Actually, I can almost sympathize with secessionists.
In my backyard, may liberals are secessionists. It's an issue that does not know party lines.
It is very easy for anyone who feels they are imposed upon by a higher power to get ideas of secession. A state like Texas or New York might actually be able to pull it off. Vermont on the other hand, not the best idea. What will they eat? What do you have to trade for food?
I'm going to try to bring this back towards the RNC a little bit. These kinds of discussions are why I just wish everyone would move towards the middle and we'd all be happy. But then again, I also wish religion would just die out completely, and good luck with that ever happening. As a moderate, I just hate it when people blindly write off one side or the other. Both conventions had great speakers. Why can't most people just admit that? Whether you like him or not, Obama is one of the best speech givers in his party. Whether to like her or not, Palin did exceptionally well this week when she really needed to. And I like that Scott pointed out the thing most people always forget. Congress writes law. President approved or denies them. If you want to blame someone for the laws that get through, look at the people who wrote the damn thing! Sure the President has the power to stop stupid laws, and every President has let some slip to some degree, but Congress let it through first. From that perspective, Clinton gets a lot of praise for the welfare reform and balanced budget. But guess what? Republicans were the majority in Congress and they started it to begin with. But then they lost their way and now Democrats are the majority. Will they get the praise for laws passed by Bush in the last couple years? Probably not. But then again, Congress hasn't done much worth noting lately.
As far as I'm concerned, policies don't matter. Experience doesn't matter. What candidates say to the public doesn't matter (since all politicians say what they want people to like). The most important thing that a candidate needs to be able to do is get people from both parties to his or her side. If you can't do that, then nothing gets done.
Both conventions had great speakers. Why can't most people just admit that?
Amen. It boggles my mind how so many people let their bias rule them. For a forum with so many intelligent people, it's a real black mark. Reminds me of the intelligent design proponents that make excuse after excuse when confronted with science. True, this is more subjective. But when the media and former Democratic strategists are in near universal agreement that Palin gave a great speech, and the consensus here is more or less universal that she didn't, something here is broken.
It boggles my mind how so many people let their bias rule them.
This is not a media outlet and we are not journalists. There is nothing in the forum rules that states we must not have any bias. We are free to exercise our bias here.
However, I don't understand why the use of the word "bias" arises. Many of us have decided that McCain and Palin are not good choices for their respective offices. How is that bias? Are we no longer free to make that decision? Or, are we biased because we do not agree with you?
But when the media and former Democratic strategists are in near universal agreement that Palin gave a great speech . . .
That is an extraordinary claim for which extraordinary proof is required. Prove it, or admit that it is bald hyperbole.
. . . and the consensus here is more or less universal that she didn't, something here is broken.
I don't remember anyone appointing you to be arbiter of when things are broken on this forum. If that is your personal opinion, that's fine, but we don't particularly care to hear it. If you are genuinely concerned that something is broken here, you can say "goodbye to the forums" again. Maybe you can find another internet forum that lives up to your high standards.
Until then, it would be so much more pleasant if you would refrain from whining that not everyone agrees with you.
If the president can't get congress on their side, good. The less laws the government makes, the better. We don't need more laws, we need less. The harder it is for our government to do anything, the harder it is for them to make things worse.
Also, screw people always going for the so-called "middle". You're just unprincipled non-confrontational wusses. I mean seriously. What if the two major parties we had were the current GOP and the nazi party (godwin). Are you going to suggest that maybe killing some of the jews is right policy because it's in the middle? There is a such thing as right and wrong. There is a such thing as political and philosophical ideals.
Take for example that recent video with the Paris Hilton. Oh, she sounded so reasonable arguing for a position in the middle. Limited offshore drilling and whatnot. Too bad she was flat out wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, offshore drilling won't have any significant impact, and won't have any impact for a long time.
Anyone who argues for the middle is an indecisive coward who's opinion will get no respect from me.
This is not a media outlet and we are not journalists. There is nothing in the forum rules that states we must not have any bias.
I understand that. I have no problem with bias unless and until it affects one's ability to accurately observe. To use science as an example, you can go into an experiment with bias. If however, that bias colors your ability to observe, the experiment will be junk.
That is an extraordinary claim for which extraordinary proof is required. Prove it, or admit that it is bald hyperbole.
I don't remember anyone appointing you to be arbiter of when things are broken on this forum.
I'm an observer. There is a difference. I like good, well informed, discussion. If Stephanopoulos, Joe Trippi, the New York Times, Tom Brokaw, Bob Schieffer, David Gregory, Jeff Greenfield, Brian Williams, Washington Post, LA Times, Politico and others agreed that the speech was effective, why did this forum have the opposite consensus? It's a question worth asking. Your ad hominem attacks don't help the debate.
It's not an ad hominem attack. It's an observation. You like to judge. You've proven it by your posts. The additional observation that no one here has granted you the authority to judge is similarly an observation and not an ad hominem attack.
One article and an assertion that a short list of authorities agree with you is not "near universal" agreement.
Finally, there is no rule in place that says that we must agree with anyone. Isn't the position that we must agree with authority figures one of those logical fallacies you enjoy citing so much?
To an outside observer all this comes across as a bad comedy. I'm not talking about this discussion, I'm talking about the entire election process in the US. Last night I was with friends and we went out to get some pizza. On the TV was some footage from the RNC and it was all anyone could do not to just laugh at the whole thing. The speech might have been a success if you measure success as Sarah Palin being introduced to the world. We all now know who she is. One person said "At school there were these idiot girls who got pregnant. Then they would parade their babies about as though having a baby made them the most grown up person at the school." And that is what Palin looked like. "Hey everyone, look at me and my big family and my down syndrome baby and I'm going to be a grandmother at 45! Aren't I so clever and special!"
No, we all agreed, you aren't.
Back at my friend's apartment we compared pictures of political rallies in 1930's Berlin to the DNC and RNC. Of course the political views are different, but it is hard not to cringe at the sheer number of flags being waved and projected. Unhealthy nationalism is alive and well!
Compromise is a tool to get things done. If you have multiple parties in disagreement, yet they must agree to make something happen, then compromise is the tool they use. However, compromise is not a political ideology. Everyone, whether they want to admit it or not, has an opinion. What's your stance on free speech? What's your stance on welfare? What's your stance on the war? You have an opinion.
There's no such thing as "in the middle". That's just a construct of our imagining of one party on the left and one on the right. You have an opinion on each individual issue. You should fight for whatever your opinion happens to be. Then when compromise inevitably happens, it will be closer to what you want and further away from what people who disagree with you want.
If you fight for the compromise, you are just doing yourself a disservice. You aren't actually expressing your political will. Instead, you are a just a tool. Your political ideas will always depend on the ideas of others. When the two parties state their opinions, you move to be in between them. When one party changes its idea, you move to be in the middle. Nobody is moved by you. You are being moved by others. You are a tool.
Compromise is inevitable. It doesn't need anyone to fight for it. Instead, don't be a non-confrontational pussy and fight for what you believe. Then all those people in the middle will move closer to you, and you become the player, not the pawn. If you don't have an opinion, what kind of spineless person are you?
Again, Scott shows he knows nothing about making a law and politics.
In terms of "compromising to the middle," there are many issues where I feel compromise is laughable at best. I'm not going to moderate my opinions on Guantanamo Bay, torture, the Iraq war, domestic spying, abortion rights, gay marriage, or a whole host of other specific issues for any reason. Should we agree to only torture half of our dubious prisoners of "war?" Should we agree that only half of abortions should be banned?
Regardless of the problems with the Democrats, the Republicans have consistently and enduringly been on the wrong side of far too many uncompromisable issues for me to even consider them as a valid political party worthy of my consideration. My choices begin at the Democrats as a bare minimum and move leftward from there. I'll take all the problems the left can offer before I'll be complicit in unjustified wars of aggression, disastrous foreign policy, and systematic torture.
That fact that anyone here even considers McCain and his party as viable alternatives is a little disgusting.
One article and an assertion that a short list of authorities agree with you is not "near universal" agreement.
From the article: "media analysts last night and this morning almost universally lavished praise on Gov. Sarah Palin's convention speech." They went on to list certain individuals, but made the comment that overall the agreement was "near universal."
For those who care about economic issues, the Republicans are a viable alternative.
How so? They're certainly not fiscally conservative, so anyone who's been voting for them on those grounds isn't the sharpest spade in the shed. I suppose if you want a party that pretends to be fiscally conservative while spending money as fast as it can and simultaneously lowering taxes, then the Republicans are a sure bet.
Plus, you can't vote for a candidate on one issue: they come with all of the baggage of everything else they want to accomplish. Republicans come with several disqualifiers in my book.
They're certainly not fiscally conservative, so anyone who's been voting for them on those grounds isn't the sharpest spade in the shed.
No doubt, at best they are the lesser of two evils. Nonetheless, a reasonable person could prefer McCain's economic policy over Obama's. (See: this opinion, and this one.)
If you're libertarian, there are bound to be issues from both parties that you like. The Deomcrats don't want to tell you what to do in the bedroom, etc. The Republicans claim that they want less government intrusion in your life. (I don't really believe this when it comes to social issues, but I do believe it when it comes to business. If you are someone who wants to start a business, there is something to take from the Republican platform.) This is a gross oversimplification, but you get my point.
From the article: "media analysts last night and this morning almost universally lavished praise on Gov. Sarah Palin's convention speech." They went on to list certain individuals, but made the comment that overall the agreement was "near universal."
I guess I'll have to take your word for it, because the link doesn't work. However, I'll bet the article was an opinion piece and didn't really cite statistics to support the contention that agreement was "near universal". I'll bet the person who wrote the article really meant that agreement was near universal among people he knows.
There are two problems with that. One is that you're arguing from authority again and the other is that the guy is probably just using anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence from my end is that there is near universal agreement among people I know that both Palin and her speech are unacceptably bad.
Did you guys see the 9-11 "tribute" video? It absolutely disgusts me how low the GOP will sink to garner some votes. The video served absolutely no purpose than to inflict the fear, hatred and suffering on the people who watched it again.
The anecdotal evidence from my end is that there is near universal agreement among people I know that both Palin and her speech are unacceptably bad.
No offense, but I'll take the anecdotal evidence from experts.
I think we're confusing criteria here. I can absolutely understand why someone would feel the speech sucked due to its message. If you don't agree with her platform, how could you feel otherwise? However, that same person ought to be able to independently grade it separate from the platform. That's why in speech class, you have to take both sides of an issue. A speech can be a "good" speech even if you disagree with the opinion of the speaker.
No offense, but I'll take the anecdotal evidence from experts.
What makes that person an expert? The fact that they have a job as a reporter? Does that mean you agree with everything any reporter says?
Whatever. I would think that someone as quick to point out logical fallacies would know something about appeal to authority. Here's a fact check on Palin's speech. Usually I don't like speeches to be so lie-y.
For those who care about economic issues, the Republicans are a viable alternative.
She [Palin] inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million.
Did you guys see the 9-11 "tribute" video? It absolutely disgusts me how low the GOP will sink to garner some votes. The video served absolutely no purpose than to inflict the fear, hatred and suffering on the people who watched it again.
They want to do that because that's the only thing that's effective for them.
That fact that anyone here even considers McCain and his party as viable alternatives is a little disgusting.
If you're libertarian, there are bound to be issues from both parties that you like. The Deomcrats don't want to tell you what to do in the bedroom, etc. The Republicans claim that they want less government intrusion in your life. (I don't really believe this when it comes to social issues, but I do believe it when it comes to business. If you are someone who wants to start a business, there is something to take from the Republican platform.) This is a gross oversimplification, but you get my point.
Actually, while this makes sense on the surface, it's wrong. I half-listened to Obama's speech while on the plane to Seattle. Hooray for Jet Blue free satellite television. Most of it was typical political rhetoric blah, blah, blah.
However, there was one thing Obama said that really stood out to me because it was a very very specific promise. I know he can't live up to that promise without the help of congress, but seeing as congress is under the control of his party, I think it's a safe bet. He promised in his speech to raise taxes for big businesspeople, like oil companies and such, but he also promised to eliminate capital gains taxes for entrepreneurs and small business owners. As someone who has always wanted to go out on my own with some sort of tech/geek business that is sweet music for me.
Scott, don't you want your business to become a big business?
If it becomes a big business, I'll be stupid rich and have no problem paying the taxes. When I'm gambling my livelihood in the beginning, not having to worry about extra taxes unless I succeed is very comforting.
Joe, by experts I meant Stephanopoulos and Joe Trippi.
Believe what you want. Many of the same authorities say McCain's speech was teh suxxor.
BTW, did you see that stupid background behind McCain that made it look like he was in front of a green screen? There's speculation that it was supposed to be a picture of Walter Reed but someone put up a picture of Walter Reed Middle School instead. Priceless.
Since McCain was, for all intents and purposes, in front of a green screen, how long do you think we'll have to wait before someone puts up a youtube video with special effects going on in the background behind McCain?
Comments
As far as I'm concerned, policies don't matter. Experience doesn't matter. What candidates say to the public doesn't matter (since all politicians say what they want people to like). The most important thing that a candidate needs to be able to do is get people from both parties to his or her side. If you can't do that, then nothing gets done.
However, I don't understand why the use of the word "bias" arises. Many of us have decided that McCain and Palin are not good choices for their respective offices. How is that bias? Are we no longer free to make that decision? Or, are we biased because we do not agree with you? That is an extraordinary claim for which extraordinary proof is required. Prove it, or admit that it is bald hyperbole. I don't remember anyone appointing you to be arbiter of when things are broken on this forum. If that is your personal opinion, that's fine, but we don't particularly care to hear it. If you are genuinely concerned that something is broken here, you can say "goodbye to the forums" again. Maybe you can find another internet forum that lives up to your high standards.
Until then, it would be so much more pleasant if you would refrain from whining that not everyone agrees with you.
Also, screw people always going for the so-called "middle". You're just unprincipled non-confrontational wusses. I mean seriously. What if the two major parties we had were the current GOP and the nazi party (godwin). Are you going to suggest that maybe killing some of the jews is right policy because it's in the middle? There is a such thing as right and wrong. There is a such thing as political and philosophical ideals.
Take for example that recent video with the Paris Hilton. Oh, she sounded so reasonable arguing for a position in the middle. Limited offshore drilling and whatnot. Too bad she was flat out wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, offshore drilling won't have any significant impact, and won't have any impact for a long time.
Anyone who argues for the middle is an indecisive coward who's opinion will get no respect from me.
One article and an assertion that a short list of authorities agree with you is not "near universal" agreement.
Finally, there is no rule in place that says that we must agree with anyone. Isn't the position that we must agree with authority figures one of those logical fallacies you enjoy citing so much?
No, we all agreed, you aren't.
Back at my friend's apartment we compared pictures of political rallies in 1930's Berlin to the DNC and RNC. Of course the political views are different, but it is hard not to cringe at the sheer number of flags being waved and projected. Unhealthy nationalism is alive and well!
There's no such thing as "in the middle". That's just a construct of our imagining of one party on the left and one on the right. You have an opinion on each individual issue. You should fight for whatever your opinion happens to be. Then when compromise inevitably happens, it will be closer to what you want and further away from what people who disagree with you want.
If you fight for the compromise, you are just doing yourself a disservice. You aren't actually expressing your political will. Instead, you are a just a tool. Your political ideas will always depend on the ideas of others. When the two parties state their opinions, you move to be in between them. When one party changes its idea, you move to be in the middle. Nobody is moved by you. You are being moved by others. You are a tool.
Compromise is inevitable. It doesn't need anyone to fight for it. Instead, don't be a non-confrontational pussy and fight for what you believe. Then all those people in the middle will move closer to you, and you become the player, not the pawn. If you don't have an opinion, what kind of spineless person are you?
Regardless of the problems with the Democrats, the Republicans have consistently and enduringly been on the wrong side of far too many uncompromisable issues for me to even consider them as a valid political party worthy of my consideration. My choices begin at the Democrats as a bare minimum and move leftward from there. I'll take all the problems the left can offer before I'll be complicit in unjustified wars of aggression, disastrous foreign policy, and systematic torture.
That fact that anyone here even considers McCain and his party as viable alternatives is a little disgusting.
Plus, you can't vote for a candidate on one issue: they come with all of the baggage of everything else they want to accomplish. Republicans come with several disqualifiers in my book.
If you're libertarian, there are bound to be issues from both parties that you like. The Deomcrats don't want to tell you what to do in the bedroom, etc. The Republicans claim that they want less government intrusion in your life. (I don't really believe this when it comes to social issues, but I do believe it when it comes to business. If you are someone who wants to start a business, there is something to take from the Republican platform.) This is a gross oversimplification, but you get my point.
There are two problems with that. One is that you're arguing from authority again and the other is that the guy is probably just using anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence from my end is that there is near universal agreement among people I know that both Palin and her speech are unacceptably bad.
Linked for truth.
I think we're confusing criteria here. I can absolutely understand why someone would feel the speech sucked due to its message. If you don't agree with her platform, how could you feel otherwise? However, that same person ought to be able to independently grade it separate from the platform. That's why in speech class, you have to take both sides of an issue. A speech can be a "good" speech even if you disagree with the opinion of the speaker.
Whatever. I would think that someone as quick to point out logical fallacies would know something about appeal to authority. Here's a fact check on Palin's speech. Usually I don't like speeches to be so lie-y. Source. Second Source. They want to do that because that's the only thing that's effective for them. I wholeheartedly agree.
With Palin, McCain loses key "Earth is Round" demographic.
Another reason to dislike Palin - She supports aerial hunting.
BTW - here's a "near universal" agreement that McCain's speech was pretty bad.
Finally, does it fill you with confidence that Palin switched colleges six times in six years?
However, there was one thing Obama said that really stood out to me because it was a very very specific promise. I know he can't live up to that promise without the help of congress, but seeing as congress is under the control of his party, I think it's a safe bet. He promised in his speech to raise taxes for big businesspeople, like oil companies and such, but he also promised to eliminate capital gains taxes for entrepreneurs and small business owners. As someone who has always wanted to go out on my own with some sort of tech/geek business that is sweet music for me.
Scott, don't you want your business to become a big business?
BTW, did you see that stupid background behind McCain that made it look like he was in front of a green screen? There's speculation that it was supposed to be a picture of Walter Reed but someone put up a picture of Walter Reed Middle School instead. Priceless.
Since McCain was, for all intents and purposes, in front of a green screen, how long do you think we'll have to wait before someone puts up a youtube video with special effects going on in the background behind McCain?