To be honest, I think the appropriate response to wild claims of socialism is to focus on the definition. What's wrong with that? By doing so, you're getting to the meat of the issue rather than dancing around it, usually with eye rolls and insults. Of course sometimes people are just wrong. But it isn't logically valid to claim they must be. (And I'm not talking about objective things like whether Cantor's office was shot at or whether Obama was born in the U.S.) The problem is that by arguing that they must be wrong and that they must be stupid or disingenuous to believe what they believe, you are cutting off the debate. But what if they aren't being disingenuous? What if they aren't stupid (or at least not any more stupid than you)? That leads me to... That's fair. I certainly understand the frustration. But the people I know generally aren't disingenuous even if they are wrong, they are usually just misguided. The people I know aren't stupid, either, they are usually just misguided. When I'm wrong, I'd like to think it's not because I'm stupid, and I'm sure it's not because I'm being disingenuous. How many people do you know well that have beliefs like the opposition on this board, and how many of them do you think deserve the labels of "stupid" or "disingenuous"? I know quite a few people that have beliefs that make no sense to me, but I think each one is relatively smart and absolutely honest in their convictions. So the same is probably true of the people I don't know well. That includes the people on this board. That includes even the worst offenders. I think many of them probably think that people who disagree with them are either stupid or lying. (Just look at how they characterize politicians who disagree with them.) So again, if you can say that about them, why is it invalid for them to say it about you? So rather than get caught up in that, why not assume that the people on the board whose actions are so frustrating are just people who have honestly different beliefs than you do and believe the same about you as you do about them. Simply focusing on the erroneous claims or pointing out how certain messages are more manipulative than factual is a great way to break that cycle, and in my opinion it's technically more logically valid.
My belief is not based on an assumption. It based on facts and conclusions that have been discussed ad nauseum here and in public discourse and in basic curriculum of most western societies. When a poster says that they are happy with the health insurance that they have, and they don't want to pay for other people's coverage, the oxymoronic nature of that statement is not due to any self-reinforcing assumption on my part - it's due to the fact that that statement exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of insurance. Accordingly I'm hard pressed to listen carefully to their ideas on anything related to how an effective insurance model should be devised, for obvious reasons, as any useful opinion they have would be the product of random babbling and regurgitation rather than any logical thought process. There IS a baseline level of facts required to have a discussion in the social sciences. There has to be, or else no discussion could ever be had. When people are unable or refuse to accept some of these baseline facts, it's difficult to take them seriously.
I didn't claim your belief was based on an assumption. In fact I think I made it clear that it was based on facts and evidence. Should the fact that you failed to understand that part of my point mean that I should be hard pressed to listen to the rest of your take on the subject? (Of course not.) I've already played devil's advocate twice, I'd prefer not to do it again and again. But is it that hard to believe the possibility that they are not articulating their argument properly, or that you're not understanding it properly, or that it is in fact logical and consistent and that it is you who has a misunderstanding of the nature of insurance? What if that poster said to you that the concept should be simple and obvious, and that your resistance to the notion exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of government in society, and that accordingly he is hard pressed to listen to any of your ideas on the effects of additional government regulations on the liberties of an individual within a society. Why is your argument inherently better than his? The only reason is that you believe it to be so and that you believe that the facts support your argument. But he does too! You're looking at my point from the wrong angle. Don't look at it from the level of someone trying to have a debate or win the argument. Look at it from a level above as someone objectively watching the debate. Look at it from the perspective of someone who knows nothing other than the facts that are stipulated by both sides. If person A says certain things should be obvious it is meaningless if person B does not agree. Person A simply going around claiming that person B is being stupid or disingenuous is meaningless if person B disagrees (and especially if person B feels the same about person A). If instead person A only explains why person B is wrong, then you, the objective watcher of the debate would be able to see the evidence for the position and decide for yourself. So I guess you can assert your certainty in condescending and insulting ways if you wish, I'm just trying to point out that it is meaningless to the greater debate and makes you no more right than the person you're referring to. And on a somewhat separate but still related note, insults and taunts tend to stoke anger and increase the potential for beliefs based on irrationality and fear. It's somewhat ironic for someone to complain about those behaviors at the same time that they are acting in ways that are likely to promote them.
The system has failed and the wool has been pulled over our eyes for too long. This phantom two-party system is designed to protect the interest of banks, corporations, big pharma, and the MIC. Billions of dollars roll in to support the D/R candidates, and we wonder why they take away more of our rights and rob us blind into a debt that we did not create, nor can we get ourselves out of. Health care is a sham and is way more expensive than it should be, given the monopolies on the system. The reason everyone demands HC is because the vast majority of this country is ignorant and has no clue how to eat well and take care of themselves. We learn nothing about nutrition in schools and in the media by design. Nader/Ron Paul types would have told the sponsors of the HC bill to shove it, and rightly so. We need to replace monopolized HC system with a free market one.
I don't have a clue but unless they discover they are a convicted felon or something right before the election, it should be a landslide.
Lincoln is the only gut you mentioned who was worth a flip. I admit I voted for Bush but I didn't care for him a whole lot. The alternatives to Bush in those two elections were terrible. Al "I invented the internet" Gore or John " I voted for the bill before I voted against it" Kerry, were some of the worst candidates I have ever seen.
Im soooooooooooooo GLAD the health care package past. HAHAHA Yeah, you all like it now. Yeah, keep boasting how the Republicans lost. HAHAHA. When Americans start getting the IRS knocking on their doors in 2014 threatening fines because you havent paid a huge fee to get health insurance, we will have the democrats by the balls. Yes, Obama will win re-election. All he has to do is put some underwear on and smile and everyone votes for him. But the NEXT democrat after him is screwed because Americans want FREEDOM not threats from IRS saying get health insurance or else. 2016 Republicans put up a bi lingual (probably g.p. bush) and win presidency and senate over. Enjoy it while it lasts Democrats.
and oh Bush is my favorite president. You guys just have no clue what bush did to save this country. Go ahead and bring up everything you hear in the media. Laughable. IN fact, everyone in the cia is laughing at all americans. Why? Because everything you know you get from tv. Top secret documents you are not going to get on cnn. Bush saved this country, but the war is still going. Why do you think obama hasnt taken troops out of middle east? Think hard. No , its not bin laden. If thats your answer you watch to much tv and are gullible. First off, how many of you know that Obama is a cousin of Dick Cheney. Yeah, exactly, Im out of your league. Long story short, If it wasnt for Bush, we wouldnt even HAVE gasoline,your lucky it was only 4$ a gallon. Without gasoline, this country turns into a 3rd world country . Obama is continuing Bushs work in middle east. Obama doesnt get blamed because the media is biased. In fact, if gasoline hits 4$ again, the media wont blame Obama, and americans blame whoever the media blames. You repeat what you see on tv. Meanwhile, Bush is sitting pretty with millions of $ laughing .I get so mad when I see people (who are probably unemployed or deal drugs or work at HEB) makes blogs or posts or tweets saying Bush is a monkey or Bush is dumb. (my ex gf thinks bush is the dumbest man on planet yet, she lives with her parents unemployed sleeping around for $) Face it, you wouldnt mind if you were called dumb if you have millions sitting in your bank. Your little comments about Bush make no sense because any deal or decision he made was done with CIA backing (are you forgeting his dad ran the CIA?) If you blame Bush, then one day you will HATE this country,because one day the TRUTH will come out about Saddam and the oil and the U.N. threats to cut off oil to America and bush SAVED our asses and if you dont like Bush then you must want the middle east to keep all the oil for themselves and lets go stand in breadlines (think Katrina nation wide) Yeah,Bush uses terrorism for a way to send troops to get oil and grow heroin poppy seeds in Afghanistan. Big whoop. If you dont like it, then dont join the armed forces. You take a creedo when you join, you know death is there when you join. So dont complain to Bush for saving America and bringing us oil to live on , because Clinton didnt have the balls to send U.S. troops over there. I love Bush. I have a hard on for Ann Coulter. Actually I love all the hot blondes on fox news. How can any of you be democrat and enjoy watching cnn with all the hot chics on fox news? Megan Fox,Laurie Dhue,Ann coulter,martha macallum......
Obama can have his little presidency,he is not spanish speaking and their are more latino babies born now than any other race. We have our stud for 2016 and beyond. Welcome all Hispanics,abla espanol republicano fiesta !!
The remedy was to count all the votes, very controversial point of view to have in an election apparently.
uolj; I agree with your stand regarding being condescending and insulting to the other side but I think this comes to a matter of style. As I said in another thread just because you aren't calling people "asshats" doesn't mean you don't have an opinion and I hold, perhaps naive, belief that we can debate the issues civilly and openly. In defense of Sam, Rhad and Batman Jones I will say that I often share their frustration and while I think they deserve some of the blame for a low standard of civility their ideological opponents do too. Too often we have posters who continue to repeat assertions that have been addressed to the point of spamming, a presentation of talking points and loaded language in place of rational discourse, along with misleading and inflamatory thread titles. At that point its hard to have a civil discussion with someone who continues to engage in those techniques. Whether you are on the right, left, middle or some other ideological belief we could all benefit from having some patience and perspective as you say.
I think this is Colbert like parody but I have to ask this question. And have you read those top secret documents to disprove what the media is reporting? How did you get access to them?
I think in many cases their ideological opponents deserve a greater share of the blame. But that's pretty irrelevant to the topic. "He did it first," is not a reason to do something, it is only an explanation of why it may not be so bad (or why one might be hypocritical for complaining about it). I understand that frustration, I feel it, too. But please remember that the civility of discussion here was only tangential to my main point. I have no desire to be forum police and tell people to how to post. I am, however, inclined to rebut a claim I think is simply incorrect, both for the sake of refuting it and because I think doing so can provide insight into the larger discussion.
I know you know better, since we've been over this many, many times before. I know you know it's not that simple, since we've been over this many, many times. I don't know any real Republicans that are entirely happy with the result of Bush v. Gore, but I do know a lot of wingnuts are. Whether they are simpletons or hacks is the only question. At the risk of opening this up again, here's the data from the Media Consortium... At any rate, the proper Constitutional avenue would have been to send it to the House, not have the SC make up a ruling because they wanted Bush.
i would have been happy with that, but the florida supreme court overstepped it's bounds and the SCOTUS had to step in. your beef should be with Gore, and the florida supremes, who wanted to sidestep the relevant florida law, and wouldn't let the process work the way it was designed to (because they knew they'd lose in the house).
cool step back in time, bros. To the thread topic, here's a new story from the AP about an FBI bust of "a dangerous organization that today stands accused of conspiring to levy war against the United States," according to AG Holder. Michigan nutcase militia (calling themselves Christian, FWIW.) Good work by the FBI. You have to wonder if the group was competent enough to carry much out, but it does seem that had the intent and at least a good bit of the equipment. Any group that calls themselves "Hutaree," as part of a "secret language" has got to be given good odds on blowing themselves up by mistake. EDIT -- For inference impaired: these guys wanted a "revolution." EDIT 2 -- has its own thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showthread.php?t=184442
