Where's the old heated debate?
 

I've been absent from the forum for a while due to many personal issues and when I was active I generally didn't post on the politics forum because it seemed so very inflammatory on both ends of the politcal spectrum. Now that I've returned, I see things are a bit more civil. The biggest change I see though is the far right conservative side seems to be more silent. So what gives? There are still some lefties that sound off as much as before, the right though seem to have stifled their bark a bit. I'm just curious, have the events we've witnessed over the past few years given one doubts? Perhaps we grow in wisdom through experience ( Bush has still to learn that, pity.) Where is all the piss and vinegar? I guess we're saving it to blame on the next administration. I dunno, I just don't see all the crowing about Bush I used to see posted. Truly, I don't wish to be crass, but have any minds been changed, or are we just quietly scraping off the "W" stickers from our trucks?

I think it's a significant oversimplification to equate conservative political thought with support of George W. Bush. You're absolutely right that conservatives are posting less and less in Tilted Politics, but I think this has more to do with TFP than with anyone's opinions about the President. In my personal experience, posting in Tilted Politics is exhausting because very nearly everyone disagrees with my positions on any issue I might care to discuss. The fact of the matter is that dialogue only happens when people disagree over at least some debatable points. Hence, the fact that fewer conservative posters results in less heated debate. As I learned to my sorrow last September, a very large number of TFP members have some extremely flawed fundamental assumptions about politics that they do not wish to have challenged. Consequently, I have not again felt the need to engage in any sort of radical critique of the leftist thought that is taken for granted in this forum.

What I'm really trying to say is that the liberal majority in Tilted Politics is interested in discussing only a narrow range of issues that are predicated on false assumptions about the nature of politics. Sound like fun to you? Me neither.

Well, politicophile, Why don't you present topics that you'd like to discuss and see if anyone bites. As far as I can tell, that's pure assumption.

I wasnt around TFP when you had these discussions and came to the conclusions about the liberal flawed assumptions.

I am curious to learn more....perhaps you can provide a brief summary or point me to an archived thread.

Frankly I was around Politics when there was a very loud conservative faction - a faction which got away with flamebait and bullshit on a routine basis while those of us on the left were slapped back when we'd respond. I think it's rather nice that issues can now be discussed without the left being baselessly accused of being unpatriotic, etc.

I'd love to see some real conservatives come in here and debate intelligently so that we can discuss issues. I would NOT like to see us return to neo-con parrots quoting everything W says as though it's the absolute truth.

politico:

i guess i should add my confusion to the list of confusions--when you said this:

you appear to be saying that you see some kind of misunderstanding amongst the "liberal majority" here concerning how the political is defined/understood as a category.
or you could have been saying "they argue on premises that i disagree with"--which is not the same.
which did you mean?
if the first, i really dont see what you are referring to, but it'd be maybe an interesting conversation to have.
if you meant the second, i dont see what there is to say about it--because all it would entail is "there are different viewpoints that depart from different assumptions about x or y"...

as for your "radical critique"--bring it. it'd be interesting to see, and i think the collective could deal with it.

Huh? In addition to roachboy's questions, I would agree in that I have seen a thread or two where a few of us liberals maintained an unwillingness to explore an opposing idea/political view. The same can be said of both sides, however, this does not make it right. It should run in accordance with your signature...
There is a majority of people on this forum who do maintain willingness to explore the opposing side. This may not speak for everyone, but it seems to be prominent in many posters on our forum. The community benifits from us learning how to become civil and learn from each other, not by declaring the situation void.

Liberals often avoid addressing good points and avoid answering direct questions. So after making the same points a few times or asking the same questions a few times it gets a bit boring.

Personally, I have been in self-directed therapy with the goal of being more civil and less vicious. For the most part I have had success, although I have been tested.

after the Congressional elections I concluded that we should leave Iraq because Bush does not have the support of the American people or Congress (at least that is what I thought - now it looks like Congress simply has no balls or convictions). However, I am still 100% behind using military force preemptively if needed.

Bush's wisdom is lost on those who have no convictions. Bush says what he is going to do and does it. "Politicos" don't get it.

Personnally, I have been making an effort to understand the liberal mind and have taken a "kinder and gentler" approach during my exploration. So far it is pretty foggy. It seems the basis is emotion and then goes to extremist indefensible positions, peppered with illogical thought.
I have already started with the Democratic Congress, but i am really looking forward to Hilery being our next Pres. I actually think liberals are going to be disappointed when she takes a moderate stance on most issues and doesn't lead us into socialism.

Bush is basically a lame duck. The only issue on his plate is Iraq. The economy is strong, there is job growth, inflation is low, the deficit is getting smaller, no attacks within our boarders, etc, etc. If he gets Iraq under control he will have had a good presidency. I think the problem you see is the result of the fact that liberals don't have much to complain about other than Iraq.

See, this is the kind of crap I was talking about. Baseless insults hurled at the left simply because it's the left. This is the kind of garbage that doesn't need to be in here.


You're right. We don't understand the value in leaping headfirst into a volcano with both eyes shut while yelling "I'm the decider!" simply because you said you'd do it in a moment of stupidity.

More vague insults that don't add anything to the discussion. Again, this is the kind of crap that needed to be cleansed.



Yet a third instance of insulting those of us who aren't Bush Brownnosers. Just because we think the conservatives are wrong does not mean we're either radical liberals or socialists. But then you know that, don't you, and you just couldn't pass up the opportunity to slam the left with cheap, thoughtless pronouncements that break down completely under even the slightest scrutiny.

The only issue on his plate that he's paying any attention to is Iraq. There's plenty more on his plate, but he's ignoring that.

No, it is not. It's based on a shaky tower of credit card debt, and is not at all sustainable.

As has been covered before, if you get rid of millions of good, well-paying middle class jobs and replace them with jobs at Walmart, that is not growth.

Relative to what?


We are still talking about the united states right? Oh sure, for now the deficit is a little smaller than last year's. That's kinda like saying the Rockies aren't as big as the Alps. And when you realize that the deficit is cumulative and is then called debt, and you realize that the national debt is still hurtling upward at breakneck pace, you realize that claiming the deficit is smaller really doesn't mean anything.

You're trying to prove a negative. Because we haven't had any attacks, that MUST mean what the president is doing is working. But correlation does not equal causation. Just because we have had no attacks concurrent with Bush's policies does not mean Bush's policies are causing that no-attack condition. After all, the sun has not gone supernova in the past six years either. Would you suggest that this, too, is thanks to Bush and his leadership?

First, that's a VERY VERY big if, something along the lines of "if he fills in the grand canyon using only tweezers," and second, managing to stabilize Iraq does not mean he had a good presidency. He has a lot more to answer for, and we cannot forget that the ends do not always justify the means.


The hell we don't. Iraq just happens to be the biggest thing to complain about at the moment.

*Bush has also been an economic disaster (you can claim the economy's booming all you want - - go talk to the homeless shelters and the salvation army and all the other charities and they'll tell you something VERY different. Go talk to the libraries who's budgets have been slashed, and the schools who have 30+ kids to a classroom, and the formerly middle class people who are reduced to working at poverty wages because of downsizing, and you'll no longer be able to honestly claim that the economy is great).

*He has been a civil rights disaster (the patriot act, the Guantanamo prisoners, the secret CIA operations that are kidnapping innocent civilians from around the world and ferrying them to torture chambers in places such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq so that we can question them under torture while claiming that WE didn't actually torture them),
*he has been a scientific/medical disaster (stem cell bans forcing millions of people with diseases that could potentially be cured via stem cell research to rot away in the interest of protecting some frozen embryos - - -embryos which, btw, will be thrown away by the thousands by fertility clinics),
*a free press disaster (I'm not just talking about his media inaccessibility which, btw, is inexcuseable for a government official who is answerable to the public, but also his refusal to speak out against the FCC's anti-democratic, pro corporate lifting of media ownership restrictions),
*an energy disaster (pushing ethanol and hydrogen, the two "alternative fuel" technologies which are more resource intensive and environmentally damaging than gasoline,
*an environmental disaster (wants to drill the ANWR, pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, pretends global warming doesn't exist),
* a foreign policy disaster (damn near EVERY nation is pissed off at us now, sabre rattling with Iran and North Korea - we are very lucky that Korea got sensible in time and realized the path of disaster they were allowing Bush to lead them down),
*and a disaster relief disaster (New Orleans still looks pretty much the way it did a week after Katrina hit)

In short, this president is an all around disaster. I've tried but I can't think of one thing he's done well or competently. He got off to a good start with Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 but he lost interest in them quickly (which is why the man who attacked us is still on the loose, and Bush claims he doesn't really care about getting him). Instead he went after Iraq, where precisely none of the terrorists who attacked us were from, and left the real terrorist hotbed to fend for itself.

We have PLENTY to complain about - the only question is knowing where to start.

I guess the answer to the question in the OP is that the liberals are too oppressively irrational to be debated with. ;)

Based on my observations of this thread, it might be because some of the conservative members feel outnumbered and would much rather cruise around in the waaaaaaambulance listening to the cure.

I think that it's because ustwo hasn't posted much at all since the election, and he was kind of an inspiration to many of the conservative posters.

I was referring to the "premises that I disagree with," in your words. It is not a misunderstanding of the political as a category, per se, but rather a misconception of the purpose of government, the principle of maximal liberty, the practice of legislating morality, etc. I will try to write up my radical critique in detail when I have time.

Overall, I think this is a fair assessment. You might be surprised by the names of people I believe are unwilling to debate certain issues, though. There are some very respected members on TFP that are... less than receptive to radically different points of view.

Politico:

Do you think the criticisms of the recent opinion poll you posted was based on flawed liberal assumptions or were they a fair and honest assessment (with which you may disagree) of the validity and value of the poll as well as your subsequent conclusions?
(an either/or question - bad technique on my part :confused: )

Nah, I saw no manifestation of those assumptions in my poll thread. As far as I could tell, the criticisms consisted of legitimate concerns about the question wording and sample selection, with a few snarky remarks about the poll being "tripe" thrown in for good measure. When I get around to my radical critique, I think you'll have a better idea of what I mean.

:raises hand: That was me.

Would you have preferred "trifle"? At least that's a tasty dessert.

Really? Are you serious?

The reason I stopped posting is because everytime I did I was declared Racist, Imperialist, Ignorant, Ultra-Religious (trying to bring on the Apocolypse), and hundreds of other things hurled left and right. Though because they described it as "the right" it was not an insult and nothing was done.

Now there are conservative posters here that did flame, the last month of Ustwo's posts here I agree were pretty unacceptable. But to play the "pity us" card is equally unacceptable.

I can and have made the same observation on the other side, which is why I have come to the conclusion that there are a very few here with whom I am so far apart in our respective outlooks on the very nature of politics that further direct discussions have become pointless. (my first use ever of the "ignore" feature on a political forum :no: )

But,Politico...I do look forward to your "radical critiques"!

Completely, although I do not recall ever seeing you exhibit those behaviors.


I do not remember anyone assigning those titles to you specifically. Could you point me to a thread? I don't want to base arguments on my flaky memory ;)


And they are the ones to whom I refer

Pity us? I think you misunderstood. The only pity us card I see being played is being played on behalf of the conservatives. I neither deserve nor want pity - I just want decent debate - something we can't have if we constantly hurl baseless insults and half truths - not to say baldfaced lies - at each other.

My observations are based on my experience on TFP. Your response seems emotional and you seem to assume my observation is baseless. So rather than exploring the basis of my observation you respond with emotion, validating my point. thank you.


There are many threads discussing the war. Why did Democrats in Congress vote to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq? Where they lied to? Where they asleep at the wheel? Did they assume Bush would not use the athority? There are also other questions on this issue not honestly and directly answered by liberals.

You are correct. My coment was insulting. But, like I said I am making an effort to be nicer. I am sorry that I so easily offended you and others.

Are you calling me a "Brownnoser"? Are you guilty of what you accuse me of? Should I expect an apology? Will I get one? I doubt it, after all I started it. Right?

True.


That was somewhat hyperbole on my part. I did not think that literally he was only dealing with Iraq. I guess I should not use hyperbole. Have you used hyperbole? But wait, I started it. I get it now.

If the "tower" falls, what happens? The economy will keep going. There are many factors affecting our economy, credit card debt is one, but it is minor. Credit card issuers have carefully measured default risk and have priced their product accordingly. That is why people are paying between 11% and 21% interest. Some currently have no option but to work mutiple jobs at low wages because they won't sacrifice and save. As long as they have no options and won't reduce expenses, employment will be high, wage growth low, and consumer spending high. The rich will get richer. As a conservative I say each person in that situation is responsible for getting out of it. What do you say as a liberal?



What about the good jobs created requiring higher education? I factor those in, I guess you don't. Yes, fewer American's work in factories, but more work in clean airconditioned offices than ever in history.



Real work in exchange for goods and services. Today people work less for more and better goods and services than at any time in history.

Government has a printing press, They can always print more money to pay debt obligations. The real important measure is interest rates, which are at historically low levels. If you thought the government was at risk, you would demand a high interest rate for money you lent to the government. If you felt future inflation was going to be high you would want more than 5% on a 30 year bond. Low interest rates mean people with money to lend have confidence.

No. I was just stating a fact. I don't think Bush gets 100% credit/blame for our economy either. However, it it was a problem I would expect him to try to help fix it.

Perhaps in your book. I think the ends do justify the means.

True. You only have two more years of Bush bashing, what's next?

Bush has not had a real impact on the above one way or the other. Government spenting is higher than ever even if you take out war related costs. What is your answer, should he have spent more money? I think making people and agencies more accountable is the answer.

Now we switch to the "fake attack on the tactic" tactic. Let's falsely classify my response as an emotional rant rather than a valid retort. Unfortunately for you the majority of people who post here are far too smart to fall for these parlor tricks.


1) they didn't. They voted to give him the authority to take the necessary steps to defend this country from the terrorists. Bush then lied his way into trying to make it look like Iraq was a necessary step in that defense.

2) Despite the fact that republicans are extremely good at screwing up the government, democrats are not immune from mistakes themselves. They (meaning the collective congress - let's not forget that the republicans voted for this crap too) should never have placed that much authority in the hands of one branch of the government. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason - short circuit that and. . well, this happens.

Yes

To a point, yes.

Of course not. They assumed he would. Where they went wrong was assuming he would use it honestly, competently, and only when necessary. Especially given the man's track record, that was an appallingly stupid decision on the part of both republicans, and democrats.

Well if you'd bother to pose them, perhaps we would answer them.

You'll have to work much harder than that to offend me. You and your insulting comments are merely an annoyance, and an impediment to real debate and discussion.

No. Why? Are you one?

No, I certainly have never hurled insults at people who don't follow Bush.

No, and no.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that.


Yeah, I have. But in this case what you thought was hyperbole was actually the sad truth. Iraq is all Bush is thinking about right now, because he knows full well that his entire presidential legacy rests on the outcome in Iraq. If Iraq turns into a shining example of democracy, his reputation will be salvaged. If it doesn't, he'll go down in history as an abject failure - possibly the worst president to date. He KNOWS that and he's terrified of it. That's why much of the funding for his presidential library will go to pay a think tank to try and justify what he's done in Iraq. He's gonna keep pouring resources down the rathole that is now Iraq until he finally triumphs or has to leave office. I don't feel I'm stepping out on much of a limb here when I say he's going to be disappointed with the results.

Of course it will. Unfortunately it'll be going down in a nosedive. Remember the Great Depression. Yeah, neither do I - fortunately I'm not that old, but I've read plenty about it and ya know what? The situation was pretty similar. A different mechanism brought it down (asinine stock trading practices that resulted in a lot more money being thrown around than people actually had, instead of the current situation - asinine credit practices which are resulting in a lot more money being thrown around than people actually have) but the end result could well be the same. The economy is all about confidence, and once people realize they're in debt up to their eyeballs they'll stop spending - either by choice or because they simply can't get any more credit extended to them. Once that happens on a large scale, the economy will collapse.

You have a good point in that people are responsible for their own finances. Of course you're right, and I don't want you to think that I want the government to sweep in and magically erase all the credit card debt out there. Not only can the government not afford it, but it'd just teach people they can spend whatever they want and get bailed out later.

BUT, we have to look at WHY credit card spending is up so much. One reason is the economy. You're a middle class executive, you get downsized, now you work at walmart. But you still have the mortgage and the car note on a car that's not worth as much as the loan is for, gas prices are up more than 100%, natural gas and electricity prices are through the roof as well, and you still somehow have to eat. It's VERY easy to whip out that credit card not to buy the HDTV, but to buy bread and milk. Since the downsizing scenario has been happening left and right since Bush took the economic reins, it's not hard to see that the US economy is now chugging along largely because of credit card debt.

While the credit card companies will come out on top by charging obscene interest rates on their loans, the rest of the economy will collapse. If I can't get any more credit, and all of my money is going to pay off my debt, then I don't have any money left to actually buy anything. Repeat that over millions of people and voila, instant stalled economy.

We can play the "Fuck 'em, it's their fault, they can dig out of it" if we want, but we have to realize that if that many people stop spending money, it's going to depress the economy, which will effect OUR wealth as well.

List them, and show me how there are more good jobs requring higher education now than there were 6 years ago?

And more of those who are working in those offices are at risk of getting downsized. And once you're downsized it's damn hard to get back into one of those clean offices. You're far more likely to find yourself in a dirty walmart wearing a blue vest.

SOME people work less for more and better goods. Others barely scrape by. I find it disingenuous to compare this to historical times. Sure, we're better off now than we were in the middle ages, but that doesn't mean we're where we want or ought to be.


This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the economy. We can also declare that the leaf is legal tender and everyone will now be stinking rich. But if you just print money, you devalue the money out there. If everyone's a millionaire, then things will cost a lot more. It wasn't at all uncommon in Germany after the first world war for people to have piles of money in their house. But when it takes 2 wheelbarrows of it to buy a loaf of bread, that doesn't do much good.

The government goes apeshit on counterfeit currency cases not because they don't want the counterfeiter to have more money, but because that counterfeit currency artificially lowers the value of everyone's money.

Low interest rates mean Treasury hasn't adjusted them upwards yet. And they're in a bind there, because if they do, it's not just the interest rates on the money we loan the government that goes up, but more importantly the interest rates on the money we have borrowed from the bank also goes up. If you want to bankrupt everyone in the nation real quick, spike the rates real high and then wait for the mortgage to be due.


No, not 100%, but he gets a big ol' chunk of the blame. I would expect him to try and help fix it too, but then he's not real interested in fixing things that are broken - - look at New Orleans.


Really? I want to win this argument. If I kill you, you can't argue back and therefore I will win. Would that end justify the means?


Depends entirely on who gets elected. Don't for a minute think I won't be hard on a democratic president. If TFP had been around during the Carter administration I'd have been kicking his butt on here too. And don't think I won't support a republican president who has the right ideas - unfortunately we haven't had one of those in decades.


Yes, he absolutely has.

. . .

No, he should have spent less money.

Funny thing about neocon republicans (which are unfortunately the only ones to hold office since Reagan started it in 1980) is that they have this idea that lowering taxes (cutting income) while spending more money is a good way to lower the debt. That's insane. If that worked I'd quit my job, buy a ferarri, and have the house paid off in no time.

I've been gone for a few months now and am just now getting back (after a major computer disaster, which was predicated by a bit of a life disaster), and I want to honestly answer the question the OP posted.

I quit posting here even before the above disasters because:

1. As a conservative, I found it difficult to mentally/emotionally fight through the overwhelming liberal majority on this thread. It just took too much to put up and back a position.

2. I am not as learned as so very many here, so I felt and believed my opinion wasn't respected as just an "opinion" - I was pushed and prodded to have numerous bits of evidence for what I thought that I just don't have the experience google-wise to access, nor do I have the appropriate degree designations behind my little intense1 name.

3. My opinion is just that - an opinion. I believe what I believe because of foundational principles in my life and thought. When expressed, these were always discounted as irrelevant. (or, to be honest, when others expressed the things I believe, they were discounted. I sometimes live vicariously, as it helps keep the missiles away. :) )

4. I was often "pegged" as a follower of "Brent Bozell", and therefore, my opinion/posts were discounted as invalid by some posters. I wasn't even aware of who Brent Bozell actually is until I was accused of kissing his conservative butt here on TFP's delightful politics thread. For the record, I kiss no one's butt unless I know them personally. :no:

5. It was just getting too hostile for what I could handle, ya'll. I mean, dah-yum.

Perhaps we should have a division of sorts - there's one TFP POLITICS FULL THROTTLE and another TFP Politict thread for those who don't want to feel bashed for our political beliefs.

And - just to add - I find it a bit ironic that those who say "conservatives are wrong" (as I read a few posts down) castigate conservatives for calling liberals wrong..... I'm just sayin......

BTW - don't bash me, please. :shakehead:

A New Thought
 

I do not like the dichotomy that is generally accepted and imposed upon the US political positions. It's always right v. left, liberal v. conservative, democrat v. republican, etc. In reality there is no single set of positions that defines either one. If one can't fully subscribe to either one, all that remains is a undefined "moderate" position.

Hal has offered an opportunity to participate in a collaborative forum and I would like to suggest one that allows all of us that participate in Politics to deconstruct the artificial dichotomy and redefine a more accurate set of political beliefs that go beyond us v. them. Our members with a different kind of political governance, would be most welcome to engage with us.

I don't know what the outcome might be, but the effort has value in it's own right, imo.

Does this idea interest anyone else?

Hee hee, I got a kiss from Elphaba (hope you're a man and that you don't have a wife, or that your wife is European, one who appreciates cheek-kissy.)

I post again because I read Elphaba's sig - Molly Ivin's politics were certainly not any that I agreed with, but dang, she could make me laugh! Perhaps it was because she wrote with a 'twang, but seeing her column in the Tennessean newspaper made me both cringe and giggle. She was a good ol' broad, as many others called her. May she rest in peace, and may God bless her family.

But I wonder how many libs would say something similar about Thomas Sowell, Cal Thomas or even (sometimes) George Will. Not to even mention what would be said about Rush Limbaugh, or Gordon Liddy. (I do not include someone like Michael Savage - I consider him a hatemonger.)

All I ask as a conservative is reciprocity. A little respect from me and a little respect from you.

Too much to ask? Too na'ive?

Well if you're looking for a liberal on here to pull what the conservative jackasses on Fark did when Ivins died (die in a fire, have fun in hell, glad the bitch is gone, etc) then I think you're gonna be looking for a long time.

But I should point out that there's a fundamental difference between Ivins and Limbaugh. She argued with facts that she researched. He argues with facts that he makes up.

As for bashing you, I'm not going to do that, but I will point out that you seem to be saying you want to voice an opinion without being required to have a foundation for that opinion. I think you'll find that such an attitude doesn't go very far here. It's great that you have opinions, but the general expectation is that it will be an informed opinion. If it is not, you can expect to be questioned heavilly about it.

First, who says Limbaugh's arguments aren't based on facts? Who says Ivin's arguments were? I've certainly learned here that "FACT" is a relative term, depending on which batch of evidence you unearth to support said "fact".

Am I to take all of respected poster Host's evidence links as fact? Or yours? Who is to say what is fact? You cast aspersions on Limbaugh, but where is your evidence to say he is incorrect in the things he says? I personally am not a Limbaugh fan, to the contrary. But I also cannot say that much of what Molly Ivins said was actually based on FACT, and not on opinion. I read her stuff - she blasted Bush often with what was evidently her liberal bias. And that's ok, as she was a liberal columnist. I didn't agree with her, but I respected her.

I notice you wrote of Limbaugh, the most controversial of conservatives. What would you say of Sowell's writings? He's a very conservative writer and thinker - what say you of Thomas Sowell?

How can you debate my opinion? When I say that I believe in a certain position on a certain issue, and when challenged, I state that it is based on the principles by which I was raised, and I have decided as an adult to adopt them on my own - how can you debate this? Why should I have to find some meaningless google-tripe to support it?

On the other hand, I would ask you the same thing!!!! Hee hee, dang, I hate this whole seeing both sides of an issue..... :)

Sorry, I'm not a man, but thrilled that another women has ventured into Politics. The best journalist ever, imo, is George Will. Sowell, Thomas and the rest aren't worthy to be mentioned in the same breath.

And no one is going to replace Molly.

Now see, this is a debate on opinion - sister Elphaba (thanks for the sister kiss) and I do not agree about the brilliance of Thomas Sowell or of Cal Thomas. Cal is a bit more based on religious beliefs, I think, but Sowell is more intellectual.

I don't think anyone can replace Ms Ivins, but that's because I don't see any middle aged Texan or southern women who have the panache she did. Same as Ann Richards - couldn't stand her politics, but her personality made it bearable.

Perhaps I am yearning for an earlier age in politics, where it was more civil to disagree with one who does not hold the same beliefs. It did not get personal, and despite the Clintonian call of halting the "politics of personal destruction", it continues, with great abandon, in the Clintons' own party. By the Clintons themselves, as evidenced by the Clinton/Obama goings-on these last few days.

Right now, I am watching conservatives and the Republican party in what is unfolding. I must now ask myself if I want a traditional conservative or if I want a more moderate one. I'm still making up my mind. There are many in the field.

Read any of his books lately? I liked The Way Things Ought to Be. Good read. Chock full'o bullshit.

He claims the Sierra Club wants to limit families to 2 children only. Nowhere in any of its documentation does the Sierra Club advocate this position. I have personally interviewed leaders of the Sierra Club and have asked them this question, and they have emphatically denied it. Where did Rush get this information from? How does he know?


He claims that Mount Pinatubo emits more than a thousand times as much ozone depleting chemicals in just one eruption than all of the chemicals made by all of the corporations in history. Trouble is, he's making shit up again. The chemicals released by volcanos are water soluable, which means they dissolve and come back to earth as rain without harming the ozone layer. CFC's do not. (Sources: NASA, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

He claimed that the repair of the highways after the big Californa earthquake in the early 90's was completed so quickly becuase competitive bidding was not used due to the state of emergency declared. He said "Government got the hell out of the way. in several TV shows in April of 94.

But according to an article in the LA Times on May 1st of 1994, there was in fact competitive bidding in which the winning contractor beat 4 others for the job. Oh, and according to the same article, not only did the government not get out of the way, but the federal government picked up the entire tab.

He claimed on one of his radio show episodes in the summer of '93 that banks take on risks by issuing student loans. But since student loans are federally insured, banks aren't actually taking any risks at all.

He claimed in the above mentioned book on page 70 that "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth."

In fact according to the CBO, in 1980 the richest fifth of our population had 8 times the income of the poorest fifth. In 1989, the richest fifth had 20 times the income of the poorest fifth.

This last example is clearly either a blatant lie - i.e. he read the facts, they didn't support his argument, so he lied about them - or something that he has no actual knowledge of, and is simply making up.

There are lots more examples, but I think my point is proven.



Nope. Challenge 'em. Prove us wrong. But you'd better have YOUR facts in order if you want to try.

Well if we're going to assume that we can't ever know the facts or the truth about anything then we may as well shut down the entire TFP. After all it could just be a figment of our collective imagination that is distorting reality in such a way as to be harmful to our real lives. How can we know? Facts are facts. If the CBO says the rich/poor gap has expanded, and they provide statistics to back that up, then that is a fact. Unless you can prove that the CBO is lying (good luck with that) then we can accept that as a fact. We can certainly say that it is a fact that the CBO said it, whether it's true or not. For Rush to then say that the CBO said the opposite of what the CBO in fact said shows that Rush either has no command of the facts, or is lying. Either way, it doesn't look good for Rush.


See above.

Give me evidence where she made stuff up or twisted the facts to strengthen her argument, like I have given you such evidence with Limbaugh. I'll give you a hint: she didn't have to.

Um, you brought him up. . .

Well he's better than Limbaugh, which admittedly isn't saying a whole helluvalot.

He wrote an article last week about global warming that indicated his ignorance of science. He expressed disgust that the people in the 1970's who predicted a future ice age are now talking about global warming. What he fails to understand is that global warming is precisely what leads to an ice age. As the earth warms, the ice melts, the water evaporates, and covers the planet in cloud. This blocks out the sun, causing global temperatures to plummet. They only need to go down a few degrees to cause the glaciers to advance again. Keep in mind we're in a warm period of an ice age right now, but we're still in an ice age. We still have glaciers, permafrost, all the halmarks of an ice age. Drop the average global temp. a few degrees and the glaciers advance. As this happens they reflect sunlight, and things keep getting colder. This of course is a grossly oversimplified explanation because this is not the thread to get into writing a science book.


Um, that's pretty much the core of debate.

You don't have to. But you complained about being ignored before, and yet you are now setting yourself up to be ignored again. People who just spout opinions without any factual basis for them are not interested in actually debating that opinion. At that point, it becomes impossible to debate with you. You have an opinion on something. That's great. We all agree that you have an opinion. Untill you tell us WHY you have that opinion (and by the way saying "because of the principles by which I was raised" is the same thing as saying "because I just do") then we cannot debate with you. And since this is a debate forum, yes, you are likely to be ignored if you choose that tactic.

You see Shakran, that's why I don't post anymore. It isn't because I am afraid of taking on your challenges, but simply because I don't have the strength to do so. So perhaps I should not post here anymore.

Bye

I lean to the right on many issues, but I think I'd be considered more of a Libertarian than a conservative. I don't post in Tilted Politics very often because I don't post at TFP as a whole very often. Since the time I spend here is limited, I've decided that I don't want to spend that time arguing - especially when most people won't ever change their minds (that includes me).

Does this mean I won't debate politics again at TFP? No. It just means I won't bother to do it all that much.

We have gone off topic. I would be happy to disuss any of the issues in a new thread or one of the existing threads already covering the topic.

Just one final point from me here on "does the means justify the ends" because it is fundemental to our differences. I will do whatever it takes, regardless of the means, to protect my family, property, and liberty. I draw the line at cheating, lieing, stealing, etc, for personal gain. However, I never assume others wont.

I had an experience when I was a child, I overheard my mother talking to a friend who was in an abusive relationship. At one point my mother (a person of impecable character) asked her friend "what are you willing to do to protect your children and get out of the situation"? My mother's friend was crying and said she did not know. then my mother angrily said - "if you are not willing to lie cheat, steal and fight for you children to protect your children, you don't deserve to be a mother". Those words resonate in my mind every day. My mothers friend did get out of the relationship. So when I think of national defense issues - I think in terms of doing what need to be done. When I think of economic issues - I think in terms of each individual needing to take control of their situation. This is the conservative view point I have. If it is wrong, so be it. It is the view I will take to my grave.

Ace, small observation:

This doesn't really jive with what you wrote above about being confused by the liberal outlook because it is clouded with emotion. From your description, the conservative viewpiont is much more emotionally based than the posts I see from our more liberal members.

Am I misunderstanding one of your posts or is this just one of those things?

The rational response to a superpower who will "lie cheat and steal" on a whim is to build nuclear weapons, aim them at the superpower, and say "do you feel lucky, punk?"

The rational response to a superpower who acts in a predictable, rule-of-law, justified manner is to engage in dialog and economic exchange.

Which of these two worlds would you rather live in? The one where the rational response is to ally with the USA, or the one where the rational response is to aim nukes at the USA?

Enlightened self-interest argues that behaving honourably is in your own best interest, above and beyond the moral reasons to behave honourably.

Responding to an attack that is nearly completely based on Fear with "lie, cheat and steal" tactics is not just morally repugnant, but politicaly stupid. The USA is not in serious danger from any terrorist tactic -- if a 9/11 sized event happened every single year, the cost of life and economic damage from automobile accidents would still be greater by an order of magnitude.

Terror is not an existential threat to the USA -- the response to Terror is.

And, btw, the rule is "the ends do not always justify the means". Not "the ends do not justify the means" or "the ends justify the means" -- both of those two positions are equally morally bankrupt.

It is morally defendable to be willing to "lie, cheat and steal" to protect the very life of your children (you missed kill) -- but if you break into a school in order to change your child's mark from an A- to an A... One must wonder if your behaviour might be a sign of stupidity.

When you see someone holding a gun to a loved one's head, shooting them in the head (the means) are justified by the ends (saving your loved one).

Spot on.

I think my viewpoint is grounded in reality. In theory it may feel good to pretend that the means doen't justify the ends but in the real world feel good theory doesn't always work. Liberals tend to get upset when things don't fit into their feel good theories. For example there was a thread on the UN, Bolton and diplomacy. In theory using diplomacy you create "win-win" situations where everyone feels good. In reality there are winners and losers. The liberal resonse to this reality was an emotionally charged response about Bolton's personality rather than the issues at the UN.

you seem to be advocating slash and burn foreign relations. You seem to be of the opinion that our foreign policy should be if you don't agree with us, we'll kick the crap out of you until you do.

But history doesn't bear you out. Time and time again throughout history the military conquerer has eventually been soundly defeated. Rome, Napoeleon, Britain, Nazi Germany, Japan - all of them finally pissed off enough of the world that they got pounded, and not one of them has returned to anywhere near their full territorial glory. If that's the end that you want to see happen to the United States then we're on the right path to achieve that goal. Eventually we're going to piss off the world enough that they turn against us militarilly and suppress our power out of self defense. After all, we're a very dangerous bully right now. We've had a wonderful time poking our tanks into places they do not belong for decades, and not one of those little excursions has turned out well for the interested parties. Eventually the world will put a stop to it and stamp out the danger that we have become.

You inserted "whim" I did not. There are certain situations that I personally take serious. When people threaten to kill me, my family, Americans simply because we exist, is a problem. Personally, I am willing to do what it takes to protect my family and other Americans, even torture. I have no problem with the Patriot Act, and no problem with the Bush Admin. wire-taps or holding suspected terrorists without trial. I know not everyone feels this way and I am more extreme than most, but that is why i need folks like you. But on the otherhand you need folks like me, even if you don't understand why.

If other nations want an arms race, I say bring it on. We won one in the past, we can do it again. Like I have written before we are the top dog. We are going to remain the top dog.

When you study history, you know that power struggles have never been rational.

We live in a world where "nukes" are aimed at the USA. This is a false choice.

In theory I agree. I wish we did live in a world where we did not have to get our "hands dirty".

If you were President and we were at the verge of war, would you authorize a spy program against our potential enemy? Would you spy program involve under-cover agents who lied, cheated and stole information?

Your "morally repugnant" comment strikes me as pollyannish. But you are a liberal.

P.S. Please feel free to avoid the questions on the spy program, I would not want you to get lost deeper into the fog.

It's all well and good to stand by "the ends justify the means" but so far I have seen very few satisfactory "ends" coming out of American interventionism.

Latin America is a mess in part because of US foreign policy of supporting military dictators

The Middle East is unstable largely thanks to interventions like the coup of an elected government that was replaced with the Shah (orchestrated by the CIA).


I am not saying that America doesn't do good things it's just that saying the ends justifies the means comes across as a bullshit excuse to simply throw your military weight around. There *are* other ways to achieve "ends" and they don't always involve military might.

The problem is they typically take longer to implement than a four-year term.

We are not an agressive nation. We use force to protect our national interests, that is a big difference.

Actually, I don't see any difference at all. Can you elaborate? It seems to me that an aggressive nation by definition is one that uses force to protect it's national interest. A passive nation, the logical antithesis, would not.

I think you choose your moments. I agree if you go around doing what ever you want based on saying the means justify the ends, that is a problem. I am not saying that. Are you saying the means never justify the ends? Are we talking about degrees of difference in our views or what?

the historical examples Shakran gave all included empire buiders. We are not trying to build an empire.