quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB]Week-Dead, please explain why my suggestion is, as you claim, "totally unreasonable." That is a rather extreme assertion. It is really just based on no more than the opinion some have that "a doctor wouldn't do that."
You are being told, straightforwardly, by a doctor, why it is unreasonable. You have read it, yes? What do you think of that? Is that 'no more than the opinion' that a doctor wouldn't do that?
quote:I think the reasons I gave are reasonable--the emotional trauma of learning about the other shootings could kill her, and she cannot ask about it while the breathing tube remains in. Remember, all she knows is that she was shot, since she was the first one shot. She does not know about her aide being dead, about her friend, Judge Roll, being dead, or about the nine-year-old girl, Christina Green, being dead, or the fact that three others besides died, and 12 more besides Gifford were injured. (I think that was the count--19 total shot.)
two things: you're inferring that she has any recollection of being shot (most victims of TBI wouldn't have a recollection of that event) and that she hasn't otherwise been told.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's also inferring that doctors think the best way to keep her from being emotionally traumatized is to make sure a huge piece of foreign material is lodged in her throat.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox News on air has stated that the breathing tube was removed after the tracheal tube was inserted, but that it may be a day or two before she is able to speak, even so. Her condition has been upgraded from critical to serious. Those who have visited patients who were intubated even for a day or two know how raspy their voices are, and how difficult it is for them to speak at all. It was also noted in the broadcast that she might be able to speak in a whisper, or at least mouth words. We certainly hope she will be able to speak soon, so doctors can begin testing her memory.
Incidentally, she may not remember getting shot, but she certainly must realize she is in a hospital for some reason.
In a few minutes, there is a scheduled press conference with her doctors. This will be the first time the press has been able to question doctors since the initial day of Gifford's admission. I hope someone will ask the questions I would ask--perfectly logical questions.(Post Edited by Janitor Blade. Disparaging other posters.)
posted
I did not hear any journalists ask whether she has been apprised of the full extent of the bad news about the shooting. (Only C-Span carried the full press questioning period. It took a few moments of channel changing to discover that.) The doctors did not volunteer whether they were deliberately withholding that information from her, nor whether they were instructing her visitors not to say anything about it. The quality of journalism these days is really poor. I can say that having been a journalist in the past. At least I knew how to ask meaningful questions and conduct an interview. Perhaps these journalists were somewhat intimidated, since many people still have a semi-worshipful attitude toward doctors even without realizing it. Doctors are human beings, subject to all human foibles. For some people, that is hard to keep in mind.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doctors did add that she will not even be able to whisper until the tracheal tube has been removed, since no air can pass through her vocal chords or mouth. All she might be able to do now is mouth words. But they did not say she has been trying to do that yet.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, let's sweep the bizarre, "Doctors might keep her dangerously subjected to a medical procedure in order to stop her from asking questions despite there being other, much safer and more humane alternatives available," exchange under the rug, Ron. Pretend it never happened, even though when you asked, "Why don't we ask a doctor?" and one actually answered, well, you just behaved as though it was business as usual.
Very courageous of you. Fearless in fact. One certainly wouldn't call such behavior...cowardly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did not hear any journalists ask whether she has been apprised of the full extent of the bad news about the shooting. (Only C-Span carried the full press questioning period. It took a few moments of channel changing to discover that.) The doctors did not volunteer whether they were deliberately withholding that information from her, nor whether they were instructing her visitors not to say anything about it.
I'm curious, why do you consider this question important?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm generally fine with agreeing to disagree when it appears the discussion won't go anywhere.
However, I'm not sure we're on the same page. It seems like you're talking more about person to person. What John Smith says to Jane Smith on the corner of Main Street and Washington Ave the day before yesterday, or what Aunt Margaret said to you on Thanksgiving about who you voted for. Is that important? Yes, I think it is, but not as important as what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is what national and state level politicians say on 24 hour news, and what major television and radio personalities saturate the airwaves with. Why? Because what John Smith and Aunt Margaret say has an extremely limited ability to reach beyond a very few people, but people with national mouthpieces can affect millions with what they say. It may be that a certain city is a bastion of liberalism or conservatism, but how far beyond their walls does that message really reach? On that level, yes, the labels you've defined DO sound like the sort of things that liberals say about conservatives. Some of them are fair, some of them aren't, though none of them are fair as a blanket label (in other words, they're fair when applied accurately to specific people). But they don't really sound like the sort of things that national level politicians say about Republicans on a regular basis. I don't watch MSNBC, maybe they say it there. Other than that, you aren't going to see that kind of language in the press really either (again, not in any press that has a major mouthpiece).
Do you agree there's a difference?
Incidentally, my family is all over the map politically, but in general, if we're pulling aunts and uncles into the mix, my brother and I are the only liberals in our ENTIRE family. Every single aunt, uncle, and cousin is a hardcore Conservative, and some of them are hardcore Christian fundamentalist conservatives. We've mostly banned politics from the dinner table, but even when we did talk about it on a regular basis, it was generally civil (though I think they're wrong about pretty much everything). I don't think they're evil, and they don't think I am. We're easily able to disassociate a person from his politics. That's something it seems people have a pretty big problem with these days. You know it's actually sort of weird that my brother and I are the liberals of the family. My parents are about as apolitical as it gets. They have their traditional beliefs, but in a million years they'd never even try to sway you in any particular issue. They taught my brother and I right from wrong, to be responsible and polite, but never breathed a word to us about politics. We developed our political beliefs on our own. I think our parents' politics is a much more benign, traditional version of what my brother and I support, but in general I find it interesting.
Out of curiosity, how old are you? I'd say my political identity really started to form around the time of the 2000 election (I was 16 at the time). Before then I never really took the time to become informed about things, and thus my political reality is most heavily informed by post-2000 events. I'm wondering if you're coming at me from an 80s or 90s perspective, and if some of our disconnect might lie there.
first, it would help if you said who, exactly, these 'mouthpieces' are. second, you should quantify the influence of these 'mouthpieces', maybe even show direct evidence of such influences in a cause/effect presentation. you claim republicans 'all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high', as if conservatives who dont have a talk show cant possibly have their own ideas that originate from a pre-2000 era.
why have a few people with loud voices come to embody the collective views of an entire ideology? when does a group making their beliefs/demands heard become known as 'poisoning politics'? is it because the system must be broken when liberals cant force through unpopular legislation? or do some people just not want to hear the concerns of the other side? i assert that people like Palin parroted the demands made by tea party members at town-hall meetings, not the other way around. some lowly liberals have surrounded themselves so much with like-minded individuals that they honestly believe the labels the liberals 'on high' have put on conservatives: bigots, fear-mongers, facists. sadly, liberals are resorting more and more often to appeals to emotion and ancedotal, heart-warming fictions.
its not hard to find educated conservative responses to the silly nonsense found on the liberal blogs and shouted by the progressive blowhards lucky enough to maintain the modest ratings needed to keep a talk show. if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs. or are we to believe the intellectually dishonest and inflammatory stupidity krugman published, mere hours after the arizona shootings, is an example of healthy, civil dialogue?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:when does a group making their beliefs/demands heard become known as 'poisoning politics'?
Do you believe that, for example, calling liberals traitors to their country and insinuating that it may be necessary to kill a few of them constitutes "poisoning politics?" Are those also beliefs?
quote:if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs
Liberals make the mistake of believing this, now and then, which is why they lack the party discipline possessed by conservatives. "Policing your own" is something that liberals do to a far greater degree, but which turns out to be pretty counterproductive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:first, it would help if you said who, exactly, these 'mouthpieces' are. second, you should quantify the influence of these 'mouthpieces', maybe even show direct evidence of such influences in a cause/effect presentation. you claim republicans 'all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high', as if conservatives who dont have a talk show cant possibly have their own ideas that originate from a pre-2000 era.
I think Lyrhawn is referring to the well known documents that Republican party leadership pass down regarding certain issues and the key phrases and language that need to be dropped when discussing it on TV, radio, etc, as well as what words ought not to be used when discussing it. It's not a secret, and the Republican party has put that to very good use. For example, during the Health Care Debates, phrases like "socialist take over" and "government bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor" were both phrases Republican legislators were asked to use during the debates.
Of course radio and TV personalities are not subject to those memos, but that does not mean they can't employ the phrases themselves so as to make the message more cohesive and consistant.
quote:why have a few people with loud voices come to embody the collective views of an entire ideology?
Because these loud mouths are the people cited by others when they discuss their reasoning. "I heard Sarah Palin say, and I think she'd be a great president, anyway, she said..."
quote:when does a group making their beliefs/demands heard become known as 'poisoning politics'?
It doesn't in of itself. When you lump your opposition together and paint them with the same black colored brush, then you are poisoning politics. Remember what happened when John McCain tried to say that Obama was an honorable man? Or when he told his supporters that now that he had lost the election, he needed them to show President Obama respect? The rage and anger was very evident. That does not prove the Republican leadership poisoned those people. But those people were most certainly suffering from the effects of poisonous anger. I'm open to alternate suggestions as to where that hatred and enmity came from.
quote:Is it because the system must be broken when liberals cant force through unpopular legislation?
This is a pointless dig, nobody here wants any party to be able to "force through" legislation. Just as I am sure that you and I both hope the Democrats do not use the filibuster to stop fair legislation that has a clear majority in the Senate after passing in the House.
quote: i assert that people like Palin parroted the demands made by tea party members at town-hall meetings, not the other way around.
To prove that, you'd need to establish her opinions on many of these matters she is currently sounding off about, before the rise of the tea party. I doubt that's the case, but I'd welcome the attempt.
This isn't a dig against her, I expect politicians to form and espouse opinions based on what their constituents want, as well as the facts that are presented to them. For example, it wouldn't be reasonable for Sarah Palin to necessarily have an opinion on universal health care before it came up in the political arena, she might, but it wouldn't bother me if she hadn't openly stated one.
quote:some lowly liberals have surrounded themselves so much with like-minded individuals that they honestly believe the labels the liberals 'on high' have put on conservatives: bigots, fear-mongers, facists. sadly, liberals are resorting more and more often to appeals to emotion and ancedotal, heart-warming fictions.
Exactly right, just as some conservatives have painted all liberals as Marxist, socialist, liberty hating, terrorist lovers. Further, some conservatives think that there is a historical narrative going all the way back to about Teddy Roosevelt where "progressives" were born, and have been trying to wreck this country systematically ever since. There's always "some" people in any demographic that we'd be better off if they weren't who they were. That's the way of the world I suppose.
quote:its not hard to find educated conservative responses to the silly nonsense found on the liberal blogs and shouted by the progressive blowhards lucky enough to maintain the modest ratings needed to keep a talk show.
I should hope so, any ideology should be able to surmount such a low bar quite easily. I find that I can destroy the "silly nonsense" found on many conservative and liberal talk shows without looking anything up, just looking at what I have observed and read in grade school. But I wouldn't exactly crow about it. I rejoice whenever a conservative writer helps me see clearer an issue that was monopolized by writers with a more liberal slant. I like having a better established POV on any topic. Don't you?
quote:if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs.
Absolutely true, and hopefully conservatives will muzzle their dogs without even glancing at whether or not the liberals do it. I'd certainly find it very amusing for liberals to openly say, "We'll stop destroying the possibility for effective governance when the Republicans stop too!" I mean, that line sounds like something a 10 year old might say about getting his hands caught in the cookie jar, "But Randy snuck a cookie too! Aren't you going to punish him too!?"
quote:or are we to believe the intellectually dishonest and inflammatory stupidity krugman published, mere hours after the arizona shootings, is an example of healthy, civil dialogue?
Did somebody put forward Krugman as an example of healthy, civil dialogue?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you believe that, for example, calling liberals traitors to their country and insinuating that it may be necessary to kill a few of them constitutes "poisoning politics?" Are those also beliefs?
even when calling someone a traitor is accurate its more often used for exaggerative effect. the use of such a term isnt unique to this political environment and earlier politicians and the political process survived quite fine. going from 'traitor' to 'poisonous' rhetoric to killing politicians in public is one heck of a slippery slope argument. killing the opposition isnt a practice conservatives engage in nor is it an accepted or supported course of action.
quote:Liberals make the mistake of believing this, now and then, which is why they lack the party discipline possessed by conservatives. "Policing your own" is something that liberals do to a far greater degree, but which turns out to be pretty counterproductive.
i think youre entertaining a false illusion of party discipline. conservatism isnt a party, as you know well, and there are some parties and groups more stanch in their views and deeply committed to core values. conservatives cant be considered a homogeneous group simply because the individuals who identify as conservative more readily soften their hardened ideological positions for the sake of compromise with other like-minded individuals. because liberals cant act in a similar manner seems to be an internal problem.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:even when calling someone a traitor is accurate its more often used for exaggerative effect. the use of such a term isnt unique to this political environment and earlier politicians and the political process survived quite fine. going from 'traitor' to 'poisonous' rhetoric to killing politicians in public is one heck of a slippery slope argument. killing the opposition isnt a practice conservatives engage in nor is it an accepted or supported course of action.
I completely disagree. "Traitor" is a term on par with "Murderer" or "Villain" to me. It's such an aweful (I mean in the sense of deserving awe) term it should only be used loosely as we would never lightly call another person "an adulterer" and you could argue that these days, adultery is much more common place than treason.
During the founding of this country the charge of treason was so terrifying, our founding fathers had to accept they would be forfeiting their lives if their gamble had not paid off, and it very nearly didn't. Calling somebody a traitor was a very effective way to silence an opponent back then. It's still an effective way of convincing one's supporters that a person is an enemy agent and should be disposed of not listened to.
edit: Bah, I need to switch accounts.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs
What would you say if I told you that if you're concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, your first item of business would be to shut up everyone on your side who acts out in a way we can individually criticize, and that we'll be sitting over there waiting for that to get done?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In a few minutes, there is a scheduled press conference with her doctors. This will be the first time the press has been able to question doctors since the initial day of Gifford's admission. I hope someone will ask the questions I would ask--perfectly logical questions,
You didn't even answer my question at all. If you really do have difficult-to-counter logical arguments, then contorting to avoid actually answering me wouldn't be such a commonplace event.
Try answering my question.
(Janitor Blade: Sorry Samp you posted a bit too fast for me, I edited your quote to reflect the changes I made to Ron's post)
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i think youre entertaining a false illusion of party discipline. conservatism isnt a party, as you know well, and there are some parties and groups more stanch in their views and deeply committed to core values. conservatives cant be considered a homogeneous group simply because the individuals who identify as conservative more readily soften their hardened ideological positions for the sake of compromise with other like-minded individuals.
Two things here. First you're saying that of course conservatives aren't a party, granted. I think Tom was talking about the American conservative movement, aka, the Republican Party and everybody who generally supports it. Then you say this is a "false illusion." Then you immediately say that no, in fact, it has nothing to do with party discipline, it is simply that conservatives are much better at working together.
I think that's pretty much what party discipline *consists of*. The stuff about specific words and specific messages being universally touted happens also to be true, but party discipline is exactly what you represent the Republicans as having.
quote: because liberals cant act in a similar manner seems to be an internal problem.
Internal to what? Liberalism is not a party, after all. But I'll do you the solid you didn't do Tom and assume you mean "Democrats and most everybody who generally supports them."
And to address the point, I think you're wrong. The problem with party discipline in the Democratic party is that the party itself is simply more pluralistic. Because Democrats chiefly (and liberals generally) are mostly interested in legislation which supports the most effective government possible, and because the effectiveness of the government, and what priorities it has with an expanded list of responsibilities is complicated, the Democratic agenda is naturally more contentious. As long as Republicans have advocated chiefly the dismantling of an effective central government in the United States, they have had an easier road in terms of party discipline. As long as whatever gets done by them contributes to the disruption of government, they can generally agree that it is a good idea in principle.
It's simply a much easier argument to have discussing how you're going to blow up a machine if everybody is on board with the idea that that is the best thing to do. Now if you want to *build* a machine, there are all these niggling and inconvenient little questions about what all it will do, what it will run on, who will drive it, pay for it, participate in its construction, design it, and etc.
Observe a rather simple analogy: hate is an easier thing to have in common than love. "You hate classical music? Me too!" End of discussion. "You love classical music? Me too!" Discussion goes on to become the basis of a friendship and involves ever-contentious arguments over the subject of mutual love for the next 27 years.
So, you've also implied that liberals have these "hardened" ideals that prevent them from reasoning together. Well, I rather agree. I think the nice thing about liberals is that they aren't just a bunch of gutless sellouts who cater to the fears of ignorant people by promising them to govern by refusing to be involved in the work of actual government- because that has the foul taste of "communism" and "socialism" in it, actually working for the government. I never could get over the oddity of that one- "elect me: I don't believe in the job I want to have." Because for all their harping on patriotic rah rah sentiments, conservatives generally seem to believe these days that the government that their forefathers set up to grow into future demands and stresses was pretty much a bad idea to begin with.
So yeah, Republicans are a lot better at agreeing on things- I just think the reason is that the things they need to agree on to be a party aren't very tall orders.
posted
Note, that's not a very useful mode of measurement, especially if you are searching only grammatically identical terms. That doesn't account in any useful way for the amount of inflammatory language or implications made without these exact terms and syntax being used. I'd say a really effective survey using google would be pretty hard to do.
There's also a fairly major flaw in the terms here, because for instance the sentence: "Most people think liberals are evil, but most people are idiots," goes down under "liberals are evil."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention it introduces a selection bias for people with access to the internet, as well as people who search for political messages on the internet.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Note, that's not a very useful mode of measurement, especially if you are searching only grammatically identical terms. That doesn't account in any useful way for the amount of inflammatory language or implications made without these exact terms and syntax being used. I'd say a really effective survey using google would be pretty hard to do.
There's also a fairly major flaw in the terms here, because for instance the sentence: "Most people think liberals are evil, but most people are idiots," goes down under "liberals are evil."
Obviously, in fact most of the first page results for "liberals are evil" seemed to actually be a result countering or mocking that argument, it's still funny to see the huge difference in results between the two though.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Conclusion: Vegetarians eat more chicken than liberals, conservatives, and Mormons combined. Of the four groups researched, liberals eat the most babies, upsetting previous suggestions that this distinction belonged to Mormons.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Because Democrats chiefly (and liberals generally) are mostly interested in legislation which supports the most effective government possible, and because the effectiveness of the government, and what priorities it has with an expanded list of responsibilities is complicated, the Democratic agenda is naturally more contentious. As long as Republicans have advocated chiefly the dismantling of an effective central government in the United States, they have had an easier road in terms of party discipline.
Great post Orincoro, but how did you come to the conclusion that liberals support the "most effective government possible?" I respect your opinion, but really that is all it is.
I don't know if I neccessarily agree with you that Conservatives have an easier time arguing their side of things. Both Liberals and Conservatives alike use emotion to argue their point. Conservatives tend to argue using fear, independence, and personal responsibility. Liberals tend to argue their points using compassion, group/societal wellness, and government reliance.
In some arguments, Conservatives have the edge. In other arguments Liberals do. Immigration comes to mind. Conservatives use fear by saying "Illegals are taking our jobs and are law breakers!" Liberals say "These people are trying to live the American dream and give a better life to their kids."
Well, both arguments are valid. The same goes for abortion, war, spending, etc. I think the problem isn't the issue, its the unwillingness of EITHER side to have an open and honest discussion about the issue.
I am sure most Conservatives would be ok with some type of amnesty if the border was made ultra secure as to prevent another influx of illegal immigrants from entering. I'm sure most Liberals would be willing to compromise on other issues if Conservatives would work with them.
In the past 8-10 years we have moved away from compromising and have gone more towards the attitude of "My way is the only right way." Sure Republicans blocked a ton of legislation. Reid wouldn't allow Republicans to bring forth any amendments in a lot of the legislation voted on. Both sides blamed each other instead of looking for a way to work together.
This is what frustrates me about this whole argument. Instead of playing the blame game on hateful/violent rhetoric, would it not be more constructive to the country as a whole to work together through this instead?
We could argue all day that one side or the other has the MOST violent rhetoric, but that doesn't solve the problem. If I make you a milkshake and put one ounce of dog crap in it or three ounces, the fact doesn't change that it is still a dog poop milkshake. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Because Democrats chiefly (and liberals generally) are mostly interested in legislation which supports the most effective government possible, and because the effectiveness of the government, and what priorities it has with an expanded list of responsibilities is complicated, the Democratic agenda is naturally more contentious. As long as Republicans have advocated chiefly the dismantling of an effective central government in the United States, they have had an easier road in terms of party discipline.
Great post Orincoro, but how did you come to the conclusion that liberals support the "most effective government possible?" I respect your opinion, but really that is all it is.
Aww, jeez. And here I was thinking my opinion was fact. Thank you for reminding me. How easily I forget!
quote:Well, both arguments are valid. The same goes for abortion, war, spending, etc. I think the problem isn't the issue, its the unwillingness of EITHER side to have an open and honest discussion about the issue.
Meh, no, and this is consistently your largest intellectual difficulty. One side of the argument is simply better. One is based in a better grasp of the realities, and presents more workable solutions in the short and long term. One doesn't. Walking around in a fog thinking that just because you have two arguments with *some* validity in each means that they are equal partners is a problem. You, and a lot of people really, need to learn that lesson. Just as all historical decisions have history either on their side or against them, so too do the decisions we make today. I would find it terribly claustrophobic in your head if you truly need to balance every two opposing arguments with equal weight, all the time. Of course I know that you don't *actually* do this- you're just saying it because that's what you think politics is- either you win, or it's a tie. Either you made the right decision, or there were two equally right decisions and you chose one of them. Sorry- I don't think it works that way.
quote:In the past 8-10 years we have moved away from compromising and have gone more towards the attitude of "My way is the only right way." Sure Republicans blocked a ton of legislation. Reid wouldn't allow Republicans to bring forth any amendments in a lot of the legislation voted on. Both sides blamed each other instead of looking for a way to work together.
Geraine, I'm sorry if I sound terribly dismissive of you so much of the time, but this is simply not accurate. In the last two years, the Republicans enjoyed a position from which they could block *all* action. Compromise was wrought out of sacrifices made by democrats, which they applied to their own bills. A wonderful position for the Republicans, because while the compromise work was going on (and don't even fool yourself into believing it didn't because *wow* did it ever), they got to continually make a show of proposing amendments they fully expected not to be adopted. The fact that the Democrats, who were in the majority, voted down amendments from Republicans is not a sign of lack of compromise- it was a political show, to the benefit of Republicans. Again, the compromises were written into the bills themselves, in order that they might be allowed to pass. Trust me, lack of compromise would have been manifested in legislation the likes of which you didn't see in the last legislative session.
I'm trying to think of an analogy for you. Let's try this one: You are hired by a publisher to write a book. You write it. The editor refuses to approve it at all, because it isn't what he wants. So you rewrite it into something more like a book he might rubberstamp. Then he gives you a list of changes he wants made to the book, effectively changing the entire book and shortening it, effectively, to a couple of pages of chicken scratch. You reject the changes, but in the process you rewrite the book yourself yet another way, and come up with about 5 pages of near nonsense with the basic ideas of your original book sort of in place. Ok, time to publish this sucker. That's essentially what happened with the health care bill. The editor now gets to claim it was entirely against his vision, and contained none of his input, when in fact it was all his work to reduce it to what it became. That's your vision of compromise.
Also note that Liberals, conservatives, Mormons, atheists, and Jews all eat more babies than they eat chicken. Only vegetarians eat more chicken than they eat babies.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Conclusion: Vegetarians eat more chicken than liberals, conservatives, and Mormons combined. Of the four groups researched, liberals eat the most babies, upsetting previous suggestions that this distinction belonged to Mormons.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Also note that Liberals, conservatives, Mormons, atheists, and Jews all eat more babies than they eat chicken. Only vegetarians eat more chicken than they eat babies.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Aww, jeez. And here I was thinking my opinion was fact. Thank you for reminding me. How easily I forget!
Glad we cleared that up maybe that will mean you will at least try to present an argument instead of just your opinion...
quote: Meh, no, and this is consistently your largest intellectual difficulty. One side of the argument is simply better. One is based in a better grasp of the realities, and presents more workable solutions in the short and long term. One doesn't. Walking around in a fog thinking that just because you have two arguments with *some* validity in each means that they are equal partners is a problem. You, and a lot of people really, need to learn that lesson. Just as all historical decisions have history either on their side or against them, so too do the decisions we make today. I would find it terribly claustrophobic in your head if you truly need to balance every two opposing arguments with equal weight, all the time. Of course I know that you don't *actually* do this- you're just saying it because that's what you think politics is- either you win, or it's a tie. Either you made the right decision, or there were two equally right decisions and you chose one of them. Sorry- I don't think it works that way.
Well that didn't last long. Really? "I know this is just my opinion... But you are wrong and I am right and liberalism is just better?"
To respond though, I don't think ANYTHING is purely right or purely wrong. Nothing is. There is no such thing as a perfect government, policy, etc. You consistently sound like liberal policies are all perfect, and anything else is just bad. It sounds like you are in the fog.
What I am trying to get at, which you choose to ignore, is that we need discussion. If it is found that a liberal policy will work best, then by all means lets implement it. But don't act like it is the be all end all. There are problems with implementing almost any policy, be it liberal or conservative. If you don't have the discussion, how can you honestly say which side is based in reality and will have the most benefit in the short and long term?
quote:Geraine, I'm sorry if I sound terribly dismissive of you so much of the time, but this is simply not accurate. In the last two years, the Republicans enjoyed a position from which they could block *all* action. Compromise was wrought out of sacrifices made by democrats, which they applied to their own bills. A wonderful position for the Republicans, because while the compromise work was going on (and don't even fool yourself into believing it didn't because *wow* did it ever), they got to continually make a show of proposing amendments they fully expected not to be adopted. The fact that the Democrats, who were in the majority, voted down amendments from Republicans is not a sign of lack of compromise- it was a political show, to the benefit of Republicans. Again, the compromises were written into the bills themselves, in order that they might be allowed to pass. Trust me, lack of compromise would have been manifested in legislation the likes of which you didn't see in the last legislative session.
I'm trying to think of an analogy for you. Let's try this one: You are hired by a publisher to write a book. You write it. The editor refuses to approve it at all, because it isn't what he wants. So you rewrite it into something more like a book he might rubberstamp. Then he gives you a list of changes he wants made to the book, effectively changing the entire book and shortening it, effectively, to a couple of pages of chicken scratch. You reject the changes, but in the process you rewrite the book yourself yet another way, and come up with about 5 pages of near nonsense with the basic ideas of your original book sort of in place. Ok, time to publish this sucker. That's essentially what happened with the health care bill. The editor now gets to claim it was entirely against his vision, and contained none of his input, when in fact it was all his work to reduce it to what it became. That's your vision of compromise.
Ok. First of all, horrible analogy. A better analogy would be this: You are asked to collaborate on a book, you contribute, then saw the finished product and realize the book is horrible. You suggest changes and are largely ignored. You ask to keep the book out of stores, but the request is denied. The book hits retail shelves. It is largely criticized because it is over 2,000 pages and there is no plot, resolution, or characters that interact with each other. It reads more like a jumble of non-related short stories, though it was marketed as one of the greatest dramatic novels of our generation.
If you think that way fine. Next time the Democrats are in the minority and filibuster one thing, I'd love to see you justify their actions. I think you are a little confused as to how filibusters work and why they are important for both the minority and majority. I find it frustrating that you pin the blame on Conservatives. Do you believe that whoever is in control should be able to pass whatever legislation they want without any opposition?
Let me give you a scenario. Lets say in 2012 the Republicans retain control of the house, take the presidency, as well as the majority in the senate. Soon after the election, a gigantic immigration bill comes to the floor that deports all illegal immigrants, builds a 50 foot high electric fence on the border, and places a minefield around it. It will completely change the way we deal with immigration.
It passes the house without a problem, with some democrats submitting a few minor changes. It goes to the senate. All 40 Democratic senators are against the bill and 59 Republicans are for it, with the exception of John McCain. The Democrats submit amendments to remove the electrical component of the fence, remove the minefield completely, and set limits on deportations. The Senate Majority leader says "Nah, we like it the way it is, but hey thanks for the input."
The Democrats filibuster. Republicans scramble, because they don't have the votes to overcome it. They change the bill a bit, lowering the voltage of the electric fence so it isn't fatal. They also promise to only deport illegal immigrants that don't have children born in the US. The Democrats still don't like that, and plan to hold onto their filibuster. The Republicans go to McCain and tell him that if he votes for the bill, they will make sure the portion of the fence bordering Arizona is not electrified, not mined, and that they will let the state work out who to deport. The government will give Arizona money to hire their own policing force.
With McCain on board, the bill passes, much to the Democrats (and most of the US population's) dismay.
This is how I saw the Health Care Bill. You seem to want to blame the Republicans for how it turned out. The Democrats passed it, not the Republicans. Democrats could have easily scrapped the bill, started over, and pinned the blame on the Republicans. They may have even been able to save some of the seats in the house they lost. Instead we got this bill that Liberals and Conservatives don't really care for, albeit for different reasons. Why did it pass then, if it was so horrible?
Look, if you want to change the way filibusters work, then fine. Use the nuclear option to change the senate rules. I don't believe that will ever happen, because it paves the way for the majority to abuse their power. It would completely eliminate the use of the minority. The Republicans nor the Democrats are dumb enough to do that. Not only would the majority be able to pass whatever they wanted, but when the balance of power shifted it could all be easily repealed by the party that took control. That would do wonders for stability.
If you have a good solution, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it. I propose actually talking through things and compromising. All I have seen from you "Liberal policies are better, Conservatives are just wrong!"
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Germaine, how I saw the last two years was this:
A secretary is upset that he has been asked to assist an author in writing a book. They sit down and agree on some details, but the secretary keeps demanding more and more input in the book, more than the author who was hired to write it. The author takes many of the suggestions, but not all. Eventually the secretary just refuses to type anything he's given, refusing to let the book be written because the secretary doesn't get to be the author.
The secretary's goal is not to get their views into the book. They want to be the author, and they believe that if the people who hired the author see nothing getting written, they'll fire the author and hire the secretary to be the next author.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, on the filibuster, yes, I believe it should be abolished. It is abused by the minority party to obstruct legislation which has a clear majority, and it puts the minority in the unproductive position of having such an option. As for the majority party, they are duly elected, and they maintain a responsibility to voters, who can oust them and reverse their actions that way. I don´t think that the minority party having such a tool is useful to the process, and I think *that* contributes a good deal to any lack of compromise that we percieve. Why compromise when you can dock your ores? The minority position is disempowered for a reason, and the party in the minority should be forced to build effective coalitions with majority members to pass necessary legislation. The filibuster was nuked in the house years ago, and yet things there are still on the rails.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The minority position is disempowered for a reason, and the party in the minority should be forced to build effective coalitions with majority members to pass necessary legislation.
posted
We should at least go back to having actual filibusters where debate is delayed by someone actually having to stand up in front of congress and take responsibility for holding up debate. This notion of the automatic filibuster is nonsense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The healthcare reform passed, as it was, because, despite what you may think Geraine, if it was scrapped, it'd be years before anyone touched it. That's political reality. Like when Bush tried to pass immigration reform that was actually kinda progressive. Since then, how many serious proposals have been put on the docket?
Of course, this all ignores that fact that there was never going to be any "coming to the table" by the Republicans on health care, despite the fact that most citizens believe some change needed to happen. It's the same tactics as 93/94. Further, the Democrats came up with a plan that actually was a REPUBLICAN proposal back then, and the Republicans of 2009 as a block refused to even debate it (which is what the use of filibuster means)
Quote from FrumForum (hardly a liberal bastion):
quote: Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Emphasis mine. Also, search results on "obama waterloo health care" from Google):
Your 2012 scenario ignores the fact that such a scenario existed for 6 years (or was it 4?) (Republican controlled House, Senate, White House), and the Democrats didn't filibuster nearly to the extent of the last two years by the Republicans, which implies that the Democrats are more willing to come to the table to ACTUALLY GOVERN.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We should at least go back to having actual filibusters where debate is delayed by someone actually having to stand up in front of congress and take responsibility for holding up debate. This notion of the automatic filibuster is nonsense.
I agree with this. I would also consider discontinuing it entirely for legislation (as against judicial confirmation) when the government is divided.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Further, the Democrats came up with a plan that actually was a REPUBLICAN proposal back then
quote: The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
To quote Mitt Romney "Let's see, I can't think of a great metaphor. Maybe Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: they both have two arms and two legs, but they're very different creatures. There are some similar benefits. The fact, for instance, that insurance is affordable—that's a similar benefit in my plan and the Obama plan. But there's simply an enormous difference when you have one plan that imposes massive tax hikes and another that does not. [There's] a huge difference with a plan that dramatically cuts Medicare Advantage and one that does not impose a new burden on senior citizens."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Restoring taxes to what they were in the clinton era (when you had a surplus) is not a tax hike.
quote: Ok. First of all, horrible analogy. A better analogy would be this: You are asked to collaborate on a book, you contribute, then saw the finished product and realize the book is horrible. You suggest changes and are largely ignored. You ask to keep the book out of stores, but the request is denied. The book hits retail shelves. It is largely criticized because it is over 2,000 pages and there is no plot, resolution, or characters that interact with each other. It reads more like a jumble of non-related short stories, though it was marketed as one of the greatest dramatic novels of our generation.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We should at least go back to having actual filibusters where debate is delayed by someone actually having to stand up in front of congress and take responsibility for holding up debate. This notion of the automatic filibuster is nonsense.
Yeah, it is. A sort of stately, dignified, officially recognized form of complete nonsense.
Sometimes I imagine a family sitting in the car ready to go to the beach or something, and one of the kids suddenly says, "I forgot something in the house." And then they all just sit there in the car. And they wait.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Great post Orincoro, but how did you come to the conclusion that liberals support the "most effective government possible?" I respect your opinion, but really that is all it is.
Have you ever had a political science class in a major university? Utilitarianism and Millerite Liberalism is pretty much what American and Canadian liberals foundation, of "the greatest good for the greatest number", if you've read what these are, and how they work and why they're important you'ld see that Democrats and Liberals in general do in fact believe in making the most effective government.
Conservatism is all about the status quo, reactionaries are about rolling back the status quo to what it was like before, conservatism works and purpose is to act as a break on reckless liberalism but not 'better' or mean to stop any and all progress at all.
Which is what the republicans are doing, doing everything to stop any change at all or better rollback any changes made.
IP: Logged |
Recollect how you feel when people say that to you after you have just posted something you earnestly believe. I think you will find it is not a good emotion, nor one that anybody should have to feel on this forum. You have a habit of asking others to treat you one way and then behaving another, and I can't say I'm very impressed with it. Please stop.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay fine, slightly more substantive commentary: Geraine your analogy basically a perfect checkbox list of every Republican-US Right Wing gripe of the healthcare process as spoonfed by fox news and is extremely different from how a majority have viewed the process, you claim that the bill was a mess but why is it a mess and more importantly how is it a mess? Have you read the bill? Can you come up with a percentage of how much is "mess" to "substance"?
Would have having no bill really been better than having this bill that sets the foot in the door for more substantial reform later?
I've spent a little too much time on IRC so my apologies but reading it made my eyes roll.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Germaine, how I saw the last two years was this:
A secretary is upset that he has been asked to assist an author in writing a book. They sit down and agree on some details, but the secretary keeps demanding more and more input in the book, more than the author who was hired to write it. The author takes many of the suggestions, but not all. Eventually the secretary just refuses to type anything he's given, refusing to let the book be written because the secretary doesn't get to be the author.
The secretary's goal is not to get their views into the book. They want to be the author, and they believe that if the people who hired the author see nothing getting written, they'll fire the author and hire the secretary to be the next author.
Ta-da! Besides, the writing-a-book analogy doesn't work because it's describing what law effectively is, even in the best of times. On the whole, the effects of the law are widely consistent and have already provided some improvement. It's better than the status quo. People are outraged at the mere suggestion that it is, because they make the claim that U.S. healthcare is great as it is. (it's not)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great interview by Diane Sawyer last night of Astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords!
During the broadcast, a model was displayed showing where the bullet traveled through Giffords' head--and once again, we see that early reports got yet another detail wrong. Earlier it was reported that the shooter fired laterally across her head from her temple. But the model showed he must have held the gun to her forehead, above her right eye, and it traveled longitudinally backwards at a rising angle. Fortunately the bullet missed major blood vessels. It may have gone through or just above Broca's area, believed to be the control center that enables us to speak, but it clearly missed the speech control center in the middle side of the left lobe which enables us to recognize words. (At least, this is believed to be the way most brains are organized.) This is evident from the fact that even as she arrived at the hospital, she was able to respond to commands. We will just have to wait and see if she can speak.
Commander Kelly said he had not told her yet about the shootings.
Their relationship is really inspiring. Even Sawyer admitted she was unusually impressed at the couple's devotion to each other.
Kelly has piloted the Space Shuttle three times, and is tentatively scheduled to pilot the very last shuttle mission in a few more months. He is also a test pilot who has flown in 50 different types of planes, has done landings on aircraft carriers, and flew on many combat missions in the Gulf War. Yet he said that his wife works harder than he does. When Sawyer asked him if he would ever consider running for office, he said he did not think he wanted to work as hard as his wife does.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill O'Reilly reported the following last night; he said the information was first published in The New York Post.
quote:Sixty-three-year-old James Eric Fuller was shot in the knee by Jared Loughner but recovered quickly. He then attended an ABC News event, where he made threats against a Tea Party leader.
Fuller, a far-left activist, was almost immediately taken into custody. Authorities used Arizona's involuntary psychiatric evaluation law to get him off the street.
There is no question that Fuller is troubled. Here's what he said a few days after the shootings:
"It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled. Senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls."
But Fuller did not stop there. He told the New York Post that some conservatives should be tortured: "There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end ... and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center."
Fuller's rantings were said well after the far left began its campaign of vilification, blaming various people on the right for encouraging the assassin Loughner. Of course, that turned out to be completely bogus, but Fuller heard it, no question.
An "ear necklace"? This savagery from an avowed liberal. He was one of the people shot. But he must have believed the police chief who said explicitly that in his opinion the Tea Party was to blame. So then he goes and makes a death threat at a public meeting where the local leader of the Tea Party was. It was caught on tape by ABC News. Police then removed Fuller and took him in for mandatory psychiatric evaluation. It's a good thing he did not have a gun on him.
The attempt by many liberals to capitalize politically on the tragedy in Tucson by trying to blame it on conservatives, has pretty much backfired in their faces.
[ January 19, 2011, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he must have believed the police chief who said explicitly that in his opinion the Tea Party was to blame.
Exactly how did he do this, Ron? This is a direct question put straight to you, mind. A link to quotations would be what's required to substantiate such a bold accusation.
quote:This savagery from an avowed liberal.
You forgot the scare-quotes.
quote:The attempt by many liberals to capitalize politically on the tragedy in Tucson by trying to blame it on conservatives, has pretty much backfired in their faces.
Feel free to tell yourself whatever narrative makes you feel more superior about the situation, facts to the contrary. That's an easy thing to say to you, since it's a given.
One thing, though: it is fortunate that this guy wasn't 'strong' enough, as you say, to own a gun. Because you're the man who said that owning a firearm was a sign of personal strength, yes? Good thing he wasn't strong. Otherwise things could've gotten unpleasant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: Do you think anybody really wants to continue to talk about the breathing tube?
Ron: Capitalizing on a situation doesn't seem to be what Fuller is doing so much as venting his anger that he nearly lost his life. Perhaps his anger has been misplaced, but at least he is being evaluated by doctors, something Loughner unfortunately was not given the benefit of.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: During the broadcast, a model was displayed showing where the bullet traveled through Giffords' head--and once again, we see that early reports got yet another detail wrong. Earlier it was reported that the shooter fired laterally across her head from her temple.
I don't know where you got that unless it was very early. Every report I heard had this detail correct.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
*sigh* Again, we see a random crazy dude -- who, after having a fairly hard day, said something extremely stupid and apologized for it later -- hauled out to "disprove" the assertion that pundits and Republican leaders should stop speaking in ways that provoke random crazy dudes to violence.
And, yes, I know the Freepers are circulating the story about a Democratic House member who once suggested that a Republican gubernatorial candidate who was fired under a cloud of scandal after his company defrauded the government of millions of dollars should be "put up against a wall and shot" instead of being nominated for governor. And, yeah, I'll bite the bullet and say that's a pretty irresponsible thing for him to have said.
So. Are we agreed that a very long list of Republican politicians and pundits have said a lot of very irresponsible things, and that a couple Democrats might have, too? Or are we still desperately trying to claim that there's absolutely no need for people to, y'know, stop being deliberately inflammatory?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
