Young Republicans are Comedy Gold

[Darth Wong]

I love the way they screech that the Fairness Doctrine would kill conservative talk radio while simultaneously claiming that "the media has a liberal bias". Why would fairness kill conservative talk radio unless (shock!) conservative talk radio is hopelessly biased toward the right wing? Shouldn't they welcome the Fairness Doctrine, which would stamp out this imaginary left-wing media bias they're always whinging about?

This is indicative of the kind of doublethink that Kast insists is not endemic to the conservative political movement in America, but which certainly seems to be there.

Kast also seems to be labouring under the assumption that Limbaugh is not representative of American conservatives; it would be nice to see some examples of American conservatives publicly repudiating him, then.

[General Zod]

I never understood why people were so vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. From the look of it it appeared to promote a balanced discourse on controversial topics instead of something horribly one-sided, biased and worthless, yet people constantly screech about free speech nonsense. Which is kind of hilarious when you consider that conservatives are always the ones going on about teaching the controversy.

[born in shadow]

I never understood why people were so vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. From the look of it it appeared to promote a balanced discourse on controversial topics instead of something horribly one-sided, biased and worthless, yet people constantly screech about free speech nonsense. Which is kind of hilarious when you consider that conservatives are always the ones going on about teaching the controversy.

I think the idea is that they want to support a debate on both sides only when their side isn't involved, or has been crushed. This way, they might still grab a few fence sitters or help support whatever supporters they have in the crowd.

When they already are holding the cards, as is the case of "news" programs like FOX, they don't want to lose their holdings to fair debate or anything.

I dunno, it makes sense to me.

-Aaron

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never understood why people were so vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. From the look of it it appeared to promote a balanced discourse on controversial topics instead of something horribly one-sided, biased and worthless, yet people constantly screech about free speech nonsense. Which is kind of hilarious when you consider that conservatives are always the ones going on about teaching the controversy.

My problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that there are many issues in which one side or the other does not have a valid argument to support themselves. Evolution vs. creationism, for example. The Fairness Doctrine forces coverage to look at creationism as equally as they would evolution. That said, there are many other issues in which there are two legitimate sides to an argument. Journalists are supposed to be balanced anyway. I know it isn't always the case, but broad legislation is not the answer to some journalists being hacks. Now, you can also make the argument that the Fairness Doctrine does not apply to journalists, per se, as many of the programs that fall under it are not news, but opinion. In that case, I don't see the need for the Fairness Doctrine: people watch opinion shows to hear their own opinions reinforced, not to get informed and change their minds.

[Keevan_Colton]

The problem there Ziggy is the lack of any kind of real public service mandate to the news. A key ingredient for a functioning democracy is a well informed electorate. Without a media that provides that democracy cannot function.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem there Ziggy is the lack of any kind of real public service mandate to the news. A key ingredient for a functioning democracy is a well informed electorate. Without a media that provides that democracy cannot function.

I agree. My point was concerning specifically the radio talk shows that the Fairness Doctrine covers. Most of these shows do not help inform anyone on anything. Rush Limbaugh is certainly not living up to any standards of journalistic responsibility.

[Bellator]

The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that is doesn't cover all media. The NY Times or MSNBC will not be affected. Which pisses of conservatives.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that is doesn't cover all media. The NY Times or MSNBC will not be affected. Which pisses of conservatives.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't cover cable? Then FOX would be exempt.

Talk radio needs to be cleaned up. It's incredible how totally one-sided the politics on talk radio is. Even rock station DJs seem to be overwhelmingly right-wing, and they're not afraid to blather on about it. And I'm not talking about "showing a slight bias", but rather, pure propaganda.

[SirNitram]

I don't think the Fairness Doctorine would be a useful measure(Then again, this fear of it's ressurection is as anchored in reality as the marsh mouse protection or maglev to Vegas, which is to say not at all). That being said, with sixty percent of the population polled as liberal, progressive, or Democrat, competition, if actually allowed, would counterbalance nicely.

[Patrick Degan]

Only a moron fails to grasp that the entire tenor of that ad was to frighten whites into believing that President Dukakis would open the prison doors to let out the black hordes TO COME AND RAPE YOUR DAUGHTERS/WIVES/SWEETHEARTS.

That, or somebody who just loves to clap on tin foil hats and has a vested interest in screeching that Republicans must be racists. You know. Like, you.

Pathetic attempt at insult. Ignore.

Somebody who alleges that the sheer effectiveness of the Hoton campaign is actual evidence of its racist character. How are the two notions – effectiveness and racism – even remotely related?

Will it really be necessary to point this out to you yet again?

Somebody who produces an anonymous quotation from a single staffer who alleges that something is racially motivated.

Simple pig-headed denial does not a rebuttal make.

And yet look at the other pieces of evidence. They simply don’t fit. A TV spot that utilized some thirty actors in the role of furloughed cons, only five of whom were minorities (three blacks, two Hispanics). Dukakis’ campaign own rebuttal, which involved a Hispanic. Could it be that cases of recidivism among convicted murderers while on furlough are simply rare, encompassing a very small number of cases that ever attract attention from the general public?

No, because the very clear tenor of the ad was to invoke white panic and Lee Atwater's own staffer confirmed this. Only you would attempt to handwave away a direct statement by an actual player in that sordid mess as not proving anything.

No! Not a chance! Because Deegan says so.

My my, how desperate you grow in your blathering.

Hearsay. Again we have no names; just “witnesses” and “everybody on the campaign charter.”

There —corrected for accuracy.

Only the blind fail to see that the Nixonian Southern Strategy's clear appeal to white interest remains the basis for continuing GOP political control of the Old Confederacy. You try desperately to make it an issue of "Christian values", but those values are inseperable from those of Neo-Confederate ideology. And in the end, as always, the only interests that are secured by this politics of division are those of rich old white men.

Your lengthy quotations do nothing to hide the fact that you (1) cannot explain how the Republican Party services white racial interests in an era when segregation is no longer a functioning institution; (2) have not substantiated that Affirmative Action or other remotely “racial” issues motivates the Republican party primarily, or even significantly; (3) that Christian values are racist (that they are exclusionary is a given); (4) that the sole criteria of a “legitimate” vote is economics.

Wall of Ignorance. I supposed this was the inevitable next step. BTW, your point (3) is a strawman. I did not say Christian values were racist per-se. And as for point (4), economic self-intereset is a major legitimate criteria for voting in elections. Anything else is moonshine no matter how much emotional investment is involved.

Again and again, you make an implicit assertion – essentially a form of paternalistic assumption of responsibility for minority peoples whom you suggest ought to be voting as blocs – that there are only certain issues that “really matter.”

You would have an argument if I went on and presumptuously proceeded to lecture people on how they should vote and why they are voting wrong. Since I do no such thing, you are, as always, full of bullshit.

Rogue-9's case is ironclad. The beliefs of individual grunts on the front lines, or even of a few of the officer corps, is immaterial next to the fact that the Southern leadership knew full well what the war was about and what they were seeking to defend, as the various ordinances of secession spell out in black-and-white. Millions of southern children have been fed Lost Cause propaganda for more than a century so they don't ever see that secession was always about white power and the right to keep slaves.

You’ve gone completely off-reservation here – but after admitting that propaganda is the active factor. Concession accepted.

No, Axi, you were the one who opened the door on the subject of the Lost Cause and how it's taught to Southern schoolchildren, and tried spreading a cloud over the issue with the apologist point of view. So take the "concession accepted" pronouncement and shove it.

The facts do indeed speak for themselves, despite your attempts at obsfucation. Showing an image of a dead monkey and linking it to the stimulus bill which is the hallmark of President Obama's programme as part of a very opaque joke does not erase the implied racist connotations of the piece no matter how much you like to pretend it does. As this editorial piece which was quoted in the thread on this site about the cartoon in question outlines it:

Once again, you offer assertions without providing any evidence whatsoever to back your claims. Essential to your argument is proving that the stimulus bill was widely regarded as Obama’s creature rather than either (A) the work of Nancy Pelosi, or (B) the work of Congress, generally. Interestingly, however, that you have given up trying to complain that the issue wasn’t sufficiently well-known to Post readers to justify a cartoon.

Are you insane? Obama is the fucking champion of the bill, the man who was pushing for it to get through Congress. His name is inextricably linked to it, publicly and politically. The most natural association is to the president, moron.

Uncle Tom is not a racist slur, no matter how much you wish to believe it is. Racism applies only to members of another race or ethnic group. "Uncle Tom" is used as an insult and a caricature between blacks, but the term itself does not connote an ethnic-based definition of superiority/inferiority, which is what racism is.

If one is called an “Uncle Tom,” the implication is clearly that they are serving somebody of another race. This presumes (1) that there is an “appropriate” racial vote/orientation for the individual in question to follow; (2) that the interests of the two racial groups are incompatible. What part of, “This is bigotry” so eludes you? You’re standing here pulling out dictionaries to support a tenuous definition of racism – while insisting that you know what’s best for blacks. It doesn’t get much more priceless than that.

"Supporting a tenuous definition"? No, Axi, that's you and your self-appointed semantics-whoring toadie, Terraltha. And only you are deriving the "incompatable" interpretation between whites and blacks in the Uncle Tom terminology. Nor am I stating I "know what's best for blacks". That is your bizarre invention and clearly a backhanded attempted at an ad-hominem as well as an appeal to motive. You're really going off the deep end this time.

I'm sorry if reality doesn't suit you. But then, we've know you've had this problem for years. Somebody who is casting aside what his objectively observable best interests are in favour of wedge-issues being pushed by the people who want to see to it their own power is preserved at all costs IS voting against his own interests, moron.

You can’t even define what are “objective observable best interests.” At best, they are simply your own issue hierarchies, transplanted to minorities. Again, this is Colonialism by Deegan.

No, it's observation. I've no idea what psychotic visions you're tapping into by calling this "colonialism". Time to have your meds readjusted, I think.

What sort of horseshit non-answer is that supposed to be?! Republican lawmakers are on record as stating that Rush represents "the true spirit of the Republican Party". That means they give tacit approval and support to his vile ideology. Either you are a complete imbecile for trying to spew that with a straight face or you are simply an outright apologist.

It means they pay heed to the fact that the radio provides an excellent pulpit from which to denounce them. Steele is a virtual unknown, particularly compared to a paleolithic figure like Limbaugh.

Non answer to the question posed.

[Axis Kast]

Of course, this is pointless because it assumes people would bother thinking about their beliefs and knowledge- obviously this isn't true for most of the populance.

Concession accepted.

When was the last time democracy was decided by one voter? Personally I find this hilarious because it suggests you missed the media breaking down voting propensity by groups of people being specifically targeted because of it.

And guess what? There are ethnic agendas if there are ethnic laws or civil rights issues relating to ethnicity. Last I checked, affirmitive action discriminates on ethnicity and would fall under such a category.

None of this proves that individual members of a minority group have uniform issue preference or hierarchies.

You wrongly assume that the mere fact of laws and politics that address – or purport to address – matters of importance to members of that group are necessarily the things that matter most.

If the Republican Party is the vehicle of rich, white males over a given age, why are there plenty of examples of wealthy Democrats?

First off I have never heard the phrase "rational inputs" before. Either I need to pay attention or you need to make up more intelligent jargon.

As for economic benefits, that IS the definition of self interest. The only other category would be social benefits like crime fighting, civil rights, environmentalism. We object to "hurting the gays" as fitting into this category because there is no objective benefit for the group.

It is your definition of self-interest. A flaw in your thinking that you implicitly admit to by referring to “social benefits” as a plausible alternative, although you manage to disgrace your position by limiting it to issues that I can only assume you, personally, find worthy of attention.

Did you miss my point? The Republican party has accused the Democrats of being surrendocrats and consistantly they do strongest on foreign policy and crime issues because they are seen as not backing down. Do you need me to explain why backing down is totally out of character for them?

You’re talking to a self-described Republican right now.

Actually, he is suggesting that all poor people try to work in their interests of becoming less poor. Unless they hate their children this is their primary interests. Because money buys just about everything- better schooling, medicine, food, housing, etc. Or, to be blunt, money is a more important issue than hurting other people because of your religious beliefs.

Only you could describe it like that.

Why is it so difficult for you to separate the subjective from the objective?

A Christian of strong faith is almost sure to disagree that money is as important an issue as you allege. “Right living” dominates the Christian agenda.

No
-There is an optimal voting pattern to follow that would best serve their group
-The interests of the dominant group os being served first so the minority group has to work for its own interests separately

Only according to your twisted math, which demands that we accept certain very inappropriate conditions as given.

We begin with your assumptions, which is how we get your outcomes. This is all simple social science critique.

You sound like my brother- "who am I to make decisions for other people?" First off, in this case, the majority of blacks agree with Deegan- they go overwhelmingly Democrat. It is changing as the GOP tries its kinder, gentler, side with 100% less cross burning, but the older generations aren't being affected.

Secondly, it isn't hard it figure out what is in a groups best interest. There isn't something magical- we just look at what provides the most benefit.

You’re – once again – making completely untrue statements. You are not looking at what provides the most benefit. You are making normative declarations about what ought to be the issue of primary importance to a given grouping of people, and then insisting that when they don’t act in the manner predicted, they have been duped.

M-O-N-E-Y. That and legal ad social equality.
Last I checked minorities are human like the rest of us and presumably have the same objective needs.

But not fulfillment. Not contentment. Not a sense that essential foreign policy goals relating to national security have been obtained or protected. No. Of course not.

[K. A. Pital]

I've been alerted to the issue of semantics prevailing over points in this thread, not to mention a lot of outright bullshit claimed by some. This thread is being reviewed.

[K. A. Pital]

Okay, here are the issues.

You're creating your own false equivalence by suggesting that a test of belief in hard science will confirm the political sophistication of liberals over conservatives.

Nothing of political sophistication was spoken; rather, the logical apparatus of conservatives was called into question. If you collectively indulge in bad logic as a group, that does have a bearing on using the logical apparatus to analyze other things. It makes it harder inherently to trust a person to make a logical conclusion about something else if he failed to use logic in hard sciences.

That is strawmanning his point, so please shape up.

My response is, if you're aiming to try and draw a comparison, but get called on it because there is actually strong equivalence between the parties, you can't defend yourself by complaining about golden means.

You're trying to postulate "strong equivalence" between "parties", instead of adressing the point about conservative groups, and the collective logical failures they indulge in?

Certainly a minority that identifies with Republican principles or policies is not a "race traitor."

However, the remark was not meant to malign an ethnic group; or an individual for belonging to such group; not to use ethnic characteristics as the defining quality of a person. It was a political jab, rather distatesful, but it's not logically a case of racism. And not because of inter-race racism does not exist, but because logically it doesn't follow.

I hope the bickering about "racism" will end here.

Germany has turned guilt into a national mania that is unhealthy for everyone. Their government didn't commit the only (or the largest-scale) mass murders in history.

Actually the mass murder was nigh unprecended. It is one of the largest-scale, it is larger than anything in terms of intensity - even the IJA occupation of China was more spread, time-wise, and thus had a lesser intensity of deaths. So trying to use this as argument that faulty historical science should be learned is not good.

The Germans were almost the worst thing ever on Earth. When you get compared to Pol Pot in intensity, you know that's so. The difference is the Germans had greater scale.

As for republicans having a higher percentage of high-profile racists and low-participant racists, I'm sure you could bring up statistics to show something, instead of appealing to several isolated cases. The analysis of ethnic, age and educational demographic of the elections can also give clues to the prevalence and possible prevalence of racists, just as would political incentives aimed against race emancipation (interracial marriage polls, I'm sure those are conducted here or there, that's a good statistical litmus test; also, incentives against it coming from politicians is a good indicator the Party is racist)

[Axis Kast]

Nothing of political sophistication was spoken; rather, the logical apparatus of conservatives was called into question. If you collectively indulge in bad logic as a group, that does have a bearing on using the logical apparatus to analyze other things. It makes it harder inherently to trust a person to make a logical conclusion about something else if he failed to use logic in hard sciences.

That is strawmanning his point, so please shape up.

All of this was already broached. You've conveniently pretended that I didn't explicitly identify Creationism as shoddy thinking, or agree that it can be used to call other decisions into question. This allows you to suggest that liberals are "the better thinkers," who will come up with solutions both more rational and more useful, most of the time. It's untrue. Conservative logical failure is not inversely proportional to liberal logical success. A failure of conservative logic does not necessarily make liberal logic any more appealing. The ideology of a conservative, or even "the logical apparatus" that took him from Point A to Point C, is not a litmus test of the quality of liberal policy proposals, which was exactly why I brought up several examples of liberals whose opinions fail on their own merits. That is always the appropriate test of policy.

You're trying to postulate "strong equivalence" between "parties", instead of adressing the point about conservative groups, and the collective logical failures they indulge in?

I've addressed the problem of conservative "collective logical failures."

However, the remark was not meant to malign an ethnic group; or an individual for belonging to such group; not to use ethnic characteristics as the defining quality of a person. It was a political jab, rather distatesful, but it's not logically a case of racism. And not because of inter-race racism does not exist, but because logically it doesn't follow.

I hope the bickering about "racism" will end here.

Chuck Turner referred to Secretary Rice as "a tool of white leaders." The remark was meant to malign an individual for alleged failure of belonging.

Notice, also, that Mr. Turner used the term "white leaders" instead of "Republican leaders." We are being invited to participate in his fantasy that Secretary Rice is being used to perpetuate one racial agenda as the expense of another.

Actually the mass murder was nigh unprecended. It is one of the largest-scale, it is larger than anything in terms of intensity - even the IJA occupation of China was more spread, time-wise, and thus had a lesser intensity of deaths. So trying to use this as argument that faulty historical science should be learned is not good.

Rwanda's was the fastest genocide in history, proportionately speaking. The Holocaust was arguably the first truly industrial genocide, and perhaps the only one.

But this is simply nit-picking on your part. My contention, with specific respect to Germany, was that being treated as "almost the worst thing ever on Earth" is patently unhealthy. It begs statements like, "Remember what happened last time we gave those people guns..." The structural conditions of Europe, and Germany in particular, were far more important than some special "German" predisposition for murder. Ethnic and religious bigotry is not a monopoly.

As for republicans having a higher percentage of high-profile racists and low-participant racists, I'm sure you could bring up statistics to show something, instead of appealing to several isolated cases.

That isn't a question under debate. We are debating, primarily, whether the Republican Party's appeal to the southern white voter is a function of its supposed role as a guarantor of African American suppression, as I understand it.

No, because the very clear tenor of the ad was to invoke white panic and Lee Atwater's own staffer confirmed this. Only you would attempt to handwave away a direct statement by an actual player in that sordid mess as not proving anything.

The very clear tenor of the ad was to invoke panic, period. The other major commercial associated with the campaign included three blacks, of thirty males total, which was an underrepresentation.

You've got a single individuals on the campaign team that provided his opinion -- which we can all agree upon -- that the Horton story was terrific fodder for bigots. Absolutely stunning. Who'd've guessed?

All of this, of course, presumes the counterfactual: that if Horton was not black, the Republican Party would not have run with the ad campaign.

Wall of Ignorance. I supposed this was the inevitable next step. BTW, your point (3) is a strawman. I did not say Christian values were racist per-se. And as for point (4), economic self-intereset is a major legitimate criteria for voting in elections. Anything else is moonshine no matter how much emotional investment is involved.

Says who? Deegan? You aren't qualified to make that determination. Who has vested you with the power and authority to make "right" determinations about where somebody else's interests lie?

You would have an argument if I went on and presumptuously proceeded to lecture people on how they should vote and why they are voting wrong. Since I do no such thing, you are, as always, full of bullshit.

It's paternalistic no matter whether you go up to somebody and make the claim or not. You've made decisions for other people. It is a crux of your argument that decisions must be made a certain way, and must conform to very specific criteria, in order to qualify as "correct" and "good."

No, Axi, you were the one who opened the door on the subject of the Lost Cause and how it's taught to Southern schoolchildren, and tried spreading a cloud over the issue with the apologist point of view. So take the "concession accepted" pronouncement and shove it.

An apologists' point of view is important if we are going to dig down into whether it is the result of racial prejudice, popular mythology, public education in the South, or some other factor. You, predictably, responded to my discussion of how the rank-and-file thought and acted (which did include a statement that the whole political act of succession was in the service of elite interests in slavery) by pointing up that . . . the whole political act of succession was in the service of elite interests in slavery.

Are you insane? Obama is the fucking champion of the bill, the man who was pushing for it to get through Congress. His name is inextricably linked to it, publicly and politically. The most natural association is to the president, moron.

So, it really comes down to points of view. Obama is only the champion of this bill if you conclude that the bill was not a historical necessity that would have been equally championed by John McCain. It is absolutely possible to regard the bill as a piece of legislation distinct from Obama, who simply had an interest that we pass something with sufficient "omph!" to get the economy rolling again, and to view Congress as the responsible party. In fact, I'm absolutely sure you'd agree that inasmuch as the bill has failings, those are the fault of specific lawmakers other than the president. No?

"Supporting a tenuous definition"? No, Axi, that's you and your self-appointed semantics-whoring toadie, Terraltha. And only you are deriving the "incompatable" interpretation between whites and blacks in the Uncle Tom terminology. Nor am I stating I "know what's best for blacks". That is your bizarre invention and clearly a backhanded attempted at an ad-hominem as well as an appeal to motive. You're really going off the deep end this time.

Turner alleged that Rice was being manipulated. But how is that possible, unless we accept that Rice's "rightful" place is in the Democratic Party? Why can we assume that? How can it be true? It requires determinations about appropriate criteria for choosing sides, and arrogating to oneself the authority to make ironclad judgments about where other people's interests lie. That's paternalism.

Non answer to the question posed.

Steele's schizophrenic behavior is a clear sign that important members of the Republican establishment do not believe that Rush Limbaugh does anybody any good. The problem is that picking a fight with a radio talk show host, particularly when you haven't got a household name or as effective a bully pulpit, can be counterproductive.

[Samuel]

None of this proves that individual members of a minority group have uniform issue preference or hierarchies.

You wrongly assume that the mere fact of laws and politics that address – or purport to address – matters of importance to members of that group are necessarily the things that matter most.

Of course not- they just have things that benefit them the most compared to all other options.

If the Republican Party is the vehicle of rich, white males over a given age, why are there plenty of examples of wealthy Democrats?

There are so many reasons I could give.

-Democrats are the party for rich people making them the lesser of the two evils.
-After a certain amount of wealth, higher taxes no longer matter (actually matches the behavior we see)
-Joining the opposite side increases the odds of rising in position
-Hold the good of the nation above the good of the group
-Were not always rich/know poor people
-Scared off by the fanatics
-Gay
-Their parents were Democrats

It is your definition of self-interest. A flaw in your thinking that you implicitly admit to by referring to “social benefits” as a plausible alternative, although you manage to disgrace your position by limiting it to issues that I can only assume you, personally, find worthy of attention.

Correct. Social benefits are things like civil rights.

And it isn't true that I limit it to things I alone find "worthy of attention". Some people value the environment for example.

You’re talking to a self-described Republican right now.

And you never back down
More seriously, the Republican party has an image of being tough and refusing to surrender- that is why they do better on foreign policy issues with the voters and worse on the economy.

Only you could describe it like that.

Why is it so difficult for you to separate the subjective from the objective?

You mean why do I insist that people work for their objective best interests? Because it is in their objective best interest- not to mention in their childrens interests as well.

A Christian of strong faith is almost sure to disagree that money is as important an issue as you allege. “Right living” dominates the Christian agenda.

I'm sorry, but anyone who operates of that sort of agenda is an idiot- attempts to make people more "virtuess" by decree have been tried and failed every time.

Only according to your twisted math, which demands that we accept certain very inappropriate conditions as given.

We begin with your assumptions, which is how we get your outcomes. This is all simple social science critique.

...Actually, basic logic, not social science. GIGO.

You’re – once again – making completely untrue statements. You are not looking at what provides the most benefit. You are making normative declarations about what ought to be the issue of primary importance to a given grouping of people, and then insisting that when they don’t act in the manner predicted, they have been duped.

The two sentances mean the same thing. I am looking at objective benefits because subjective benefits can be changed, not to mention might be unachievable/insane.

But not fulfillment. Not contentment.

So-Ma. So-Ma.
Blues got you down?
Soma, Soma
Turning that frown upside down.
When you need a boost and don't know where to go...
Soma, Soma.
Boosting spirits all around, shoring up those who are down.
Soma, Soma.
When in doubt, take a tablet-
Feel the problems rush right out.
Soma, Soma.
Day not going right around?
Soma will turn it all around.
No matter if your aches are big or small
Soma will fix them all
Things seem dark and glum?
They will be brightened like the Sun.
Soon the clouds will go away
Take a tablet of Soma every day!

http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

Sorry- had to get that out. Seriously, it is not the governments job to make you happy- only to allow you to be so.

Not a sense that essential foreign policy goals relating to national security have been obtained or protected. No. Of course not.

You mean like blockading Cuba or preventing other countries from invading? The first is rather stupid, the second would probably fall under "not dying".

It's paternalistic no matter whether you go up to somebody and make the claim or not. You've made decisions for other people. It is a crux of your argument that decisions must be made a certain way, and must conform to very specific criteria, in order to qualify as "correct" and "good."

They DO have to fit into a very narrow criteria in order to qualify- that is the whole point of logic in fact. Although decision making is based on preferences, you can point out that certain preferences are illogical and should be discarded.

[K. A. Pital]

That is always the appropriate test of policy.

In that case, I am sure you would be so kind as to compare the numerical weight of failure proposals in the conservative and liberal political spectrums, and show them to be roughly equal for these large groups? Because that's what people generally think it's like - one group's proposals are worse, statistically, than the others. The fact that both groups have had individual cases of bad proposals does not speak anything to us in general, statistically.

Large scale-logical failure is a symptom of a failing logical apparatus. There is less such failures on the liberal side considering even the very influence of religion, so the onus is on you to prove that religion does not degrade the capacity to produce logical solutions.

I've addressed the problem of conservative "collective logical failures."

By showing a collective logical failure of the same magnitude on the "other side", or pretending logical failures do not matter because... we should evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis, not looking at the statistical big numbers, and discount the influence of anti-intellectual doctrine as the prime destroyer of logical solutions? You haven't done the former, and the latter is not a sufficient answer.

The remark was meant to malign an individual for alleged failure of belonging.

Yeah, malign and individual for alleged failure of belonging to a culture. That's not the same as where a person is maligned for belonging to a group, and race is considered his prime "bad" characteristic. In this case, individual behaviour of Rice is under attack, and she's not considered inferior or evil on the basis of her racial roots.

My contention, with specific respect to Germany, was that being treated as "almost the worst thing ever on Earth" is patently unhealthy.

What's so bad about that? Germany is an industrial nation, and it isn't in any danger because it treats the Nazi era as the worst thing on Earth. It's not unhealthy for Germany in the least. But I see your little bullshit point - if it's "unhealthy" for Germany to think Nazi times were excessively bad, then it's "unhealthy" for the US to recall the history of the Confederacy as a history of unapologetic, evil slavocracy. Right?

[Axis Kast]

Large scale-logical failure is a symptom of a failing logical apparatus. There is less such failures on the liberal side considering even the very influence of religion, so the onus is on you to prove that religion does not degrade the capacity to produce logical solutions.

No, it isn't. The onus is on you to prove that the logical failures that lead to belief in, and propagation of, religious precepts has rendered Republican policy functionally useless.

Your problem is that, like Deegan and Samuel, you are capable of approaching Republicans only from one point of view: that they hold absolutely backwards views on every issue that could not possibly do service to any voter.

Whether or not you like a certain policy is entirely subjective. Worse, because the two parties don't accurately reflect the multitude of individual opinions of their constituents, voters must satisfice by selecting the party whose policy promises contribute to an outcome most closely apparent to the one they desire personally.

So long as specific Republican policies "get the job done," and those specific policies sit at the top of my issue hierarchy, I will vote Republican, with confidence that their solutions are superior to those offered by the Democratic Party, without any worry that there have been "logical failures" elsewhere.

By showing a collective logical failure of the same magnitude on the "other side", or pretending logical failures do not matter because... we should evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis, not looking at the statistical big numbers, and discount the influence of anti-intellectual doctrine as the prime destroyer of logical solutions? You haven't done the former, and the latter is not a sufficient answer.

A case-to-case basis absolutely matters in politics, because each issue is not weighted equally. You're approaching the subject entirely improperly.

Yeah, malign and individual for alleged failure of belonging to a culture. That's not the same as where a person is maligned for belonging to a group, and race is considered his prime "bad" characteristic. In this case, individual behaviour of Rice is under attack, and she's not considered inferior or evil on the basis of her racial roots.

Her behavior came under attack because it wasn't "black" enough for Turner. As a "tool of the white man," he was alleging that Rice had fallen prey to another race's blandishments and was "forgetting her place."

What's so bad about that? Germany is an industrial nation, and it isn't in any danger because it treats the Nazi era as the worst thing on Earth. It's not unhealthy for Germany in the least. But I see your little bullshit point - if it's "unhealthy" for Germany to think Nazi times were excessively bad, then it's "unhealthy" for the US to recall the history of the Confederacy as a history of unapologetic, evil slavocracy. Right?

Not at all. Samuel suggested that Germany had no business remembering its war dead. I don't think that's a very healthy approach to history at all.

I've also never said that flying the Stars and Bars was an appropriate act; only that it isn't necessary to appeal to racism when one wants to explain why that behavior is very popular.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Here's an idea for you Axis, can you explain -why- it is an unhealthy approach, by demonstrating the disease or malaise incurred by indulging such behavior and culture? What is the harm? If by "unhealthy" or "undesirable" you mean, "seems strange" or "feels foreign" that fails as an argument.

[Axis Kast]

Here's an idea for you Axis, can you explain -why- it is an unhealthy approach, by demonstrating the disease or malaise incurred by indulging such behavior and culture? What is the harm? If by "unhealthy" or "undesirable" you mean, "seems strange" or "feels foreign" that fails as an argument.

Very simple.

First, Germany's neighbors often utilized Germany's historical legacy as an excuse to bind it militarily. Neither France nor Italy suffered half as much by way of post-war punishment. Japan's neighbors wield the same rhetorical stick. I might as well complain that the French should slash their defense budget because Napoleon was once very successful.

Second, the other major exemplar of the trouble of collective guilt, Japan, shouldn't have to defend itself from accusations of wanting to resurrect the Greater Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere whenever it wants to play as an equal in the pantheon of nations.

National guilt complexes, distinct from memorialization of the victims, create political theatre that wouldn't be a problem for other states. Commemoration of the war dead in Japan is a divisive and highly politicized activity.

Third, when your nation becomes involved in war, whatever the cause, defeat will typically mean occupation. In the past, it also meant subjugation and being despoiled. To serve was the honorable choice.

[Samuel]

Your problem is that, like Deegan and Samuel, you are capable of approaching Republicans only from one point of view: that they hold absolutely backwards views on every issue that could not possibly do service to any voter.

False. I believe they might be right on gun rights and are mostly on pro-trade and definately on government unions.

Whether or not you like a certain policy is entirely subjective.

Wheter it works is not.

So long as specific Republican policies "get the job done," and those specific policies sit at the top of my issue hierarchy, I will vote Republican, with confidence that their solutions are superior to those offered by the Democratic Party, without any worry that there have been "logical failures" elsewhere.

They make the trains run on time
You could at least pretend to care about your fellow citizens and the welfare of the country. The problem is that although the Republican policies might prove superior toward dealing with foreign enemies (which is debatable), the main problems facing the US are domestic.

Her behavior came under attack because it wasn't "black" enough for Turner. As a "tool of the white man," he was alleging that Rice had fallen prey to another race's blandishments and was "forgetting her place."

White men doesn't mean that- it means she has turned her back on the black community once she got hers and is screwing them over for her gain. If she benefited from affirmitive action or anything like it than the insult does has validity.

Not at all. Samuel suggested that Germany had no business remembering its war dead. I don't think that's a very healthy approach to history at all.

No, I thought the German's should mythologicalize their dead like the US has done for the confederates. While their protections may be overzealous to the point of absurdity it is better than the US or Japan's attitude.

Neither France nor Italy suffered half as much by way of post-war punishment.

France was part of the allies and Italy joined the Allies... just like in WW1 come to think of it.

I might as well complain that the French should slash their defense budget because Napoleon was once very successful.

Except Napolean spread the revolution accross the continent, widely considered a good thing. Aside from aggressive war and the atrocities of the fighting in France he didn't do any violation of the rules of war I can think of.

Second, the other major exemplar of the trouble of collective guilt, Japan, shouldn't have to defend itself from accusations of wanting to resurrect the Greater Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere whenever it wants to play as an equal in the pantheon of nations.

Nobody does that because it was Japan attempting to cloak its actions in an aura of legitamacy. The fact that Japan is almost entirely demilitarized is also part of it.

Third, when your nation becomes involved in war, whatever the cause, defeat will typically mean occupation. In the past, it also meant subjugation and being despoiled. To serve was the honorable choice.

How far into the past are you going? By the 18th century this didn't hold true in alot of the wars between European states and it wasn't true consistently in WW2.

[K. A. Pital]

So long as specific Republican policies "get the job done," and those specific policies sit at the top of my issue hierarchy, I will vote Republican, with confidence that their solutions are superior to those offered by the Democratic Party, without any worry that there have been "logical failures" elsewhere.

Like that: "so as long as X votes against gun control, his other positions, like racism, homophobia, et cetera have no relevance to me". Thanks, Kast. I already understood that.

You're approaching the subject entirely improperly.

What is a "proper" approach? But yes, there are issues which are more relevant than other issues - tell me which critical issues have the conservatives excised logical judgement upon and did not have failure as a result? The "critical" issue of bullshit?

Her behavior came under attack because it wasn't "black" enough for Turner

He thinks she should've belonged to the "black culture" and not serve the interests of the white overclass, or those representing such interest? Um... Yeah. But that's an attack on the individual. Where's the racism?

Samuel suggested that Germany had no business remembering its war dead.

Germans for the most part do not glorify their dead. Remember is not the same as glorify. Got that?

Second, the other major exemplar of the trouble of collective guilt, Japan, shouldn't have to defend itself from accusations of wanting to resurrect the Greater Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere whenever it wants to play as an equal in the pantheon of nations.

Japan and Germany both generally have had to defend their actions when it came to military matters in post-war times. Everything else, they are acting like all other nations would.

Commemoration of the war dead in Japan is a divisive and highly politicized activity.

Yes. Anything wrong with that?

[Edi]

Large scale-logical failure is a symptom of a failing logical apparatus. There is less such failures on the liberal side considering even the very influence of religion, so the onus is on you to prove that religion does not degrade the capacity to produce logical solutions.

No, it isn't. The onus is on you to prove that the logical failures that lead to belief in, and propagation of, religious precepts has rendered Republican policy functionally useless.

Your problem is that, like Deegan and Samuel, you are capable of approaching Republicans only from one point of view: that they hold absolutely backwards views on every issue that could not possibly do service to any voter.

Careful, Kast. You accuse Stas of holding preconceptions and refusing to think of the issue, but you completely sidestep what he is saying and you don't provide any evidence for your accusation. Did it ever occur to you that his disagreement with you might be on the merits of the argument instead of having a foregone conclusion? You just assume that he will dismiss anything said by Republicans out of hand without a shred of evidence and this is the sort of behavior that is almost guaranteed to attract flames.

[K. A. Pital]

I thought we were talking about conservatives, not republicans as a party? The two became synonimous but we need to be clear about just what we're discussing here. Also, I don't think all solutions of the conservatives are a failure; I just see a greater potential for failure due to faulty logic they employ elsewhere; that is all. I'm not dismissing them out of hand.

[Axis Kast]

Wheter it works is not.

You're speaking as if in a laboratory. In the real world, there is constant disagreement about whether or not policy has "worked."

Let's choose a straightforward example. The Shah of Iran.

From 1953 until 1979, Eisenhower's policy put "our man" on the throne in Tehran. When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, was it possible to look back and say that Eisenhower's policy was flawed? If so, why? For more than twenty years, we had a serviceable ally. American distraction from the Shah's acute vulnerabilities were arguably a problem of intelligence policy more than foreign policy. Not so straightforward anymore.

The Iraq War is another good example. Some people forgive George Bush for making what they consider a "solid" call that didn't pan out, which is altogether different from botched prosecution of the reconstruction process. All depends on whether or not one accepts that Saddam was a danger, and perceptions of the relative likelihood that containment would be continued at acceptable cost.

We must debate specific policies to determine whether or not they have merit.

You could at least pretend to care about your fellow citizens and the welfare of the country. The problem is that although the Republican policies might prove superior toward dealing with foreign enemies (which is debatable), the main problems facing the US are domestic.

That is your point of view. Again.

White men doesn't mean that- it means she has turned her back on the black community once she got hers and is screwing them over for her gain. If she benefited from affirmitive action or anything like it than the insult does has validity.

The idea that Rice is "screwing" somebody "over" is based on assumption, not fact. The assumption is that black people ought to be a loyal to a racial agenda. Whites, of course, are free to vote their individual conscience.

No, I thought the German's should mythologicalize their dead like the US has done for the confederates. While their protections may be overzealous to the point of absurdity it is better than the US or Japan's attitude.

You wouldn't admit of the fact that many Germans went to war simply because it was a social obligation. We don't impose such standards on the victors. Can you truly not see why Southerners went to war in the United States? Arguably, the imperative to mobilize is greater during Civil War, when, as Paul Collier reminds us, the damage will surely be dealt on one's own territory.

France was part of the allies and Italy joined the Allies... just like in WW1 come to think of it.

France joined the Allies only after trying to resist in both North Africa and the Levant, and following liberation by external forces. Italy was toppled. These were contingent decisions.

Except Napolean spread the revolution accross the continent, widely considered a good thing. Aside from aggressive war and the atrocities of the fighting in France he didn't do any violation of the rules of war I can think of.

Except for reimposing slavery on the Isle of Haiti.

Nobody does that because it was Japan attempting to cloak its actions in an aura of legitamacy. The fact that Japan is almost entirely demilitarized is also part of it.

And now, complaints about Japanese intentions have become historical canards. Particularly in an era of North Korean saber-rattling and Chinese military expansion.

How far into the past are you going? By the 18th century this didn't hold true in alot of the wars between European states and it wasn't true consistently in WW2.

Fair enough. I can be more specific.

Defeat meant occupation during the Civil War. This was a recognized fact of the conflict. For individuals in the border states, it almost certainly meant that their property would be requisitioned or consumed.

It isn't necessary to look quite so far afield, however. Defeat during WWII at least meant that the homefront would suffer.

What is a "proper" approach? But yes, there are issues which are more relevant than other issues - tell me which critical issues have the conservatives excised logical judgement upon and did not have failure as a result? The "critical" issue of bullshit?

It's quite simple. I don't think we ought to leave Iraq so quickly. I think that Obama's plan to maintain up to 50,000 American combat trainers -- in the form of coherent units -- is ironically reminiscent of the set-up which fed into Vietnam. I don't like his patently interventionist picks for membership on the NSC and as ambassador to the United Nations. Nor do I support his willingness to scrap missile defense. I happen to think those are key issues. I regard economic problems as much less susceptible to presidential politics: I don't believe that the outcome under McCain would have been much different. He'd be running after that stimulus bill just as frantically.

He thinks she should've belonged to the "black culture" and not serve the interests of the white overclass, or those representing such interest? Um... Yeah. But that's an attack on the individual. Where's the racism?

It's implicit in the idea that she owes allegiance to a specific group, and ought to be derided as a traitor when she doesn't pay somebody else's conception of lip service to that agenda.

Germans for the most part do not glorify their dead. Remember is not the same as glorify. Got that?

Let me be more clear. He implied that Germans did not generally go to war to defend their homes.

Japan and Germany both generally have had to defend their actions when it came to military matters in post-war times. Everything else, they are acting like all other nations would.

It feeds negative outcomes. When a Japanese Prime Minister visits the Yasukune Shrine, is he commemorating the honored defenders of Japan, or poking a finger in the eyes of Japan's neighbors?

Nowhere else on Earth are people so tortured about their past. China has Mao. Russia has Stalin. The United States has its Indian fighters and its Confederate reminiscence. All must strive for an honest retelling of history, with none of the injustice left out, but taking on collective responsibility generations down the line makes absolutely no sense -- particularly when it is done in isolation.

I just see a greater potential for failure due to faulty logic they employ elsewhere; that is all. I'm not dismissing them out of hand.

Which is something I already agreed with. The employment of faulty logic is never a good thing. It is, however, relevant to policy only when it is applied to specific cases. If Darfur matters to me, then the statements of Democrats now in places of high power are disconcerting, not Republican endorsements of Creationism.

[K. A. Pital]

It's quite simple. I don't think we ought to leave Iraq so quickly.

Why are you concerned with Iraq? If it fails as a state, it would be irrelevant for America's well-being. Iraq is not a critical trade partner.

Nor do I support his willingness to scrap missile defense.

That's a reasonable position - perhaps the only one which conservatives can claim as a valid and logical concept. So we're left with missile defense, basically, as the key issue. Iraq, even if it fails, will just lead to abandon.

It's implicit in the idea that she owes allegiance to a specific group, and ought to be derided as a traitor when she doesn't pay somebody else's conception of lip service to that agenda.

Yeah, but that's derison on the basis of individual action. Distasteful, but she's not derided due to ethnical group characteristics.

Let me be more clear. He implied that Germans did not generally go to war to defend their homes.

He's right, they went to war to capture European territories, and clean some of them of their inhabitants. That's not "defending their homes", unless the concept of defense is so warped by racism that the full annihilation of others will be considered "self-defense".

It feeds negative outcomes. When a Japanese Prime Minister visits the Yasukune Shrine, is he commemorating the honored defenders of Japan, or poking a finger in the eyes of Japan's neighbors?

That's a legit question. Is he really about honouring the dead, or is he just being a quasi-racist?

Nowhere else on Earth are people so tortured about their past. China has Mao. Russia has Stalin. The United States has its Indian fighters and its Confederate reminiscence. All must strive for an honest retelling of history, with none of the injustice left out, but taking on collective responsibility generations down the line makes absolutely no sense -- particularly when it is done in isolation.

Yes, so perhaps the US should take responsibility for Confederates, Belguim for the Free Congo State and the British Empire for colonial destruction. So that they don't feel left alone, eh?

And in any case Confederates, Stalin, Mao have something in common - they weren't physically annihilating entire nations in war of conquest. So Japan and Germany are in a league of their own.

If Darfur matters to me, then the statements of Democrats now in places of high power are disconcerting, not Republican endorsements of Creationism.

Do you think the US will intervene there under either administration? I somehow doubt it. And while the statement you brought up about a potential invasion spoken by a Democrat, clearly identified a lack of understanding, the Conservative side implemented such an under-manned war in practice. In Iraq.