009, 02:13 AM

First off, what the fuck happened?

The straight-up DEFINITION of the word reform, according to merriam-webster's dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform

This is a loaded word or it isn't. You have the dictionary definition, and it's completely consistant with everything I've already said on the subject to this point.

Forgive me if I was using the REAL definition of the word all along. My appologies.

The definition you were using earlier was as a synonym for "rehabilitate", which as we already said, doesn't imply "evil" or all those things you are now bringing up. That was my original basis, that you are comparing drug addicts/alcoholics as being "evil" and that was unfair.

Then you agreed that was unfair.

Now you are asking for forgiveness for using the REAL definition, which means to change "EVIL".

Haha. Smoke em if you got em.

Now, Bubba, you are bending over backwards to argue that "reform" means something other than what it actually means. It's calling conservatives "evil", "with faults", and "needing improvement" by the dictionary definition of the word "reform". That's either partisan nonsense, or it isn't. I say it is.

I'm not bending over backwards to argue anything. I was trying to have a dicussion, and you keep arguing everything I'm saying, even the stuff that goes against things you said before....

That was what I brought up that you failed to address in lieu of blaming me of strawman or some shit that sounds like a spoof on a Soundgarden song. I mean, what the fuck? Is this a discussion against mature dudes or is it mad libs with debate 101 terms?

I brought up that you keep changing your stance on reform. YOU are the one who said you never said you said it was an offensive word. Now you are saying that it is, and saying that I'm leaning over backwards or something else. I mean, jeez - are you going to say I'm mischaracterizing you because I'm saying you are saying it's an offensive word, and really you don't think "evil" is offensive, and really you never had an reason to attack the word "reform" to begin with?

Who knows what it will be, but damn sure the odds are that it won't be consistent with what you've claimed prior.

You are making characterizations of me instead of addressing what I'm saying. You are making characterizations by accusing me of having some sort of evil intent or being bad natured in my discussion. You haven't shown where this was my intent, you've just shown where I've POSSIBLY misinterpreted what you are saying, but regardless, it doesn't stop you from making a characterization.

You've changed YOUR DEFINITION of the word reform in this thread, from being a synonym of rehabilitate that was offensive, to not being offensive, to being offensive, to being THE EXACT SAME THING I SAID IT WAS BUT PLAYING WITH THE TENSE, to now you want to quote Websters. You should have done that to begin with and you would have never attacked the use of the word.

Now, on to MY choice of word: Convert.

The dictionary definition of "convert" is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convert

Now, "convert" clearly means as a non-partisan way of changing someone's opinions. THAT IS THE SUBJECT HERE. "Reform" is clearly a partisan attack on something which "has faults", or is "evil", or something which "needs improving". This is as open and shut as it can be, using dictionary definitions. If you insist on arguing further, it's because you don't believe the dictionary definitions of the words, thus do not understand the english language. Or you think conservatives are "evil", with "faults", and "need improving", which I argue is partisan nonsense.

Yes, can you show me examples of where THC is asking to "convert" --- I gave you examples that fit the "to improve" definition of reform.

Like I said, in his OP, I can't find any example of him making an attempt to convert. I'm not arguing this, I'm asking you to show me what I missed in the post. I've shown you were I've deduced that "convert" is not the right word. Don't just start screaming that you are being character raped or something, because I don't think I've done anything here that's been an assult or insult to your character, you seem to be touchy about some other shit in this thread and are trying to take it out on me. Your entire stance here is that everyone is against you. I'm not. Just trying to discuss...

I never said that at all. Straw man. And you know it is. Cheap bullshit game you're playing Bubba... misquoting me, and attacking the misquotation of your own creation.

Regards,
Stefan

Then what are you saying? You are saying that it's a loaded word, and... what exactly. If you aren't saying the word reform can't be used with an air of positivity, then why is it a loaded word? I don't understand what you exactly are trying to say, and don't understand why you are taking what was a pretty amicable exchange between us into some sort of attack on your character.

No it isn't, and you clearly don't know what ad hominem means.

THAT, was an attack on Bubba's misquoatation of my words... something i'm getting very tired of in here.

Regards,
Stefan.

Explain to me how I misquoted you. No, you didn't say EXACTLY that, but I don't understand what else you are summarizing --- I said that you are saying you can't use reform without it having a negative connotation (to drug addicts or alcoholics, as per your example of "losers") and you are saying what exactly... it's a loaded word. Okay, how is it a loaded word?

His argument is a lie.

His argument is that I said something I didn't say.

To address his argument is to address cheap bullshit.

His argument is evidence of the cheap bullshit game he's playing with my words.

This is not ad hominem.

I didn't call him a cheap piece of bullshit.

I called his argument a cheap bullshit game he's playing.

This is not difficult to understand. If you misquote me, and attack the misquote, you are playing a cheap bullshit game, and saying so is simply not the same as insulting your character.

I do not have to have a reasoned debate against an outright mischaracterization of my opinion. I can call it bullshit.

You characterized me earlier as someone who would try to help a drug addict or alcoholic to reform themselves by comparing them to assholes. This was pretty insulting to me personally, but I manned up about it and just pointed out that this was my perspective and asked you to explain.

To the contrary, you start accusing me of playing "cheap bullshit game" and started saying you weren't going to address anything.

I've refuted many straw man attacks in this thread. I'm getting tired of them. Again, people can respond to things I've actually said, or fuck off. If they continue to misquote me and mischaracterize my statements, I will call this a "cheap bullshit game". I claim the right to respond to these attacks, and I do not have to leave it to readers to figure it out on their own unless I want to do so. I don't need to report it, because I'm capable of defending myself from it. This is not ad hominem, and I leave it to any fair-minded reader to understand as much.

Yet, you haven't responding to anything I've actually asked. You start accusing me of things and saying you don't have to respond to anything I've actually said.

As for playing a "cheap bullshit game"... I don't know man, THC posted something as I've described it, and you came in here and started complaining about the drapes he used. When this has been questioned, you refuse to address anything, then you get to the point when you ADMIT that it's unfair for you to have attacked the word, then later you come back and start attacking the person who pointed out this was unfair, then when that person continues the discussion, you start accusing them of bullshit, then you go back to arguing about the original word that you said was unfair of you to start an argument about to begin with.

This is exactly what happened. No mischaracterization. I'll leave it up to the fair-minded to decide who's playing games.

He's playing a cheap bullshit game with my words, and my pointing it out is not an attack on his character. It's an attack on his mischaracterization of my statements as part of his argument against me.

He's playing a cheap bullshit game with my words... So, how is what you did in bitching about THC using the word "reform" different except that maybe you don't like it as much?