Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The Gloating Thread
Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:51 AM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:08 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:27 AM
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:28 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:But somehow we can't learn from the horrific acts that occurred when the Soviet Union was allowed to extend their philosophy of government control of every aspect of life over half of Europe? The acts of the Secret Police can teach us nothing? The lessons of the gulags have no relevence? We take nothing away from artists who weren't allowed to buy paint because their work was abstract, not 'Socialist Realism'? The hundreds of pictures on the walls of the former Secret Police headquarters in Budapest - pictures of people who were brought to the building and never left - have nothing to say? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't criticize the Soviet Union because you see nothing done wrong that deserves criticism.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:35 AM
Quote:"On other fronts, I wonder if constant bombing and border invasions by drone devices seems less like war to us." It does to me. It is a lesser war than wholesale bombing with troops and tank shooting DU at people, so it seems less like war.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:But somehow we can't learn from the horrific acts that occurred when the Soviet Union was allowed to extend their philosophy of government control of every aspect of life over half of Europe? The acts of the Secret Police can teach us nothing? The lessons of the gulags have no relevence? We take nothing away from artists who weren't allowed to buy paint because their work was abstract, not 'Socialist Realism'? The hundreds of pictures on the walls of the former Secret Police headquarters in Budapest - pictures of people who were brought to the building and never left - have nothing to say? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't criticize the Soviet Union because you see nothing done wrong that deserves criticism. Of course we can, but what can we learn that's relevant to us??? I learned that putting a single person in charge of everything is dangerous. I learned that people can be misled by patriotism or manipulated by fear into heinous acts of betrayal. I learned that people can be blinded by ideology. I learned that taking land away from peasants is never a good thing. And one of the things I learned, both from our acts and from the acts and policies of other nations is that it is important that people not blind themselves into violence and killing to support an idea. I learned that if you have to kill to impose your beliefs on others, then you have truly lost in the marketplace of ideas. I find that moral code works, whether I apply it to us, to jihadists, or to Stalin or Mao. So you can wonder all you like and insert whatever innuendo into your posts that you choose, but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:44 AM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Then I wager that war has been successfully sanitized. He who can afford the robots can wage war in perpetuity and without horrifying his population.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:49 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: That he has a difficult job with fierce opposition does not convince me to judge him less harshly. If he did what he could, each time he could, I could judge him less harshly.
Quote:I also thought Maggie Thatcher's little war in the Falklands was just about as hypocritical as Reagan's invasion of Grenada, and Tony Blair was Bush's lapdog.
Quote: Anyone paying close attention could see right through their paper thin rhetoric, all their "numbers" and "facts" could not stand up in the light of day.
Quote: Obama (or someone like him) serves to stonewall the progress of a total fascist takeover/makeover of America
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:52 AM
Quote: I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation.
Quote: I can hear Niki complaining about all the little contributors
Quote: there was some idea that the US would keep combat troops in Iraq if it (the US) could negotiate an agreement with the Iraq government to do so. The US failed to secure an agreement and a lot of the old chicken-hawks from the dubya years and a lot of people on the right (including our own rapster) said the US should extend its time in Iraq until such an agreement was reached. Kind of like taking Iraq hostage until you get what you want. So the president actually took flak for taking all combat troops out of Iraq, and on schedule.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:53 AM
Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:55 AM
Quote:It's not just whether or not our troops are safer or whether or not it appears more sanitary or whether our hands look cleaner. Numbers of civilians matter too. The Afghanistan/ Iraq wars work out to about 13,000 per year while drone strikes work out to about 400 per year. So it is a lesser war.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:00 AM
Quote:It's all too easy for us to judge, and judge harshly, without knowing all the facts, all the ins and outs of politics and what a President REALLY has the power to accomplish. I'm less willing to judge.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:02 AM
Quote:Lastly, I also second Sig's latest remarks. To say we've "learned nothing" is pretty ridiculous; I don't think we needed to "learn" how horrible those things were. But aside from fighting to see they don't happen HERE, I'm not sure what's expected of us.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:04 AM
Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:03 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:But somehow we can't learn from the horrific acts that occurred when the Soviet Union was allowed to extend their philosophy of government control of every aspect of life over half of Europe? The acts of the Secret Police can teach us nothing? The lessons of the gulags have no relevence? We take nothing away from artists who weren't allowed to buy paint because their work was abstract, not 'Socialist Realism'? The hundreds of pictures on the walls of the former Secret Police headquarters in Budapest - pictures of people who were brought to the building and never left - have nothing to say? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't criticize the Soviet Union because you see nothing done wrong that deserves criticism. Of course we can, but what can we learn that's relevant to us??? I learned that putting a single person in charge of everything is dangerous. I learned that people can be misled by patriotism or manipulated by fear into heinous acts of betrayal. I learned that people can be blinded by ideology. I learned that taking land away from peasants is never a good thing. And one of the things I learned, both from our acts and from the acts and policies of other nations is that it is important that people not blind themselves into violence and killing to support an idea. I learned that if you have to kill to impose your beliefs on others, then you have truly lost in the marketplace of ideas. I find that moral code works, whether I apply it to us, to jihadists, or to Stalin or Mao.
Quote:So you can wonder all you like and insert whatever innuendo into your posts that you choose, but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:10 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: My views on Mitt - from abroad, or from a broad, whichever you prefer. He's not evil.
Quote: Interestingly, I find those considered to be on the left of American politics, would most likely be considered centreists anywhere else in the world.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:33 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: You cherry picked that line from the rest of signy's post. That's not fair.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: How unclear do you think "...but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones"
Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: How unclear do you think "...but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones" What if I said the lessons I've learned from Hitler have been positive ones? How NOT to be? Loosen your focus, Geeze. Jeeze!
Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:32 AM
Quote: 'Conservatives' are anything but, the 'left' are mostly centerists, the 'right' are practically neo-fascist-lite, and the actual 'left' barely exists.
Quote: The Ratchet Effect The ratchet is a simple, ubiquitous, ancient bit of machinery. There's one in your bicycle wheel (it allows you to coast without pedaling), there's one in your watch (if you're the old-fashioned type and have a mechanical watch) and there's one in the jib sheet winches of your boat (if you're a yachtsman; but then in that case you probably aren't reading this book). What the ratchet does is permit rotation in one direction but not in the other. Here's a diagram: The American political system, since at least 1968, has been operating like a ratchet, and both parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- play crucial, mutually reinforcing roles in its operation. The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward. The Democrats' role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don't resist the rightward movement -- they let it happen -- but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left. Here's how it works. In every election year, the Democrats come and tell us that the country has moved to the right, and so the Democratic Party has to move right too in the name of realism and electability. Gotta keep these right-wing madmen out of the White House, no matter what it takes. (Actually, they don't say they're going to move to the right; they say they're going to move to the center. But of course it amounts to the same thing, if you're supposed to be left of center. It's the same direction of movement.) So now the Democrats have moved to the "center." But of course this has the effect of shifting the "center" farther to the right. Now, as a consequence, the Republicans suddenly don't seem so crazy anymore -- they're closer to the center, through no effort of their own, because the center has shifted closer to them. So they can move even further right, and still end up no farther from the "center" than they were four years ago. In fact, the Democrats' rightward shift not only enables the Republicans to move farther right themselves; it actually compels them to do so, if they want to maintain their identity as the angry-white-guy party par excellence. (A great part of the Republicans' hysterical hatred of Bill Clinton arose from this cause: with Democrats like Clinton, who needs Republicans?) The ratchet clicks: Nixon. The pawl holds: Carter. Click again: Reagan. And again: Bush Senior (and Iraq War I). The pawl holds: Clinton. Click: Bush Junior and Iraq War II; then another click, and it's Bush Junior triumphant, and God knows what to come. Has the phrase "conspiracy theory" crept into your mind yet? Let me exorcize it. This is not a vast conspiracy. Nobody planned it out. What I am offering here is a structural explanation, not a conspiracy theory. There is a very important difference. Perhaps an analogy will help. I assume that most people reading this book believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution. We often speak of the "function" or "purpose" of anatomical structures -- like your liver, or your thumb, or the hammerhead shark's odd cranium. But this way of talking doesn't commit us to believing that somebody planned these structures out. They were not contrived; they evolved. The same holds true for the rightward ratchet in contemporary American politics. No Machiavelli schemed it into existence; it evolved. And it evolved for the same reason that anything evolves: it was useful. But useful to whom? Not useful, certainly, to the millions of slightly, or more-than-slightly, left-of-center Americans who troop glumly to the polls every four years, hold their noses, and vote for the "lesser evil," even though they expect nothing from their candidate. Nor is it useful to the forty to fifty percent of Americans who don't bother to vote at all because neither candidate has managed to say anything that seems relevant to their lives, I have a somewhat unlikely friend, a rich man in Chicago -- let's call him Al. Politics is not Al's profession, or even his first interest in life, but he is a well-connected, intelligent guy who has some pet political causes. I happened to ask him one year, during a Senatorial campaign, which candidate he and his friends were contributing to. Both candidates were quite friendly to his cause, and I thought he might have had a hard time deciding between them. Al looked at me as if I had just revealed unsuspected depths of idiocy. "Both, of course," he replied. "Both?" "Well, we're giving a little more to X [the Republican], naturally, 'cause he's got a better chance of winning. But we've given a lot to Y [the Democrat], too. In fact, I think we may be his biggest single bloc of support." "But... which one do you want to win?" He laughed. "It doesn't matter. We own 'em both." The ratchet works really well for people like Al: and that's what keeps it in operation. It's not that he's an especially right-wing guy himself; in fact, he thinks of himself as a liberal. But the ratchet has lowered his taxes, gotten the unions out of his plant, fattened the budget of his wealthy suburban school district (and correspondingly starved the urban districts where his employees live). He thinks Bush is a contemptible idiot, and may even have voted for Kerry himself (though he's very reluctant to talk about it). But what's beyond question is that the ratchet has operated to his benefit. Absent some countervailing pressure from what we'll call, for short, the Left, it's a foregone conclusion that the political system will evolve in a way that responds to the desires of the wealthy and powerful. Over time, the Democratic Party has assumed the role of ensuring that the countervailing pressure from the Left doesn't happen. The party contains and neutralizes the Left, or what there is of it. Left voters are supposed to support the Democrat, come what may -- and it's amazing how many of us have internalized this supposed obligation -- but they are not allowed to have any influence on the party's policies, either during the campaign or during the Republicans' infrequent holidays in opposition. Al's employees mostly vote Democratic. They get nothing for their pains, but the Clinton years were as good for Al as the Reagan years. But that's not the worst of it. The reluctant-Democrat voters -- like my neighbor Annie -- don't realize that their votes are not just wasted: they are positively helping drive the ratchet. The fact that these captive lefties can be counted on not to bolt enables the James Carvilles and the Al Froms and the other DLC "triangulators" to pursue their rightward course without fear of any consequences. Annie and all the other well-meaning dependable Democrats are supplying an essential part of the fuel that keeps the machine going. Again: Nobody planned this. The Democratic Party fell into its role in the ratchet for historical reasons, which we will explore in the next chapter. But now that the machine is up and running and delivering the goods for the wealthy and powerful, there is certainly no reason for the wealthy and powerful to interfere with it. And there is no means by which the less wealthy, whose power is only in their numbers, can affect it at all -- except by depriving it of their support. Over the decades since the ratchet started operating, each party has developed a story, a narrative, or less politely, a scam, that depends crucially on predictable behavior by the other party. Those Republicans, say the Democrats, they're crazy extremists; last year it was Iraq, next year it'll be Iran. We have to stop them by any means necessary, even if it means wearing their clothes. The Republicans reply: Where do you get off calling us crazy? You voted for the Iraq war. And you're defending Iran now? Oh no, say the Democrats, those Iranians, they're terrible. Somebody really needs to do something about them. Why haven't you guys done it? At this point Annie gets upset and calls her Democratic congressman. "Ted! Are you advocating war with Iran?" "Naaah, naah, Annie," Ted coos, "That's just to get our guy elected. Gotta keep those crazies out of the White House." Annie hangs up the phone, trying to feel reassured, and tomorrow's New York Times will announce that war with Iran is a matter of bipartisan consensus. The Democrats depend on the Republicans to frighten their constituencies and keep them in the Democratic corral. It's not too strong to say that in effect, they encourage the Republicans to play the bad cop. The Republicans, conversely, need a bogeyman to energize their activist base -- a Godless, urban, liberal bogeyman who will tempt good Christian boys into sodomitical vice and take away people's guns. So far, the relationship between the party narratives is symmetrical: each is Bad Cop to the other's Good Cop. But there are some crucial asymmetries, and it's these asymmetries that drive the ratchet effect. One of the most important asymmetries is that while the Republicans can be as ferocious as they please on matters relating to culture -- sex, religion, and so on -- the Democrats are not prepared to be ferocious on the only possible counterweight to culture, which is... class. In fact, not only are the Democrats unwilling to be ferocious, they're unwilling to raise the topic at all. It's the Great Unmentionable of American politics. It was not always thus. Class politics was one of the pillars of the Democratic party of Roosevelt -- the party that Annie is remembering when she pulls the donkey lever. http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/stopme/chapter02.html
Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:16 AM
Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:29 AM
Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:32 AM
Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:36 AM
Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:48 AM
Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:15 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Okay Geezer- Rest assured, the lessons I've learned from watching Republicans have been positive ones. In fact, I've tried to learn lessons from history- hopefully, universal lessons that can endure regardless of society or vantage point, my essential definitions of right and wrong, honed by the horrors of history. There, how's that?
Quote:Every leader .... every single one... who has visited great horror on his population (or others) has done so with good intentions, or at least good excuses. There is no leader who has ever said I'm going to kill 30% of the population and terrorize the rest just because I can.
Quote:And those who willingly participate in brutality, from the workers and peasants in early Russia to the cadres of young revolutionaries in the Great Leap forward, did so for good and noble reasons.
Quote:It happens in every society... why we genocided native Americans.
Quote:why young Maoists beat their elders and school friends to death.
Quote:why the Nazis invaded other nations and rounded up socialists and Romas and Jews.
Quote:When the reasons sound so compelling.... we're going to be invaded, our survival depends on this outcome, the other side is a madman, god wills that we do this .... what might prevent me (at least) from being swept up in the same fervor?
Quote:What line do I draw, what threshold do I create that prevents me from being inveigled into supporting something heinous? The only lessons that seems clear to me are (1) Sacrifice must result in some real, material good. For all of the urgings of Mao and Stalin, collectivization resulted in a FALL in output. For all of our interventions, the people we invaded suffered more harm than good. For all of the humans sacrificed, the rain didn't come anyway.
Quote:(2) If you must spill blood to support your "idea", then your idea isn't very good.
Quote:I'm therefore not persuaded that our interventions were necessary or just. Overall, most people were poorer and more oppressed after our involvement than before. The rationale for killing and oppressing people based on ideas like "freedom", "democracy", and "anti-communism" are comparable to killing people for a "new society" and "worker solidarity". They are just words.
Quote:If you want to help, help. Support the things you think need to be done. Build schools, dig wells, plant trees, build clinics. Shut out the oppressors from your support and from your economic dealings.
Quote:Defend, with deadly force if necessary, those who are being killed. I think if you follow those rules, then you will not add to senseless, useless misery but will make things better for more people.
Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:35 PM
Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:10 PM
Quote:Not sure I can agree with that. I'm sure you can think of leaders who you believe were thinking "I'm going to take everything of value out of this country so I can live the high life, and when folks finally turn on me I'll head for someplace with no extradition carrying a suitcase full of dollars and my Swiss bank account numbers." or "My ego demands that I have total power of life or death over my subjects, and I may have to kill a few every now and then to make sure the message is clear." in your definition of "good intentions." I don't believe that everyone is a hero in their own mind.
Quote:But how do you tell? If you think, as you mentioned above, that Stalin and Mao believed their sacrifice (of others) would result in some real, material good (I don't BTW), how do you know until it works or doesn't? Same with U.S. interventions. If the folks who planned them did so believing their sacrifice (of others) would result in real, material good, why do you condemn them so strongly? I again note that the places that U.S. intervention didn't work at all (Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.) aren't exactly the greatest places to live.
Quote:The Allies in WWII spilt plenty of blood in order to support their "idea". Sometimes when your "idea" is threatened, force is the only response that's going to work.
Quote:But in many countries, people were already being killed and oppressed in the name of the "new society" or "worker solidarity". Should we have let that continue? Would the people there have ended up even poorer and more oppressed if socialism/communism had succeeded? Countries with former and existing socialist and communist regimes generally don't have a real good track record of either economic prosperity or personal freedom when under those regimes.
Quote:Sometimes the other side IS a madman.
Quote:Countries with former and existing socialist and communist regimes generally don't have a real good track record of either economic prosperity or personal freedom when under those regimes.
Quote:And when the oppressors go to other oppressive countries for help, troops, arms, etc.? If you build schools and they blow them up or attack the children there? You dig wells and they destroy them?
Quote:Should we not have tried to defend those people who were being killed, robbed or kidnapped?
Quote:As we've noted in discussions about the recent election, sometimes none of the available choices are what you'd really like, and are sometimes only the least bad of a bad lot. In a lot of situations, the best solution is still unpleasant, and deciding to do nothing is even worse. And often you can't know the cost or how it will turn out until after everything is over. You just have to make your best guess and try to do as little harm as possible.
Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:12 PM
JO753
rezident owtsidr
Quote:I have almost never seen the USA decide in favor of doing "as little harm as possible"... If we took HALF of our military budget and put that into development, we all would be better off.
Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:38 PM
Quote:Plenty of examples of smaller governments around now. Doesnt work. Think of the destruction an individual or organization can cause with our technology, wether thru ambitions of empire or careless exploitation. There needs to be an entity with the power to make and enforce wise rules to keep things from going to hell. About the American Experiment. "...in order to form a more perfect union.." This is why I believe the conservative philosophy fails the reality check. When was the experiment over? When did we perfect the country? 1955? 1985? Are we supposed to go back and park the country in the Golden Reagan era or Leave It To Beaver fantasy world? There may be no such thing as a perfect society. Anything the human race has established so far obviously hasnt lasted. The only way for a nation to continue in a changing world is to adapt to it. Accept the fact that we will always be in transition. To understand this is to realize that conservatism is just stubborn sentiment at best, and self destructive nonsense if carried too far. We need leaders who have the foresight to choose the best future for the nation and the vision to make the transition as smooth as possible.
Monday, November 12, 2012 5:49 AM
Quote:not fact and lojik denying idiots with 50,000 watt tranzmitterz
Monday, November 12, 2012 6:18 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by JO753: Quote:I have almost never seen the USA decide in favor of doing "as little harm as possible"... If we took HALF of our military budget and put that into development, we all would be better off.
Monday, November 12, 2012 7:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: [Hmmm... I also said "good excuses". I'm giving our fearless leaders the benefit of the doubt here, because I'm pretty certain that nearly everything we ever did in the Mideast had to do with oil, and everyplace else was in support of capitalism. But I'm sure there were SOME people who believed in that shining city on a hill. It sounded good, anyway. So let's go with that, just to be nice.
Quote:Well, that's the problem here, there, and everywhere: You try a policy and you're sure it;s going to work. But it doesn't, and so you think the answer is to try it again, just harder. Mao didn't believe that his Great Leap Forward wasn't. We couldn't believe that killing a million or so in Vietnam didn't make the nation better. At some point you've got to realize that button doesn't work, and killing people doesn't make it work any better.
Quote:The funny thing is, where people really WERE getting killed en masse (Ukraine, China), we didn't do anything.
Quote:And in places where we DID intervene, people really weren't getting killed... until we started the killing ourselves, anyway.
Quote:Too many of our "interventions" were into nations which had elected moderate reformers... shall I go over the list again?
Quote:Quote:Sometimes the other side IS a madman. All the more reason not to descend to his level.
Quote:Quote:Countries with former and existing socialist and communist regimes generally don't have a real good track record of either economic prosperity or personal freedom when under those regimes. Actually, they had a pretty good record of economic prosperity. I can point to India versus China,, for example, Russia before and after the fall of the USSR, and Brazil during and after the military juntas, as very specific examples of relative prosperity.
Quote:Then you keep digging wells. Because bombing a nation to the stone age really doesn't get you anywhere.
Quote:Quote:Should we not have tried to defend those people who were being killed, robbed or kidnapped? Yes, because carpet bombing and napalm worked so well. Right?
Quote:I have almost never seen the USA decide in favor of doing "as little harm as possible". Supporting governments that disappear thousands of people, selling arms that make it possible to kill 500,000, invading a nation and killing a hundred thousand... you keep pressing that military button and it doesn't work ETA as intended most of the time. In fact, we are generally very good at doing more harm than good, invading nations all over the world and causing misery everywhere.
Quote:If we took HALF of our military budget and put that into development, we all would be better off.
Monday, November 12, 2012 10:07 AM
Monday, November 12, 2012 2:04 PM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote:I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, yeah. My insufficently rabid criticism of Romney seems to have convinced many folks here of my tacit support, so why not? Hello, This is a valid point. But I do want to stress it is not rabidness which impresses, but rather consistency. I know some of your positions thanks to long association on this board, but I do not know you to critique the 'right' as often as the 'left.' It suggests a bias. I am prepared to believe there is no bias. Are you prepared to believe me when I tell you that there has been an inbalance in commentary? --Anthony Well, since most of the criticism on this forum tends to be focused on the Right, spending all my time going "me too" seems kind'a pointless. Issues like marriage and reproductive rights I'll chime in, but after I see the same complaints over and over again, I don't even bother responding. Then again, a lot of that criticism IS rabid, over the top, or just plain bullshit, which I object to. Also note that when I criticize the 'left', I generally do so on policy issues, not on Michelle's dress or Pres. Obama's place of birth. I don't make up 'funny' insulting names for Democratic politicians or post 'clever' pictures of their personal life. When I cite stuff, it's generally from mainstream media or sources, not partisan bloggers or publications. I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation. Look at this thread. Who starts throwing insults? Who will throw more after reading this post?
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote:I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, yeah. My insufficently rabid criticism of Romney seems to have convinced many folks here of my tacit support, so why not? Hello, This is a valid point. But I do want to stress it is not rabidness which impresses, but rather consistency. I know some of your positions thanks to long association on this board, but I do not know you to critique the 'right' as often as the 'left.' It suggests a bias. I am prepared to believe there is no bias. Are you prepared to believe me when I tell you that there has been an inbalance in commentary? --Anthony
Quote:I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, yeah. My insufficently rabid criticism of Romney seems to have convinced many folks here of my tacit support, so why not?
Quote:I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation.
Monday, November 12, 2012 6:31 PM
Quote: BTW. Just want to note that I enjoy actually discussing stuff again, instead of exchanging insults. I'll be nice if you will.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not.
Quote:You enter into it purposefully and energetically and one-sidedly.
Quote:You say the site is strongly liberal. Fine, I agree. But why do you feel the evident need to counter, and redress this wave of liberal opinion?
Quote:I compare you to someone like CTS, another professed liberatarian who I see as fairly centrist. She criticises both sides, but mainly just stays clear of the partisan fray. She doesn't have the strange, anti-liberal compulsion that you have.
Quote:Even in your above post you reveal your anti-liberal bias: Quote:I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation. That's supposed to be a list of specifically liberal traits?? Ha! See, you pay lip-service to the idea that both sides engage in ugly partisanship, but in your mind you associate it specifically with one side.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:15 AM
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:49 AM
Quote:When I'm discussing the actions of liberals on a liberal forum, and point out that a lot of the liberals exhibit those traits, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:14 AM
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:18 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: First off, this isn't a "liberal forum" as you choose to refer to it.
Quote:You consistently call out liberals and talk about liberals in a negative vein.
Quote:By calling out only liberals, you create an unspoken statement that conservatives don't.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:55 AM
Quote:Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by kpo: Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is anyone's involvement here?
Quote:Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You enter into it purposefully and energetically and one-sidedly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure about that. I support a lot of liberal social positions.
Quote:Mostly when when I've chimed in during this election cycle, it's because of the mean-spirited and often downright dishonest personal attacks on Republicans by the folks here. I generally got no brief for Republican policy, but it aggrivates me to see so much bullshit thrown.
Quote:Your assumption that I'm saying ONLY liberals do such things
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:24 AM
Quote:But you and others call out only conservatives for insults and demeaning accusations.
Quote: Don't remember much seeing you criticize Mike or Story, for example, for their personal attacks. ETA: Not to mention your personal insults of conservatives here as well.
Quote: My charge against you is not that you're a typical conservative - you're clearly not - but that you have a strong anti-liberal bias.
Quote:the same thing that makes us care, is what makes us biased.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:33 AM
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Just a few quick examples from your posts: "Of course, being from a liberal source, they then go on to criticize this as not being good enough" http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=53303&mid=915118] But they did in fact criticize Romney's selection of women for 42% of his cabinet. "First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women." You included it in a post criticizing Romney for not picking enough women. Don't I have the right to comment on what you're saying? Quote:Back in '04, I guess I didn't notice the bias, or maybe there was less of it. Considering you weren't on the board until 07/11/2009, per your profile, I'm wondering how you noticed anything here. Who did you used to be? Rue? Quote:But, "Kerry's (energy) plan would: Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' by responding " Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=6612&mid=84990 Why did you have to go back eight years to find something you THINK shows bias against Kerrys plan, when I ended that post with, "Not saying it's a bad idea, but..." which you mysteriously left off. And considering that both the Iraq war and the Bush Tax cuts were widely reported as "lining the pockets of the rich" seems likely such a proposal by Bush would get called that too. Quote:You posted at great length about the lies fact checkers had found in Biden's speech, saying "And those doggone conservative Republicans at the Washington Post just keep finding more DNC speech comments to pick on." Given the WaPo has both liberal and conservative columnists, I don't know which was doing the fact checking, but I'm guessing the implication was that the WaPo is actually liberal...? It's not, as far as I know. Liberals complain it's conservative; conservatives complain it's liberal. And other folks here posted about Romney's and Ryan's lies. Go give them a hard time as well. Quote:Back in September you immediately responded to my thread about Clinton having "killed" at the Dem convention with "The truth, apparently." and link to an article which called one of Clinton's statements "a stretch", then followed up with a whole slew of quotes about untruths at the convention, including "And in other liar news, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." http://blu.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=52952 I'm beginning to get your drift. I have no right to disagree with you about anything, or express an opinion contrary to what you believe. Too bad. Oh, and look at that first post you cited (the 'folders' one) for a wonderful example of liberals overdosing on personal insult and character assassination.
Quote:Back in '04, I guess I didn't notice the bias, or maybe there was less of it.
Quote:But, "Kerry's (energy) plan would: Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' by responding " Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=6612&mid=84990
Quote:You posted at great length about the lies fact checkers had found in Biden's speech, saying "And those doggone conservative Republicans at the Washington Post just keep finding more DNC speech comments to pick on." Given the WaPo has both liberal and conservative columnists, I don't know which was doing the fact checking, but I'm guessing the implication was that the WaPo is actually liberal...? It's not, as far as I know. Liberals complain it's conservative; conservatives complain it's liberal.
Quote:Back in September you immediately responded to my thread about Clinton having "killed" at the Dem convention with "The truth, apparently." and link to an article which called one of Clinton's statements "a stretch", then followed up with a whole slew of quotes about untruths at the convention, including "And in other liar news, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." http://blu.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=52952
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: My charge against you is not that you're a typical conservative - you're clearly not - but that you have a strong anti-liberal bias.
Quote: Does it aggravate you as much when Auraptor, Hero, Whozit, Wulf etc. do it?
Quote:The reason I call you out on this is because I can see that I'm kinda the mirror of you: I see bullshit and dishonesty on the left, but I just roll my eyes at it and move on. Because those people to me, are not the real problem. You apparently do likewise to people on the right.
Quote:So why talk about things both sides do? Also, although most of the current nastiness may come from the left, that hasn't always necessarily been true. At times, with folk like Kaneman and Wulfenstar I'd say the right has been worse. Did you ever come into conflict with those guys?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:06 PM
Quote:I have no right to disagree with you about anything, or express an opinion contrary to what you believe. Too bad.
Quote:Oh, and look at that first post you cited (the 'folders' one) for a wonderful example of liberals overdosing on personal insult and character assassination.
Quote: particularly virulent brand
Quote: So I'm a surrogate for your criticism of yourself?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:07 PM
Quote:Who did you used to be? Rue?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:17 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL