Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
George Spiggott wrote:Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
Frazz, we're already in a corrupt corporate theocracy, this sort of talk is nothing more than reminding us peons that we, are in fact little more than slaves. By the way, FOX news is EVIL!!!
Politics as usual. The GOP set the low blows by comparing healthcare to Hitler and having a potential VP and her friends spread misinformation about death panels even though we already have death panels aka insurance companies. Then you've got "YOU LIE!" and just general TFG behavior from the Repubs and now the Dems are starting to 'fight back'.
About time the Democrats start to fling more mud towards the GOP; you can't lose the battle of crazy headlines in this unfortunately polarized and media-crazed era we live in. Although it could be argued that this behavior is just the norm in the American system; its not like Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers didn't have to deal with similar occurrences.
warpcrafter wrote:Frazz, we're already in a corrupt corporate theocracy, this sort of talk is nothing more than reminding us peons that we, are in fact little more than slaves. By the way, FOX news is EVIL!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its time honored tradition. Back when men were men Congress emembers would occasionially beat each other with sticks. Good to see they are starting to Man Up.
George Spiggott wrote:Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
Not while the GOP still exists in it's current form.
George Spiggott wrote:Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
I like how most of the criticism on this thread is directed against the GOP, and this has nothing to do with them. To add insult to injury, the GOP is the party that ended slavery.
@Cane and others: Your willful ignorance is disturbing.
George Spiggott wrote:Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
Not while the GOP still exists in it's current form.
I guess you missed that whole (D) following Harry Reid President of the Senate thing.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I like how most of the criticism on this thread is directed against the GOP, and this has nothing to do with them. To add insult to injury, the GOP is the party that ended slavery.
@Cane and others: Your willful ignorance is disturbing.
Cane's willful ignorance? I thought he pretty well summarized the progression of crazy rhetoric surrounding healthcare. The Democrats have, for the most part, avoided the mudslinging game.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I like how most of the criticism on this thread is directed against the GOP, and this has nothing to do with them. To add insult to injury, the GOP is the party that ended slavery.
@Cane and others: Your willful ignorance is disturbing.
Both parties have created an atmosphere of fear and hatred, so both are at fault.
I remember watching the news, and the biggest arguement against the healthcare reform was that the graph looked complicated, comparing it to Candyland...
JEB_Stuart wrote:I like how most of the criticism on this thread is directed against the GOP, and this has nothing to do with them. To add insult to injury, the GOP is the party that ended slavery.
@Cane and others: Your willful ignorance is disturbing.
Yeah, but that was a long time ago. Perhaps you're taking your avatar too seriously.
I was trying to find a compilation of all the crazy stuff the GOP has said from the start of this whole 'debate'.... hmmm... can't find it though. It. Was. Hilarious.
Does the fact that the Dems are actually throwing punches now astound me? Umm... is this a trick question? Sure, both sides have been stifling actual progress, but the GOP has been particularly loud and ranty, throughout. The Dems however, have been strangely quiet...
Anyway though, since I could not find that beautiful compilation of all that serious, serious, (totally serious) politicin', I will just have to settle for this rather appropriate picture. Look at it for longer than five seconds and you eyes will melt... or, you will see why I find this picture appropriate.
PARTY POLITICS IS AS STUPID A REASON FOR 'US' VERSUS 'THEM' AS MOST PLAYGROUND ARGUMENTS!
You're not 5 people. Our citizens having healthcare is good. Find a way to make it happen, not a way to make someone else the bad guy. How hard is this?
I find it more offensive that people are blaming political parties for stalling rather than calling all our representatives to account for failing us as a people.
Need more tax money? Fine.
Need people to provide the infrastructure? Glad to work on the telecom part!
George Spiggott wrote:Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
Not while the GOP still exists in it's current form.
Because clearly, the Dems aren't lowering the level of discourse...
JEB_Stuart wrote:I like how most of the criticism on this thread is directed against the GOP, and this has nothing to do with them. To add insult to injury, the GOP is the party that ended slavery.
@Cane and others: Your willful ignorance is disturbing.
Cane's willful ignorance? I thought he pretty well summarized the progression of crazy rhetoric surrounding healthcare. The Democrats have, for the most part, avoided the mudslinging game.
Crimson Devil wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I like how most of the criticism on this thread is directed against the GOP, and this has nothing to do with them. To add insult to injury, the GOP is the party that ended slavery.
@Cane and others: Your willful ignorance is disturbing.
Both parties have created an atmosphere of fear and hatred, so both are at fault.
Its an inconvenient truth if you will; play me off Johnny...
Alexander Hamilton will destroy the nation! Politics is always the same. You compare your foes to the worst thing you can imagine and when it happens to you then you go and cry that they are being mean and making that horrible thing less horrible by comparing you to that horrible thing when you aren't really. Rinse, repeat, rake in cash.
Oldgrue wrote:
Let me outline this as simply as I know how:
You're not 5 people (I beg to differ on this part actually, I could very well 'be' a hundred thousand people). Our citizens having healthcare is good. Find a way to make it happen, not a way to make someone else the bad guy. How hard is this?
I find it more offensive that people are blaming political parties for stalling rather than calling all our representatives to account for failing us as a people.
Need more tax money? Fine.
Need people to provide the infrastructure? Glad to work on the telecom part!
It is simple, I'll give you that. I did chuckle at the 'offended' part though, that was quite nuanced.
All it takes is a call folks, up and at em', shake and bake cookie mix. Only 9.99
Its shameful. Plain and simple.
New to the Arena eh? GET DOWN, THE HORDE IS COMING!!!
Dollhouse. Mediocre but cute actress plays a new protagonist every week. Some of the supporting cast are just genuinely better...but infinitely more entertaining than 'the vampire diaries'
JohnHwangDD wrote:Almost worth watching the show for.
Nowhere near enough.
It's too bad Wheddon skipped his usual formula of 2 seasons of decent writing and 4-5 seasons of garbage and went straight for the garbage with this one(just like he did on his run on X-men).
George Spiggott wrote:Is there any chance that someone in your country could discuss this issue in a rational manner? Not so much Americans on Dakka, just people who hold jobs in the media or government.
Not while the GOP still exists in it's current form.
I guess you missed that whole (D) following Harry Reid President of the Senate thing.
One idiot democrat vs an entire political party. Which one is easier to ignore?
I'm not surprised at all. The dems are typically weak and have a hard time forming a coherent argument when they are opposed. Rather than actually engage in debate or look at the merits of something, they just call people and groups names. It makes them intellectually weak and their ideas weaker and less reasoned, but it makes them feel good. I see many conservatives (and their ideas) are attacked daily, in the media/acadmemia. I remember the "Republican Revolution" of 94 reporters demanded evidence that the welfare state was a failed experiment and was actually doing damage. Newt came in the next day with a mound of evidence proving his point. At the same time, the libs were screaming that children were going to starve because the republican congress was raising federal school lunch money by 4.2% instead of 4.5% (or something close) and they never once asked for any evidence. It was around this time that I realized exactly how bad the main stream media was.
That's why things like being called a racist aren't as important now. It seems like the only qualification for being labeled a racist is you don't agree with the liberals. As for the nazi term, everyone throws that around, and half the people don't even understand it, they just know nazis were bad people who it is okay not to like. There is a lot of facism out there (not nazism IMO), but it is usually counterproductive to point that out. It's better to just go about fighting it in a different way.
I know these are blanket statements and the world is not that simple. I know there is a democrat out there who goes against everything I just typed, as well as a conservatives that fit the lib profile. I was making generalities about the politicians/leaders of these movements.
BTW, I do not consider muself a republican, I just know how antagonistically they are treated by the media and others and I think it ultimately makes them stronger and their ideas more reasoned and based on something other than good intentions/wishful thinking.
Maybe you missed the part where the Republicans won the use of political language years ago. They made the word Liberal a slur. They compare Democrats to socialists, communists, anything anti-american, terrorist lovers, Nazis, etc.
The Republicans must be telling the truth, they're wrapped in flags.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW Reid is a moron and I hope he loses his senate seat.
Dorns Fist wrote:There is a lot of facism out there (not nazism IMO), but it is usually counterproductive to point that out. It's better to just go about fighting it in a different way.
Where is all this fascism? The Tea Party Movement has some of the raging nationalism that is one of the hallmarks of fascism, but is not itself a fascist organization.
Dorns Fist wrote:
BTW, I do not consider muself a republican, I just know how antagonistically they are treated by the media and others and I think it ultimately makes them stronger and their ideas more reasoned and based on something other than good intentions/wishful thinking.
What Republican Party have you been watching? Their relationship with the defense budget, and the military in general, is every bit as ridiculous as the Democrat's relationship with entitlements. And let's not forget the wonders of Reaganomics.
Calling people racist has been one of the main ways libs use to attack people who disagree with them. I think being called a racist doesn't really mean anything anymore, unless there is something actually to it. At first it was an effective way to silence/marginalize your opponent. Now it is just laughable. I think this commercial makes the point well.
I'll post more later, but I saw this and had to laugh and share it.
dogma wrote:Cane's willful ignorance? I thought he pretty well summarized the progression of crazy rhetoric surrounding health care. The Democrats have, for the most part, avoided the mudslinging game.
Really? Really? I find such sentiments laughable. Dogma, you are an incredibly smart person, but how can you consider yourself informed and say something like that? Do we so easily forget the Nancy Pelosi statement referring to all those protesters as Nazi and un-American, and she wasn't the only Democrat to say things like that. I don't have the time or the will to compile a list, but if you think that the Dems have avoided mudslinging then you are dead wrong. I am not defending the Republicans, as I can't stand most of them either, I was merely pointing out the thread's original criticism was directed at that bumbling idiot Sen. Harry Reid, and everyone blames the Republicans. Gak like that pisses me off. I don't appreciate it when people are more then willing to trash one side, but when their side feth's up, they just ignore it. Hence, willful ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:One idiot democrat vs an entire political party. Which one is easier to ignore?
Well that idiot does happen to be the leader of the Senate...so that is pretty stupid to ignore.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not defending the Republicans, as I can't stand most of them either, I was merely pointing out the thread's original criticism was directed at that bumbling idiot Sen. Harry Reid, and everyone blames the Republicans. Gak like that pisses me off. I don't appreciate it when people are more then willing to trash one side, but when their side feth's up, they just ignore it. Hence, willful ignorance.
You assume that all who have commented, are democrats (or at least see themselves as such); thus their comments are based on the protection of their party.
Anyway, it is not a matter of ignoring anything, it is a matter of what happened, and who said it. I cannot recall someone defending Reid, and your 'demand' for them to 'be fair', is simply silly. If you compile all of the comments made by both sides (or just honestly watch the news from the past few months), it is crystal clear who was throwing hits below the belt. This does not assume that the Dems have not done anything wrong, just that they have not taken the same stance as the Reps.
And I acknowledged my own disgust with those comments. I don't understand why this excuses Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, etc from any of their comments. Can you tell me why?
So ignore real history? And yes the GOP did expanding Federal gov powers, or have you never heard of the PATRIOT Act, or the Department of Homeland Security, etc. Oh and lets not forget increased government spending under the Republicans. Nice flame bait troll.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Really? Really? I find such sentiments laughable. Dogma, you are an incredibly smart person, but how can you consider yourself informed and say something like that? Do we so easily forget the Nancy Pelosi statement referring to all those protesters as Nazi and un-American, and she wasn't the only Democrat to say things like that. I don't have the time or the will to compile a list, but if you think that the Dems have avoided mudslinging then you are dead wrong.
I was making a comment about relativity. That was the point of qualifying my statement with "for the most part". I suppose I could have simply said that, when compared to Republican efforts, the Democrat mudslinging seems insignificant. Sarah Palin alone contributed more mud to the debate than the entire Democratic Party.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I am not defending the Republicans, as I can't stand most of them either, I was merely pointing out the thread's original criticism was directed at that bumbling idiot Sen. Harry Reid, and everyone blames the Republicans. Gak like that pisses me off. I don't appreciate it when people are more then willing to trash one side, but when their side feth's up, they just ignore it. Hence, willful ignorance.
I don't anyone is blaming the Republicans, except Shuma. It seems more like the general sentiment is one of resignation.
"Well, now everyone is down to mudslinging. At least we're all on the same page."
ShumaGorath wrote:Not while the GOP still exists in it's current form.
The GOP's effort to debate healthcare has been dreadful, but Reid is a grown man and a leader of the Democratic Party... he's responsible for his comments and deserves to be criticised for what's he's said.
Carter's comment about Joe Wilson were difficult to categorise because while likely true, it didn't advance the Democrat position and ultimately only served to fuel the right wing persecution complex. Reid's comment will feed their persecution complex just as much, but doesn't have the benefit of being true, or even remotely useful as an analogy.
Dorns Fist wrote:That's why things like being called a racist aren't as important now. It seems like the only qualification for being labeled a racist is you don't agree with the liberals. As for the nazi term, everyone throws that around, and half the people don't even understand it, they just know nazis were bad people who it is okay not to like. There is a lot of facism out there (not nazism IMO), but it is usually counterproductive to point that out. It's better to just go about fighting it in a different way.
Just as tip, if you're going to spend a paragraph talking about how you perceive the political environment so much more clearly than others, you should spell 'fascism' correctly.
dogma wrote:I was making a comment about relativity
Sorry, I really didn't catch that.
dogma wrote:That was the point of qualifying my statement with "for the most part". I suppose I could have simply said that, when compared to Republican efforts, the Democrat mudslinging seems insignificant. Sarah Palin alone contributed more mud to the debate than the entire Democratic Party.
See, when someone says "for the most part" I take it as referring to the leadership and well known voices of the party. I still disagree that the Dems efforts have been insignificant, but of course the Republicans are going to do more, they are in the opposition, the Dems did the same thing when they were in the same position.
dogma wrote:I don't anyone is blaming the Republicans, except Shuma. It seems more like the general sentiment is one of resignation.
That may or may not be true...except for the part about Shuma, that is definitely true
dogma wrote:"Well, now everyone is down to mudslinging. At least we're all on the same page."
I'm down with that.
sebster wrote:The GOP's effort to debate healthcare has been dreadful, but Reid is a grown man and a leader of the Democratic Party... he's responsible for his comments and deserves to be criticised for what's he's said.
Is it time for a European poster to come in and make sweeping statements about how great state healthcare is, and imply that all americans are morons yet?
That's my favourite part in these threads.
I gotta say, the sheer ludicrousness of mudslinging in american politics makes it highly amusing to watch. Our own lot are much more placid. Maybe we should start spiking the tea in the Dáil with cocaine or something.
Da Boss wrote:I gotta say, the sheer ludicrousness of mudslinging in american politics makes it highly amusing to watch. Our own lot are much more placid
It might be because we have more than 2 parties, thus some actual politics has to take place rather than just dragging the other team through the mud and blaming them for everything.
Da Boss wrote:Is it time for a European poster to come in and make sweeping statements about how great state healthcare is, and imply that all americans are morons yet?
That's my favourite part in these threads.
I gotta say, the sheer ludicrousness of mudslinging in american politics makes it highly amusing to watch. Our own lot are much more placid. Maybe we should start spiking the tea in the Dáil with cocaine or something.
No need to draw lines in the sand for people to jump on either side of.
Ketara wrote:No need to draw lines in the sand for people to jump on either side of.
Though perhaps drawing a nice little box for politicians to sit and have some "quiet time" in before they can go back to debate sensibly like adults would be a good idea.
It is times like these I stop believing in democracy. But honsetly How can i draw any parralel to slave supporters. It makes no sense especially when it was the republicans that helped freed the slaves.
Am I the only person that read what Reid said and actually saw a parrallel to the current debate?
The analogy is that in both the current health care debates, and earlier civil rights and slavery debates, the opposition essentially relied on a "let's not move too fast" type argument. History has more or less vindicated those movements, along with admittedly better examples (the ADA, the clean water act, etc.).
If you actually read his comments, it was that history has not judged kindly those that put their own economic interests before social progress. Now, it was either a misstep or an intentionally thrown elbow, but his actual statement is actually sort of correct.
dogma wrote:Cane's willful ignorance? I thought he pretty well summarized the progression of crazy rhetoric surrounding health care. The Democrats have, for the most part, avoided the mudslinging game.
Really? Really? I find such sentiments laughable. Dogma, you are an incredibly smart person, but how can you consider yourself informed and say something like that? Do we so easily forget the Nancy Pelosi statement referring to all those protesters as Nazi and un-American, and she wasn't the only Democrat to say things like that. I don't have the time or the will to compile a list, but if you think that the Dems have avoided mudslinging then you are dead wrong. I am not defending the Republicans, as I can't stand most of them either, I was merely pointing out the thread's original criticism was directed at that bumbling idiot Sen. Harry Reid, and everyone blames the Republicans. Gak like that pisses me off. I don't appreciate it when people are more then willing to trash one side, but when their side feth's up, they just ignore it. Hence, willful ignorance.
You're the one being willfully ignorant if you think the Repubs aren't the primary mud flingers throughout the health care debacle especially in the realm of crazy headlines. Hell that was a criticism even the likes of Jon Stewart and other lefties brought up including the infamous Bill Maher: the Dems have been playing the debate too soft while letting the Repubs win the crazy headlines through intentional misinformation and overall craziness. See: Sarah Palin, Faux News, YOU LIE, etc. It got to the point where Obama and other White House officials had to speak out in order to dismiss the looney bin stuff that the GOP brought onto the table.
It wasn't until this guy that the Dems started to act as low as the Repubs in the health care "debate":
Willful ignorance, bah humbug. More like its you're the one in denial of the GOP's actions these past few months aka "willful ignorance" with a pinch of trolling to the mix.
Somnicide wrote:Alexander Hamilton will destroy the nation! Politics is always the same. You compare your foes to the worst thing you can imagine and when it happens to you then you go and cry that they are being mean and making that horrible thing less horrible by comparing you to that horrible thing when you aren't really. Rinse, repeat, rake in cash.
I can imagine a lot. I can imagine zombie crab people with HP calculators and gummy bears. This future is more horrible and the Terminator Salvation thread. I clearly picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Am I the only person that read what Reid said and actually saw a parrallel to the current debate?
Polonius wrote:Am I the only person that read what Reid said and actually saw a parrallel to the current debate?
No, I saw that as well. I have enough faith in Reid to realize that he probably meant exactly what you indicated. In fact, he probably considered things like the ADA, and the Clean Water Act when conceiving the analogy(Reid isn't really an idiot, he's just not a very good politician). He probably rejected those possibilities on grounds of obscurity; failing to realize that his intended meaning with respect to the slavery debate is probably even more obscure for most of the electorate who engage with history, and politics, on an emotional level (and then there's the obvious spin/hostile voter issues).
Ok, I just have to say this... american democracy has failed in regards to congress. I am not talking about just this issue, but in general. We generally vote by how the person presents their plan than by the actual content of the plan itself.
Thus, we mostly get hot air blowing diehards who have no clue how to actually fix the problem. Thus when something fails, they immediately start pointing fingers rather than try to fix the problem because that is all they know how to do.
JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be if our votes actually mattered...
To Congressmen they do. Why do you think all these, generally well educated men, pander to the largest segment of the bell curve? They want to be reelected. Obviously, this is more apparent in the House, than the Senate by virtue of design.
Their job isn't to do what the country tells them to do. They're supposed to represent their constituents to the best of their abilities. This means considering both the desires of the mob, and the relative viability of those desires.
JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be if our votes actually mattered...
They do matter. The problem being that the ones with the largest impact are the ones that don't vote. Non-votes still count, just not in the tally of recorded votes. The more moderates that do not vote just leaves it to the extreme wings to be the ones controlling the vote.
Polonius wrote:Am I the only person that read what Reid said and actually saw a parallel to the current debate?
Yes
Polonius wrote:The analogy is that in both the current health care debates, and earlier civil rights and slavery debates, the opposition essentially relied on a "let's not move too fast" type argument. History has more or less vindicated those movements, along with admittedly better examples (the ADA, the clean water act, etc.).
Well that is not an accurate representation of the historical situation on both of those events. Slavery was not that big of a deal to most people in the North, rather it was a very loud, very active minority of Abolitionists that drove the argument forward. Even still, they had neither the power nor the support to eliminate slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement. The notion that it was only the South that had problems with race is incredibly stupid and unfounded. The Boston Bus Riots is a prime example of racial tensions in the North. Granted they were less severe and less widespread, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. My point being it wasn't a now or never vs. lets take this slow argument, rather it was: you should change because we think it is the right thing to do vs. bugger out of our lives type argument.
Polonius wrote:If you actually read his comments, it was that history has not judged kindly those that put their own economic interests before social progress. Now, it was either a misstep or an intentionally thrown elbow, but his actual statement is actually sort of correct.
No it is not.
Cane wrote:You're the one being willfully ignorant if you think the Repubs aren't the primary mud flingers throughout the health care debacle especially in the realm of crazy headlines. Hell that was a criticism even the likes of Jon Stewart and other lefties brought up including the infamous Bill Maher: the Dems have been playing the debate too soft while letting the Repubs win the crazy headlines through intentional misinformation and overall craziness. See: Sarah Palin, Faux News, YOU LIE, etc. It got to the point where Obama and other White House officials had to speak out in order to dismiss the looney bin stuff that the GOP brought onto the table.
Well, it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to actually read the thread all the way through. I not only admitted my disgust with the GOP, but I also pointed out that since they are in the opposition they are going to mud sling more, just like the Democrats did when they were in the same position. Please read before you post.
Cane wrote:Willful ignorance, bah humbug. More like its you're the one in denial of the GOP's actions these past few months aka "willful ignorance" with a pinch of trolling to the mix.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement.
The Boston Bus Riots is a prime example of racial tensions in the North.
And that is precisely why Abraham Lincoln preserved slavery in the North and only freed those slaves that lived in the South.
Had Lincoln *also* freed the Northern slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been properly declared unconstitutional based on 5th Amendment grounds.
Well, it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to actually read the thread all the way through. I not only admitted my disgust with the GOP, but I also pointed out that since they are in the opposition they are going to mud sling more, just like the Democrats did when they were in the same position. Please read before you post.
What about my OP seemed outlandish? I pretty much stated that this is par for the course for politics and even dated it back to the founding fathers. I did make an emphasis on the GOP's take but it was deserved due to the craziness that Palin, death panels, YOU LIE, etc. imposed on the health care topic.
Flame fail. Nice try though Cane.
Play with fire you're gonna get burned, I perceived 'willful ignorance' as a personal attack so like a politician I threw it right back.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement.
The Boston Bus Riots is a prime example of racial tensions in the North.
And that is precisely why Abraham Lincoln preserved slavery in the North and only freed those slaves that lived in the South.
Had Lincoln *also* freed the Northern slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been properly declared unconstitutional based on 5th Amendment grounds.
Uhm, the emancipation Proclamation couldn't be ruled anything as it is not legislature and has no legal weight. It was just what it said it was, a proclamation. It wasn't the legal mechanism that would come into place to remove slavery as a legal institution. Also being racist in the North (which they were, no doubt) is not the same thing as slavery. You could not legally own another person in New York. Now, there are defacto slaves like indentured servants, but that wasn't aimed solely toward blacks and was equal opportunity exploitation.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well that is not an accurate representation of the historical situation on both of those events. Slavery was not that big of a deal to most people in the North, rather it was a very loud, very active minority of Abolitionists that drove the argument forward.
That depends a great deal on the historian you read, but yes, generally its correct to say that there were more people who were indifferent to slavery than who held an adamant opinion on it. Though that's true of most every significant political movement; including both sides of the healthcare debate.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Even still, they had neither the power nor the support to eliminate slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement. The notion that it was only the South that had problems with race is incredibly stupid and unfounded. My point being it wasn't a now or never vs. lets take this slow argument, rather it was: you should change because we think it is the right thing to do vs. bugger out of our lives type argument.
No one has even hinted at the idea the North was without race issues.
Incidentally, a "Now or Never" argument is a form of moral imperative. Its the same thing as "do this because we thinks its right".
"Let's take this slow" would've been Lincoln's position with respect to abolition; depending on the time period being discussed. And it certainly represents the opinion of those elected officials who saw the unity of the United States as being more important than slavery. "Bugger out of our lives" also was a feature of the debate, though by no means the only one, just as its a feature of the healthcare debate, but my no means the only one.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Flame fail. Nice try though Cane.
Its best to avoid trying to claim the moral high ground in a flame war you started.
dogma wrote:That depends a great deal on the historian you read, but yes, generally its correct to say that there were more people who were indifferent to slavery than who held an adamant opinion on it. Though that's true of most every significant political movement; including both sides of the health care debate.
What historians would dictate otherwise? It is an accepted consensus by the historical community that this was the reality of society.
dogma wrote:No one has even hinted at the idea the North was without race issues.
It was a preemptive strike against criticism.
dogma wrote:Incidentally, a "Now or Never" argument is a form of moral imperative. Its the same thing as "do this because we thinks its right".
They may be similar, but they are not the same, there are very subtle differences. Now or never indicates the complete moral collapse of society that is inherent in crusade movements, ie: slavery, temperance, civil rights, and now health care. "Do this because we think it is right" is chalked up to issues that are being forced upon people regardless of problems they are having or not, ie No Child Left Behind, etc.
dogma wrote:"Let's take this slow" would've been Lincoln's position with respect to abolition; depending on the time period being discussed. And it certainly represents the opinion of those elected officials who saw the unity of the United States as being more important than slavery. "Bugger out of our lives" also was a feature of the debate, though by no means the only one, just as its a feature of the health care debate, but my no means the only one.
Agreed of course. My thoughts exactly.
dogma wrote:Its best to avoid trying to claim the moral high ground in a flame war you started.
The issue in question has been resolved. It was chalked up to a misunderstanding on my part, with both parties saying regrettable things. I resolve to fix this issue over a couple of Shiner's. Cheers Cane!
JEB_Stuart wrote:What historians would dictate otherwise? It is an accepted consensus by the historical community that this was the reality of society.
That's a lack of clarity on my part. The thing which varies from historian to historian is the degree to which the abolitionist movement is regarded as a minority opinion. Where the minority is not denoted by active members of the movement, but sympathy with respect to the cause; usually also including an explicit distinction between opposition to slavery, and a belief in equal rights for blacks.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
They may be similar, but they are not the same, there are very subtle differences. Now or never indicates the complete moral collapse of society that is inherent in crusade movements, ie: slavery, temperance, civil rights, and now health care. "Do this because we think it is right" is chalked up to issues that are being forced upon people regardless of problems they are having or not, ie No Child Left Behind, etc.
Ah, you meant 'right' ( as used in the latter phrase) in the sense of efficiency, or expedience. I took it as right in the sense of a moral pronouncement: ie. the right answer as opposed to wrong answer, rather than the right answer as equivalent to the best answer.
Also, if you read the Emancipation Proclamation carefully, it does not free any slaves. It did nothing about the slave states that joined the north (he did not want to lose their support), and since the slaves in the south were in states that had seceded... lets just say they weren't free either. It only gave hope.
dogma wrote:No, I saw that as well. I have enough faith in Reid to realize that he probably meant exactly what you indicated. In fact, he probably considered things like the ADA, and the Clean Water Act when conceiving the analogy(Reid isn't really an idiot, he's just not a very good politician). He probably rejected those possibilities on grounds of obscurity; failing to realize that his intended meaning with respect to the slavery debate is probably even more obscure for most of the electorate who engage with history, and politics, on an emotional level (and then there's the obvious spin/hostile voter issues).
The most common reaction to an analogy is to note the person you're being compared to, not the exacting nature of the similarity. If I pointed out a road construction plan was similar to Hitler's, the reaction probably wouldn't be to consider the forward thinking nature of the design and the emphasis on national transport objectives, it would be to take offense at being compared to Hitler. Possibly not the most rational reaction, but we humans aren't all that rational, especially when it comes to politics.
There's also the point that 'you're on the wrong side of history' is a very polarising argument to begin with, and one that needs to be handled carefully if it's to achieve anything. Using the argument by way of analogy to slavery isn't going to handle that.
Seriously, if someone just wanted to show history tends to showing progressives in a better light than people protecting their economic interests, then he would have picked a drier issue like the Clean Water Act. But if the motivation is to villify the opposition then a person will pick a more emotive issue, such as slavery.
Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
Both the Press, and the Politician-heads, are in a constant battle of branding. Both want to sell news, but they profit it from it in entirely different ways. Look at Grayson, he started strong (well... he started something...), then basically disappeared as soon as FOX picked up his 'trail'. TBTH it is not an entirely unintelligent way of playing Politics, just a very harsh one. Reid is going a softer route, although one side has and will continue to see it as ignorant and spiteful... which... could also be a 'good' thing.
But yeah... he is not the most efficient politician...
Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
It was an analogy, it isn't true or false, it's illuminating or not illuminating. Do you think the 'on the wrong side of history' argument is clearer for a lot of people after Reid's comment?
sebster wrote:
Seriously, if someone just wanted to show history tends to showing progressives in a better light than people protecting their economic interests, then he would have picked a drier issue like the Clean Water Act. But if the motivation is to villify the opposition then a person will pick a more emotive issue, such as slavery.
No doubt. I'm not saying this was anything other than mudslinging. I'm saying that it wasn't some kind of gaffe, but a planned statement which actually has a basis in reason. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better, or even that it was done poorly (I'm on the fence about the feasibility of rational public discourse with respect to this issue). It simply means that the statement makes sense in the context of a certain kind of political strategy.
dogma wrote:No doubt. I'm not saying this was anything other than mudslinging. I'm saying that it wasn't some kind of gaffe, but a planned statement which actually has a basis in reason. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better, or even that it was done poorly (I'm on the fence about the feasibility of rational public discourse with respect to this issue). It simply means that the statement makes sense in the context of a certain kind of political strategy.
Cool, I think we agree then. I doubt that there's much value in the Democrats entering a mudslinging contest with the Republicans because they'll lose*. You're better off staying clean while ineffectively selling your message, instead of getting dirty and still failing to sell your message.
But maybe there's headway to made from this, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
*The core competency of the Republicans is mud slinging, whereas the core competency of the Democrats is... umm...
My missus is from California (staunch Democrat) and i always argue with her about politics. I maintain i would probably vote republican if i was American as i am, pro military, against socialism and advocate fiscal responsibility. I also point out i vote conservative over here and think the labour party have been a staggering failure (as always) have almost bankrupted the country (as always) have scorn for our soldiers (as always) and spend money that we dont even have like it grows on trees (as always)
Anyway, the only downside of the republican party as i see it is the bizarre way that "God" seems to be somehow tied to the GOP.
I digress, i spend alot of time watching American political shows as i find them to be genuinelly amusing. The way that the two partys in the US seem to be so much farther apart than in our politcal system (with the three main parties all becoming more alike every year) makes for some great debates.
I listen to Shaun Hannity on the radio most nights, and like to watch Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly for example. I agree with half of what they say, and find the other half terribly amusing. Highlights of this include Hannity calling someone a child molester when he said that the Navy Seals should be on trial ("Oh yeah? Well ok i think your a child molester, lets have a trial!") O'Reilly going apeshit on Geraldo Rivera and Glenn Beck pretending he was about to cry when Chuck Norris was over visiting the troops. Its comic genius. With Chuck Norris!
Anyway, the other day Hannity was talking about this exact topic, and he said the same thing that one of you Republican chaps said the other day, ie - Lincoln was a Republican.
Now, this prompted another debate between me and the missus when i said "oh ok he was a republican eh?" She said that he "technically" was, but he was a "democratic republican" and the party doesnt exist anymore, and that Lincoln would "most certainly" be a Democrat now.
Is she arguing with me safe in the knowledge i dont know any better?
I point out that i might not have a vote, but i have alot of leverage, and after my constant attacks on Obama (all style, no substance and a wealth of promises he knew for a fact he could not keep) she voted for an independant in the general election!
Although, after McCain (who i genuinelly do like) had a spastic for a vice president i didnt want him to win either....
Anyway, what are your thoughts? Is the woman telling me lies?! And do i sound like an Elephant or a Donkey?
mattyrm wrote:
Is she arguing with me safe in the knowledge i dont know any better?
Not really. What if is always a silly game, though it can be fun. The truth is that both parties are radically different now than they were then. The only thing we can say with certainty is that he was a indeed Republican, but that doesn't mean anything in a modern context. There is so much more to the context of his times than just his party affiliation that.
There's no such thing as substance in American politics. There's a sort of zeitgeist which equivocates a certain set of positions with substance, but that's about it.
mattyrm wrote:
And do i sound like an Elephant or a Donkey?
Neither. The Republicans aren't actually about the majority of the positions you seem to hold, with the exception of being pro-military (though, in terms of rhetoric, they embrace them all). You sound more like a Libertarian. They don't get a cute(?) animal mascot.
Yeah i have to say i wouldnt have been happy voting for either party in the last election in the US. I like the conservatives in the UK, as they seem to be more sensible, ie very centrist. Not ridiculously left wing where i feel like they only care for the sick lame and lazy and they want to work me to death to look after them. And not ridiculously right wing and actually have some form of wellfare system and allows immigration and suchlike.
It seems to me it is unusual that it is basically a two horse race in the US. With the blanket attitudes that the Republicans and the Dems have, i would have thought that some of the other parties would make an impact, but i hear very very little of them. Ron Paul struck me as a non entity for example.
It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.
I know for a fact that a good 1/2 of my American friends agree with me on most of my views, why is it that you seem to be casting your vote into the wilderness in the US if you dont vote for either of the big parties? Have the independants had real issues getting their voices heard?
Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
Er lots are saying its not true. You're just not listening.
Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
Er lots are saying its not true. You're just not listening.
But honestly, of those who are saying it's not true, what percentage would also say that any claim he made wasn't true. Let's face it most of the commentators (even here) who have criticized him would disagree with him if he said the sky was blue or that the sun rises in the east.
Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.
note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.
Er lots are saying its not true. You're just not listening.
But honestly, of those who are saying it's not true, what percentage would also say that any claim he made wasn't true. Let's face it most of the commentators (even here) who have criticized him would disagree with him if he said the sky was blue or that the sun rises in the east.
That is some sweet polarizing rhetoric ya have their friend-o.
The two "mascots" for the Libertarians, IIRC, are the Statue of Liberty and the rattlesnake, from Ben Franklin's article in the Pennsylvania Journal, then made into a flag by Gadsden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
mattyrm wrote:Now, this prompted another debate between me and the missus when i said "oh ok he was a republican eh?" She said that he "technically" was, but he was a "democratic republican" and the party doesnt exist anymore, and that Lincoln would "most certainly" be a Democrat now.
Is she arguing with me safe in the knowledge i dont know any better?
Lincoln, as a Republican, fought the South, who had rebelled in large part to keep their slaves. From then until the 1960s the South was a Democratic stronghold, the Southern Democrats were full of a lot of good old boy racists. But when Lyndon Johnson introduced civil rights legislation the southern Democrats were pissed, causing Nixon to formulate the Southern strategy, which attracted racist Democrat voters to the Republicans. This worked very well for a long time, with the South voting solidly Republican.
But if the civil is too long ago for the Republicans to honestly claim credit for Lincoln, it could also be argued that the civil rights movement was too long ago for the GOP to carry any shame for the Southern strategy. While these things don't simply go away and were certainly a factor into the 80s and arguably into the 90s, Obama won Virginia, Florida and North Carolina... so I think if a black guy can carry southern states, then it's fair to say anger over the civil rights movement ain't what it used to be.
mattyrm wrote:It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.
Not really. US politics for a long time wasn't all that factional. The whips had none of the influence of the Westminster system, and for the longest time there was considerable levels of bi-partisanship between two parties who were fairly similar for the most part, pro-business centrists parties.
But, starting with starting with Gingrich in the mid-90s the Republicans a move towards the nutbar end of the rightwing, with this process increasing in speed considerably in the wake of 9/11. By the standards of the modern Republicans Nixon would be too far to the left, given he supported healthcare reform with a public option.
The move of the GOP to the far right has created this idea that the Democrats must be just as doggedly left wing, when all they've done is sort of muddled about in the centre like they've been doing for decades. If they were as left wing as you claim, they wouldn't have half their party freaking out over the apparently left wing idea of a public healthcare option.
The sad thing about Sebster is that if you asked him who the mayor of his city is he'd have no idea but if you asked him what was going on in American politics in 1984 he'd write three paragraphs.
mattyrm wrote:It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.
Not really. US politics for a long time wasn't all that factional. The whips had none of the influence of the Westminster system, and for the longest time there was considerable levels of bi-partisanship between two parties who were fairly similar for the most part, pro-business centrists parties.
But, starting with starting with Gingrich in the mid-90s the Republicans a move towards the nutbar end of the rightwing, with this process increasing in speed considerably in the wake of 9/11. By the standards of the modern Republicans Nixon would be too far to the left, given he supported healthcare reform with a public option.
The move of the GOP to the far right has created this idea that the Democrats must be just as doggedly left wing, when all they've done is sort of muddled about in the centre like they've been doing for decades. If they were as left wing as you claim, they wouldn't have half their party freaking out over the apparently left wing idea of a public healthcare option.
Wait are you serious? US politics has always been a battle. Historically Congressmen have had occasion to challenge each other to duels and there was at least one heavily reported caning of one Congressman by another. We're just returning to how it historically was.
mattyrm wrote:
It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.
That's largely by design. Karl Rove effectively proved that any given party can get elected, in consecutive Presidential elections, on the strength of rhetoric alone. So long as the party tows the line for the mob, anything that is actually done (or not done) will be swept aside by the weight of information. So you get wild, sensationalist rhetoric flowing freely from the partisan morass (most evident with the Republicans under Bush, but the Democrats seem to heading in that direction now) while legislation is formulated in the background.
It does seem that people are starting to see through the nonsense (Tea Party movement). Unfortunately, they've decided that the best way to fight it is with even more nonsense (Tea Party Movement). Now, there certainly is the point that cutting through the aggregated BS thrown around by both sides is likely to require a certain degree of sensationalism, but it remains to be seen if that's a point the movement can reasonably be expected to internalize.
mattyrm wrote:
Have the independants had real issues getting their voices heard?
Independents don't vote. That's problem one. Problem two arises from their distribution across the electorate (not usually enough to affect a Congressional race), and the way electoral districts work in the context of the Presidential race (have to win a whole district).
sebster wrote:Not really. US politics for a long time wasn't all that factional. The whips had none of the influence of the Westminster system, and for the longest time there was considerable levels of bi-partisanship between two parties who were fairly similar for the most part, pro-business centrists parties.
Sebster is right on all accounts here. The whip element of our political system has never, ever been as strong as it is in the Westminster system. Bi-partisanship used to be much more widespread. Here is a favorite story of mine that sums up the way politics used to be run: A young Democratic representative from Georgia enters the halls of Congress for the first time. He spots an older member of his caucus sitting in his chair and reading the paper. He approaches him and in a childlike sense of enthusiasm he asks, "Where are the Republicans? I want to know who the enemy is." The older gentlemen looks up and smiles. He pulls his glasses off and sets down his paper and calmly replies, "Son, the Republicans ain't the enemy. That honor is reserved for the Senate."
Ah, the better times of yesteryear......
sebster wrote:The move of the GOP to the far right has created this idea that the Democrats must be just as doggedly left wing, when all they've done is sort of muddled about in the centre like they've been doing for decades. If they were as left wing as you claim, they wouldn't have half their party freaking out over the apparently left wing idea of a public healthcare option.
Agreed with reservation. I agree with this in the idea of the growing importance of such things as the Blue Dogs and Dems from more conservative areas, but the party leadership and historical elements of the party, such as the Black Congressional Caucus, are growing more and more left wing.
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you serious? US politics has always been a battle. Historically Congressmen have had occasion to challenge each other to duels and there was at least one heavily reported caning of one Congressman by another. We're just returning to how it historically was.
Ah yes, the Brooks-Sumner Affair. It is never wise for an unpopular member of Congress to insult a rather well-liked Senator. Especially when people took such affronts to their personal honor seriously...
Same.
-Lets get on the Perot Boat!
-A vote for Nader is a vote for what were we talking about?
-Kinky Friedman for governor, why the hell not? (actual campaign slogan)
Ahtman wrote:The sad thing about Sebster is that if you asked him who the mayor of his city is he'd have no idea but if you asked him what was going on in American politics in 1984 he'd write three paragraphs.
You know I'm just jokin' with ya Sebster.
The Mayor is Troy Pickard, I voted for him because he supports new clubrooms for my cricket club. We haven't got them yet, so I guess politics is the same everywhere.
But is that anywhere near as much fun as a Democrat comparing healthcare opponents to the defenders of slavery?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you serious? US politics has always been a battle. Historically Congressmen have had occasion to challenge each other to duels and there was at least one heavily reported caning of one Congressman by another. We're just returning to how it historically was.
US politics has frequently been vicious, and just as dirty as anywhere else. It is politics afterall.
But there's a difference between vicious politics and factional politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Sebster is right on all accounts here. The whip element of our political system has never, ever been as strong as it is in the Westminster system. Bi-partisanship used to be much more widespread. Here is a favorite story of mine that sums up the way politics used to be run: A young Democratic representative from Georgia enters the halls of Congress for the first time. He spots an older member of his caucus sitting in his chair and reading the paper. He approaches him and in a childlike sense of enthusiasm he asks, "Where are the Republicans? I want to know who the enemy is." The older gentlemen looks up and smiles. He pulls his glasses off and sets down his paper and calmly replies, "Son, the Republicans ain't the enemy. That honor is reserved for the Senate."
Ah, the better times of yesteryear......
I like that story. I'll try to remember it.
Agreed with reservation. I agree with this in the idea of the growing importance of such things as the Blue Dogs and Dems from more conservative areas, but the party leadership and historical elements of the party, such as the Black Congressional Caucus, are growing more and more left wing.
Yeah, it's at least somewhat likely the Democrats will drift further to the left and set about building as tightly disciplined a party as the GOP. I don't think this is a good thing - the US system just isn't build for factional politics, and the likely result is logjam.
While Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, she said, 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP supported it. Civil rights passed with 82% of Republicans in the Senate and 80% in the House, while 41% and 51%, respectively, voted for Medicare. Mrs. Snowe could have added the 1996 welfare reform that President Clinton signed with the support of nearly all Republicans in Congress, 98 Democratic Representatives and 25 Democratic Senators.
Dogma, you are an incredibly smart person, but how can you consider yourself informed and say something like that? Do we so easily forget the Nancy Pelosi statement referring to all those protesters as Nazi and un-American, and she wasn't the only Democrat to say things like that. I don't have the time or the will to compile a list, but if you think that the Dems have avoided mudslinging then you are dead wrong. I am not defending the Republicans, as I can't stand most of them either, I was merely pointing out the thread's original criticism was directed at that bumbling idiot Sen. Harry Reid, and everyone blames the Republicans. Gak like that pisses me off. I don't appreciate it when people are more then willing to trash one side, but when their side feth's up, they just ignore it. Hence, willful ignorance.
