Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't that the way politics in the USA has been moving for a long time?

Attack ads on TV and so on?

Unfortunately yes. Note that I'm definitely not excluding Palin's crowd from this, as there have been incidents with them as well.

Grignard wrote:
No....I'm not a Palin supporter, as you should have read in my previous posts. What I don't like is when someone says that someone I know personally and care about, who I happen to disagree with, is an idiot because of their political affiliations. I think the problem with this country right now is how people dehumanize people who they disagree on a political point with. People who strongly disagree with someone have a nasty tendency to look at the "other side" as an enemy to be humiliated and marginalized, when if those same people met in other circumstances, most of them would treat one another with respect.

I think once you start looking at people as "the opposition" instead of human beings whom you disagree with, that is the first step on the road to killing abortionists or bombing logging companies.

Who said anything about the opposition though? The Palin cult is a small minority of very loud voters.

Also, trying to confine humanity to a box that allows you to do and say whatever you want, does not make your opinions any more valid than they already were. Nice leap of faith on the last part though, I can totally understand how that mole-hill turned into a nuclear bomb. I am never been too sure how people make attacks on their political deities so personal. If someone decides to become some sort of eco-terrorist, they had some issues to begin with.

What consitutes de-humanization? If all it takes is a confused glance, and perhaps a harsh word or two... we are totally all evil man.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Grignard wrote:
No....I'm not a Palin supporter, as you should have read in my previous posts. What I don't like is when someone says that someone I know personally and care about, who I happen to disagree with, is an idiot because of their political affiliations. I think the problem with this country right now is how people dehumanize people who they disagree on a political point with. People who strongly disagree with someone have a nasty tendency to look at the "other side" as an enemy to be humiliated and marginalized, when if those same people met in other circumstances, most of them would treat one another with respect.

I think once you start looking at people as "the opposition" instead of human beings whom you disagree with, that is the first step on the road to killing abortionists or bombing logging companies.

Who said anything about the opposition though? The Palin cult is a small minority of very loud voters.

Also, trying to confine humanity to a box that allows you to do and say whatever you want, does not make your opinions any more valid than they already were. Nice leap of faith on the last part though, I can totally understand how that mole-hill turned into a nuclear bomb. I am never been too sure how people make attacks on their political deities so personal. If someone decides to become some sort of eco-terrorist, they had some issues to begin with.

What consitutes de-humanization? If all it takes is a confused glance, and perhaps a harsh word or two... we are totally all evil man.

I think that is a difference in degree. I think we'd gain a lot in this country if people had some mutual respect.

Grignard wrote:I think that is a difference in degree. I think we'd gain a lot in this country if people had some mutual respect.

What would that entail? Would you be the one deciding what is and isn't okay to say? How does your form of respect (which is all well and good until people simply don't deserve it) differ from mine (where people have to earn it)?

Would passing out gold stars for attendance be a little like... getting a nobel peace prize for talking a lot about bi-partisanship?

Common courtesy is one thing, but mutual respect is an entirely different story, and no person has to respect anyone else. They can however, choose to do so, and hopefully with an sincere mutuality. If your definition of mutual respect is nothing but a way to demand more respect than anyone else... feth. that. snap.

Kilkrazy wrote:be guided by her advisors once in office.

She will never be president or vice president...too much Alaska baggage.

Also all presidents are guided by their advisors once in office. It's just that some rely more on them than others. Insert G.W.

GG

Wrexasaur wrote:

Grignard wrote:I think that is a difference in degree. I think we'd gain a lot in this country if people had some mutual respect.

What would that entail? Would you be the one deciding what is and isn't okay to say? How does your form of respect (which is all well and good until people simply don't deserve it) differ from mine (where people have to earn it)?

Would passing out gold stars for attendance be a little like... getting a nobel peace prize for talking a lot about bi-partisanship?

Common courtesy is one thing, but mutual respect is an entirely different story, and no person has to respect anyone else. They can however, choose to do so, and hopefully with an sincere mutuality. If your definition of mutual respect is nothing but a way to demand more respect than anyone else... feth. that. snap.

I'm not demanding more respect, and as far as not knowing what mutual respect is, well if you've never been taught that, I can't help you.

True...no one has to respect anyone else, but they *should*.

What the poster said who started this argument showed neither respect nor common courtesy. In fact, I think it was against the spirit of the forums, as far as I understand the rules.

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:be guided by her advisors once in office.

She will never be president or vice president...too much Alaska baggage.

That certainly looks the case now, but remember only one year ago she was a candidate for vice-president. If Obama hadn't turned out to be such a charismatic candidate, McCain could have been elected, and died since and she would be president now.

generalgrog wrote:

Also all presidents are guided by their advisors once in office. It's just that some rely more on them than others. Insert G.W.

GG

Yes, of course that is true. It would be foolish to expect one person to come up with all the answers by themself.

What you don't want in a president is someone so weak-minded that they are merely a figurehead.

dogma wrote:
The dollar still makes up 64% of global reserve currency, so that's not a huge issue. Foreign nations are less willing to purchase US debt than they once were, but certainly not unwilling to do so.

Just a correction, 62% according to the NYP, but world's central banks invested a majority of their new cash in the Euro and the Yen, which is bad for us. The reason people are not going to be willing to buy debt from the US is because its inflation rate is so bad. Gak! The problems just keep a comin!

sebster wrote:
The $800 billion figure is very misleading, as that's the total expenditure in the bill over ten years. More importantly, it doesn't account for revenue brought in - and latest estimates from the congressional budget office see the billls effect as a net saving of around $80 billion over the next ten years.

The report is a conservative, as always, estimate from the CBO, and I am pleasantly surprised to hear what the CBO has to say. I trust the CBO because of its non-partisan policy, and its track record of reliability. According to Sen. Snowe this bill won't have a public option, and has some elements of tort reform. That might win me over, but I am still hesitant to support it. Fiscal conservatism is a big sticking point for me, and I don't like to stray far from it. It would be nice though to know exactly what was in the bill, and it troubles me that the Congress will not even have the bill read before passing it. Has it ever occurred to any of you that there are significant swaths of the US population, maybe even a majority, that don't want this bill passed because the rest of the world says we have to? I see it from many of the Europeans on this thread, and the remarks are things that I usually find smug and arrogant. Americans are known to have a long streak of independence about them, and that isn't likely to change. Meh, that is just a thought that has been bouncin around in my head for the past week or so...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:McCain could have been elected, and died since

Yes, cuz they have had to fill a vacant seat in Arizona due to his death....

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reason you intended. Do you call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot?

Having read through the thread this struck me. Yes. I prefer to call people idiots when their beliefs, policies, and ideals are idiotic. It's accurate. When someone believes sarah palin, one of the most incompetent government officials I have ever had the misfortune to see, would be a good president/VP idiocy is the only true way to regard it. There have been years of exposure to her inadequacies now, yet people still ignore the prevailing information surrounding them and hold fast to their beliefs. Is it because it's easy? Is it because they just don't pay attention, and a hot, moose hunting, good christian girl said that she dealt with russia? There's a breaking point where civil discourse doesn't work, and such people have to be marginalized. When it becomes that there is a significant number of such people it means that something in American media or the population itself has gone very, very wrong. But it doesn't change the reality.

I'm smarter than you!

I'm smarter than you!

He's smarter than Palin, thats for sure.

Yea, what he said!

You say it likes its an achievement.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reason you intended. Do you call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot?

Having read through the thread this struck me. Yes. I prefer to call people idiots when their beliefs, policies, and ideals are idiotic. It's accurate. When someone believes sarah palin, one of the most incompetent government officials I have ever had the misfortune to see, would be a good president/VP idiocy is the only true way to regard it. There have been years of exposure to her inadequacies now, yet people still ignore the prevailing information surrounding them and hold fast to their beliefs. Is it because it's easy? Is it because they just don't pay attention, and a hot, moose hunting, good christian girl said that she dealt with russia? There's a breaking point where civil discourse doesn't work, and such people have to be marginalized. When it becomes that there is a significant number of such people it means that something in American media or the population itself has gone very, very wrong. But it doesn't change the reality.

Well, as we've already established many times over, you have an attitude problem Shuma.

If I can disagree with her supporters in a dignified manner, and quite effectively get my point across. I regularly argue the case for public health care with people who disagree with me who are more educated ( M.D. ), make more money than I do, and probably are smarter than I.

Shuma, you strike me as an angry person...

@Grignard - Mate, I'm not trying to offend you! I merely stated words to the effect of: 'Sarah Palin does not have a very broad world-view, and therefore her comments regarding the NHS being 'evil' etc should probably be disregarded'. I'm paraphrasing, but the point stands. You said 'how can she be an idiot and still appeal to people?' I happen to feel that she falls into the bracket of 'ultra-nationalist' - this political affiliation IS stupid, as it only leads to isolation (or in the case of America, further isolation? Yes? No? I'm not sure.) and the USA is a country that, like it or not, needs a relationship with the rest of the world - for trade and help to combat terrorism amongst other things. Don't get me wrong man, I'm not 'Yank-bashing'! I feel the same about The British National Party's Nick Griffin. Palin would be disastrous for America's standing in the world, much worse than Bush. Although the combination of being stupid and kind of hot does have a certain appeal....to ME anyway!

But you HAVE been a little bit touchy mate, I was just stating the opinion that anyone who would support the views held by Sarah Palin is a bit well, daft.
It's my opinion and I stand by this.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Just a correction, 62% according to the NYP, but world's central banks invested a majority of their new cash in the Euro and the Yen, which is bad for us.

Yeah, I used some of the old statistical material I had laying around. The new COFER tables put it at 62.7%.

Still, that our share of the global reserve has been declining recently is no secret. But the fact remains that neither the Euro, nor the Yen is especially strong when compared to the dollar. The difference vis a vis past years is simply that the dollar is not as overwhelmingly important as it has been. Obviously there will be consequences in light of this, but simply saying we can't afford healthcare as a result is overly simplistic.

That isn't to say the argument isn't tenable, but that it requires a nuance that elevates it above basic economics (and also carries it into politics).

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The reason people are not going to be willing to buy debt from the US is because its inflation rate is so bad. Gak! The problems just keep a comin!

The inflation rate on the dollar isn't especially bad when compared to any other potential reserve currency; especially since the dollar has been on the rebound of late.

I don't think healthcare reform is going to die. Its too politically dangerous to outright kill. I think folks will work hard to keep the numbers close, and keep up appearances of a struggle rather than let it die. Its easy to argue one's vote against such a thing was due to execution, but there's likely to be a name and shame if it gets shot down completely this time. I can't imagine the majority of any party are that colossally foolish.

So far Obama's been rather savvy in framing the debates as constructive. Everyone ends up looking the good guy to their constituents for working on the problem, and their sponsors for looking out for their interests.

The idea that Obama is attacking several issues from oblique angles is interesting. If Obama's position is correct and reform spurs new related businesses (interesting in abstract) then he's succeeded at letting the economy sort itself by means of a public works project. I accuse healthcare of being public works because of its (intended) effect of helping the general public - much like the TVA. If this has the side effect of drawing our soldiers back home and out of harm's way from two occupations we can sincerely do without so be it. A slightly less meddlesome stance in foreign policy couldn't hurt.

Then again, we could easily just turn face to a "legalize it, and tax it" philosophy on our vices to clean up our economy if healthcare fails. Ending prohibition had a significant positive impact on our economy - a cigarette esque(or steeper!) tax on recreational chemistry, channel half of that into rehabilitation, and half back into the economy we could be on a reasonable footing. But I'd much rather have healthcare reform than legal cannabis.

Grignare wrote:...what mutual respect is...

As far as I am concerned, and due to my life experiences, talking about mutual respect can be (and most often is) little more than a way to override common courtesy while maintaining a top hat and a suit.

Something from another forum.

Something obvious but a word of wisdom nevertheless from the top of my head. Mutual respect is not a pre-requisite of respect. Respect is a pre-requisite of mutual respect. Please remember.

By your standards, mutual respect is not respect, it is simply common courtesy. Nothing more complicated than switching one term for another, whenever you feel that respect is fully deserved, no matter what. Live by whatever code you live by, but do not expect me to just drop a heap load of loving on you any time you please. But yes... Wrex has love, which is honestly what I really think that you are talking about; More specifically, I am not a hater, but satire, most definitely is something that I do have. We need to take out all of these comedians though, the world would be a much better place without them... at least the ones I do not like .

In terms of the additions you made about not "helping" me, sincerely though, I do thank you. I understand the need to not hate everything, but I have simply yet to be convinced that all are simply deserving of respect, when that would in essence make respect an entirely meaningless term. Again, Common courtesy, that.... is what you are talking about.

I am not saying to run around and start screaming at palin supporters, but would Wrex go out dressed up like a cookie monster to their rallies? Hell yes, hell freaking yes.

Reporter: "Are you part of this rally sir, and if so how do you feel about this whole thing?"

Wrex: "Are you part of handing out the cookies? THAT... is why I am here... "

Grignard wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reason you intended. Do you call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot?

Having read through the thread this struck me. Yes. I prefer to call people idiots when their beliefs, policies, and ideals are idiotic. It's accurate. When someone believes sarah palin, one of the most incompetent government officials I have ever had the misfortune to see, would be a good president/VP idiocy is the only true way to regard it. There have been years of exposure to her inadequacies now, yet people still ignore the prevailing information surrounding them and hold fast to their beliefs. Is it because it's easy? Is it because they just don't pay attention, and a hot, moose hunting, good christian girl said that she dealt with russia? There's a breaking point where civil discourse doesn't work, and such people have to be marginalized. When it becomes that there is a significant number of such people it means that something in American media or the population itself has gone very, very wrong. But it doesn't change the reality.

Well, as we've already established many times over, you have an attitude problem Shuma.

If I can disagree with her supporters in a dignified manner, and quite effectively get my point across. I regularly argue the case for public health care with people who disagree with me who are more educated ( M.D. ), make more money than I do, and probably are smarter than I.

If you could effectively get your point across then they wouldn't be her supporters any more. The problem is you can't you won't and after years it should be obvious to you that such people do not base their opinions on logic or sense. They do not base them in reality. Is it an attitude problem when I just call a spade a spade and leave it well enough alone? What's the point of attempting to alter the opinion of a sarah palin supporter when 3 years of gaffes and insults, repeated scandals involving both inadequate family care and unlawful use of public money, an immensely unimpressive career record for normal legislature, and now of all things an inability to make it to the end of term can't?

People who don't respond to reason often times do respond to pressure and insults just so long as they don't have the safe haven of kind niceties attempting to sway their favor with honeyed words and tolerance of their ignorance. I'm not afraid to call a Palin supporter an idiot. However that does not mean I will call one either for or against healthcare legislation so as easily. It is an incredibly complex topic with a ludicrous amount of variation in it's twisted lexicon. Health care is something that requires civil discourse to be done well, and it requires mutual respect (and courtesy), something sorely lacking from popular media concerning the debate today.

Shuma, you strike me as an angry person...

Do I? I tend to argue quite serenely, It's something I enjoy doing here. Though yes, I am an angry person.

dogma wrote:especially since the dollar has been on the rebound of late.

You were saying?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ff41282c008d4c070bbcfcf1ad946201.311&show_article=1

You're talking about value, I was talking about inflation.

Are the views of Neo-nazis worthy of respect, simply by virtue of being held? How about Hitler? Should we have respected his views, if not his actions? No, I don't agree that all opinions are equally deserving of respect.

Albatross wrote:Are the views of Neo-nazis worthy of respect, simply by virtue of being held? How about Hitler? Should we have respected his views, if not his actions? No, I don't agree that all opinions are equally deserving of respect.

First off, I wasn't trying to get on your case, I was just pointing out my personal feelings about tone, and how I feel people should respond in public, which includes an internet forum. If the mods are ok with any given post, then that post is ok, its that simple. I didn't intend to offend. I'm here to talk with friends, and I've delt with my own anger issues, and no longer consider myself an angry person, as Shuma claims he is. I'm willing to bet he's not nearly as angry as he thinks he is.

My opinion on the question as to whether the views of Neo-Nazis are worth respect is not really what I'm talking about. I'm not discussing views, I'm talking about people. My point is that it is entirely possible to treat Neo-Nazis with respect, and to do otherwise is just going to reinforce their position. If someone then continues to berate you or be an ass, then you can just walk away and ignore them.

Incidentally, its really unbecoming to bring up Hitler in a conversation or debate. But to answer the question I'll say that it isn't a fair question and is made with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. When I talk to someone on these boards or in person, I have no knowledge of what that person will do. In other words, debating with Adolf Hitler in 1925 is different than looking at Adolf Hitler in the year 2009.

Albatross wrote:Are the views of Neo-nazis worthy of respect, simply by virtue of being held? .

..We'll find out on Question Time next week I guess.


And remember kids : the BNP aren't racist !.

..hmm.. yes...

Alrighty then... ahem.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/465772/Angel-faced-racist-aged-12-Girl-burns-golly-at-BNP-fun-day.html wrote:Elsewhere another man moaned: "If things don't become any better, and I become older, so I'm 70 or 75, I'll take a GPMG (machine gun) - seriously, I'm not joking here - and I'm going to f***ing destroy lots of people."

At what point do these cats not expect Grandpa Jewserson to get up and fire right the feth back though? Goddam... what is wrong with some of humanity. I am floating in a fish bowl... oh my god a cat, run away and FIRE!!!

I'm here to talk with friends, and I've delt with my own anger issues, and no longer consider myself an angry person, as Shuma claims he is. I'm willing to bet he's not nearly as angry as he thinks he is.

I'm willing to bet that you're probably pretty wrong.

Shuma is a very angry person, it is not wise to tempt him to prove so.

Doing so will involve: pain, humiliation, regret, and ice cream(for shuma, not you, but at your expense).


Although I am beginning to not care anymore, if we pass this we're all screwed, if we don't we're all screwed. We want to take care of everyone at the expense of those that can afford it and then demand that everyone be self sufficient. The world sucks and anything the government or private institution does will never be enough.

I saw a report blaming the costs of current healthcare on hospitals for taking people who can't afford it. Well, a doctor's job is to care for the sick and hospitals can recover from it, but I think that the government should work on removing the amount of people that can't afford it. For illegals that's an easy one(deportation) for others it gets difficult. I say that we deport all illegals and see what that does for healthcare, we should also get rid of that anti-trust law exemption for insurance industries, we don't need it.

halonachos wrote:Shuma is a very angry person, it is not wise to tempt him to prove so.

Doing so will involve: pain, humiliation, regret, and ice cream(for shuma, not you, but at your expense).


Although I am beginning to not care anymore, if we pass this we're all screwed, if we don't we're all screwed. We want to take care of everyone at the expense of those that can afford it and then demand that everyone be self sufficient. The world sucks and anything the government or private institution does will never be enough.

I saw a report blaming the costs of current healthcare on hospitals for taking people who can't afford it. Well, a doctor's job is to care for the sick and hospitals can recover from it, but I think that the government should work on removing the amount of people that can't afford it. For illegals that's an easy one(deportation) for others it gets difficult. I say that we deport all illegals and see what that does for healthcare, we should also get rid of that anti-trust law exemption for insurance industries, we don't need it.

Deporting illegals is great in theory, and I certainly agree that any public healthcare be policed for abuse, it is not as simple as it sounds. For instance, how much are immigrants ( some illegal, some otherwise) contributing to the economy? I bet if they all went away tomorrow, there would be quite a few jobs needing done that no one wants to do.