quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And at the same time remember that criticizing whether one can be objective doesn't eliminate the validity of the points raised. You can exclaim my lack of objectivity until the cows come home but they don't do anything more than to temporarily deflect the argument raised, one raised several times here previous by other posters than myself. That the GOP is abusing its position to damage the US for political gain. Targeting whether I am being "objective" about it is just being pedantic.
Jesus H. Christ. What universe do we live in where you can foist some lame-assed claim upon us that you're "objective," and therefore an authority, and then dismiss as pedantic any reply that suggests you aren't, and yet further, ridicule others for BRINGING UP OBJECTIVITY.
And then you GO BACK TO CLAIMING TO BE OBJECTIVE. Goddamn.
Honestly, you're messing with us, right? You're not this stupid.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And at the same time remember that criticizing whether one can be objective doesn't eliminate the validity of the points raised.
The point you raised, which was then criticized, was that your opinion of American politics is objective simply due to the fact that you are not American. The counterargument being made is that, merely by virtue of your nationality, you are not so greatly removed from the American political landscape that you become an "outsider" with an objective view.
Claim 1 - The GOP is abusing its position to damage the US for political gain.
is different than
Claim 2 - I (Blayne) am objective because of my outsider status.
You are being called out on the second claim.
quote:Targeting whether I am being "objective" about it is just being pedantic.
It was you that made the claim of being objective. Does it surprise you that the claim was rejected?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. If I have a pair of binoculars and am viewing, say, a bird in a tree from 50m away, am I guaranteed to observe more, and more accurately, about that bird than, say, my ornithological companion who is viewing the same bird with binoculars just as powerful from 100m away?
Of course not. We need more information. Perhaps he's a better or ornithologist than I am, or there's an unfortunate glare of sun that doesn't get in his way, or maybe that bird was the same species as a beloved family pet that just died and I'm really broken up about it, or there's just some branches in my way but not his.
My being closer doesn't of itself make my observations more valid. It gives me a chance of being more objective. That's it. All that remains is whether you have the ability to admit to what is so obvious and harmless, or if because you don't like the people telling you it suddenly doesn't count.
I'm not from Canada, and have spent perhaps...4 hours?...within her borders in my life. Therefore, my political opinions on Canadian politics are more objective than yours. Right?
Yes or no question. If your answer is 'no', well, if you think people are dismissive and patronizing now...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, please stop this, it's going nowhere. And Blayne, this is not the first time people are trying to help you and you react by insulting them. Continue like this and people will start to think of you as a troll not worth answering to.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*Whoosh* afaik is generally a fairly internet neutral way to react to someone missing your point and I'ld argue that Orincoro's post was much more insulting but I'll delete the post.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Blayne, as a fellow foreigner, I can say that, whether or not your argument is valid, being foreign *in itself* usually just means you're less well informed, not that you're intrinsically more objective on the subject of another country's political situation.
You can have just as many political opinions and biases as a citizen, if not more so - you're just not entitled to vote.
This is what I would say to Blayne all neatly written out by another poster.
----
Blayne: Do I get to pretend I've got the best of both worlds and everybody should listen to me because I study American history and political science but I was raised outside the United States so I avoided all those biases you're talking about? No. It just means I had a different set of biases that may or may not make me a good critic of the system. I'm certainly not going to try to argue my bias set is better/worse than another's. You can only argue your ideas and whether they stand up. Stay away from the "My ideas are better by their nature" stuff.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, thanks for deleting it. And that wasn't the insulting part. Also, I agree that Orincoro's post isn't the model to which we all aspire any more than yours was, but it's all starting from people being exasperated by your lines of reasoning. That of course doesn't give them an excuse to post any insults.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama Still Muslim, Report Southern Republicans
quote: The poll also finds that two-thirds of the Republicans in both states do not believe in evolution. Two-thirds of Alabama Republicans also believe interracial marriage ought to be legal, compared with 54% of Mississippi Republicans. Progress!
We really should have let them secede.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let them? Please, they wouldn't leave if we shoehorned them out the door. MS and AL are two of the biggest collectors of water from the federal well. They get back far more than they contribute, and I doubt they'd want to give that up. They'd have to massively increase spending on roads and education to cover the deficit, and the people likely wouldn't take kindly to dramatic tax increases, though the irony would be a little satisfying.
ETA: Missed the "should have let them" part last time. Regardless, there's plenty of talk in southern states of secession even today. And it's all ridiculous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of being the guy who finds an edible apple in the rotten pile, I still think it's somewhat heartening that so many think he is a Muslim, and they aren't seriously pushing the succession agenda.
edit: It's like having all the progressive bragging rights of electing a Muslim president, without actually doing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were kicked from the Union then it wouldn't be possible to use the Federal Elections Commission to keep them from disenfranchising blacks and other minorities outrightly, right now we just have to deal with gerrymandering and cynically transparent voter suppression.
IP: Logged |
Didn't you know? Blayne moved in with me and Mrs. BB this morning. The naturalization process starts today!
I think we will be a better country with Blayne's contributions, assuming we can keep him from committing treason against us with China.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're already using exponents. Which aspect of scientific notation were you planning to add in addition?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A few weeks ago, a video circulated online of Rick Santorum claiming that 1 in 20 deaths in the Netherlands are caused by involuntary euthanasia. According to Santorum, elderly Dutch wear bracelets that say "do not euthanize me" and "don't go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they're afraid because of budget purposes that they will not come out of that hospital if they go into it with sickness."
It's a matter of what's in his heart. He's a strong pro-life person," press secretary Alice Stewart replies.
After all, like the origin of the universe or the existence of a supreme being, Dutch medical statistics are ultimately unknowable -- just another of the unresolvable mysteries that have confronted us since the dawn of mankind. Who are we? Why are we here? What are the laws in the Netherlands concerning doctor-assisted suicide? We all have our own beliefs.
Santorum knows in his heart that elderly Dutch people are routinely euthanized against their will by doctors. He believes this to be true, no matter what the elite media tries to tell him.
It's the same way I know that one in four Laotians are born with an extra finger and that the most common name in Chad is Chad. It's just what I believe.
This is, essentially, Death Panels Mk. II — not content to have mythologized our own medical reforms to terrify voters with obvious falsehoods, Santorum belongs to the epidemic conservative mythologizers and liars who try to keep us terrified of the success of universal healthcare in europe.
Some admit that universal healthcare is working in europe way better than our system is working for us, despite how flush with cash our country is and how readily we could afford the change. Their usual strategy is to hit us with the falsehoods and canards about how what works for europe doesn't work for us, because .. our country is too large! or it's not homogenous enough! there's too many minorities, or something! It just wouldn't work! — Santorum ups the ante by claiming blatantly ridiculous falsehoods about medical systems to try to prop up the narrative that our medical system keeps people safe where social medicine would abandon them to death, despite the opposite being disgustingly clear.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to Santorum the Netherlands is less of a place and more of a state of mind. You know, because Rotterdam is anywhere alone and the whole place is pickled, the people are pickles for sure. And there are probably Dutch unicorns and zombies running around shooting rainbows out of their... oh never mind.
Seriously, if he was going to make stuff up he could have gone for something a lot more interesting.
(I mean, how many people who support Santorum are ever going to visit the Netherlands? They'll never find out, so he's pretty safe.)
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thoughts on Paul himself aside, I'm not sure that I'm particularly mad at him for violating the spirit of a system that I didn't like in the first place.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Bush was gaffe prone, BB, but the crazy sh*t Santorum says puts Bush to shame.
Bush's gaffes were usually simple misspeakings. He's fumble his words, or make non-sensical gibberish statements.
This is an entirely different level of gaffe. It's outright lying. It's intentional misrepresentation. It's the problem Romney tends to run into: he gets in trouble when he says what he really thinks. This is beyond a gaffe.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also going to indulge a little. Here's Mitt Romney talking about Olive Garden.
quote:Let me tell you, this place is great. Is this where you folks normally eat? Only when you're broke, that's right. Heh.
Ann and I sat in a booth near the kitchen. There was a fireplace, a real old-fashioned hearth, in the corner, and a nice vase on the ledge. I love décor; napkins are great. The ice water was just the right temperature.
At length, I asked my server what she would recommend. She suggested chicken alfredo, and I was feeling a little rebellious so I ordered the chicken alfredo pizza. I love chicken—I love grilled chicken, I love broiled chicken, I love chicken scampi! Poultry is great. I told Ann, I said, "Did you know chickens came from dinosaurs?" And Ann just kind of shrugged. I said, "I'm being serious, Ann, not just a few of them, but olive them." Aha. Alright, okay.
The pizza comes with Italian cheeses, alfredo sauce, and scallions. I told our server—Maria, I think her name was—I said, "Margaret, hold the Italian cheeses, alfredo sauce, and scallions." Then I took my fork and removed the chicken from the pizza and discarded it, and then I cut the flatbread into manageable portions, and I trimmed the edges off the crust, and consumed them. Forks are my favorite utensil. I also like butter knives.
I've got to tell you, Ann and I went to a place in Tuscany last fall that was just like this. Well I shouldn't say it was exactly like this. That one was was on a veranda overlooking the Mediterranean and bordered on two sides by an actual olive garden. The servers were dressed in authentic Renaissance attire, and the food was prepared fresh by a 13th-generation Italian chef whose great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather sold olive oil to Michelangelo's grandson until they had a falling-out. I don't quite remember the full story; something about a goat. They had a fireplace too but this one was real, not electric, and burned only lumber that had been salvaged from Phoenician wrecks. The wood gave off a faint scent of mahogany mixed with sturgeon; I love logs. You should have seen the bill—we almost went baroque! Aha, okay, ahem.
I told Ann, I said, I don't usually eat fast food, but this is pretty good. Ann didn't think I should say that.
Why does this primary season feel like a race to teh crazy train? It's embarrassing. Candidates willing to be reasonable get weeded out, and we're left with Wowbagger the Infinitely wealthy (who will say anything to win, even if it contradicts what he said to win a different election) and Tiny Mouth Crazypants, who... I can't even say it. I feel the physical sensation of embarrassment every time he speaks.
(And, well, Ron Paul, whose 'smaller government' would still be big enough to be in every woman's uterus, which, as a uterus-haver (even one with no particular liking of abortion), makes me uneasy.)
I miss John Huntsman. At least he was willing to go on record saying that science is a thing.
I used to be a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I maintain it's the party that moved, not me.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I used to be a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I maintain it's the party that moved, not me.
Well, for various reasons, like
1. WWII brought everyone in the country together, including politicians, who nearly all served
2. politicians now have to spend far more time raising money, and spend much less time in D.C., so they can't get to know their fellow congress members socially
3. radical Islam just isn't as frightening an enemy as the former Soviet Union, which reduces the cohesive effect of 'us versus them' that we had during the Cold War and WWII
the individual politicians in DC (of opposite parties) really just don't socialize anymore. In some cases, they're barely on speaking terms.
It's kind of like what happens when a large social group starts to unravel (say, after high school or college graduation, or when an elderly family matriarch finally dies). The calm, stable members of the group are more likely to remain calm and stable. The crazier, less stable ones might possibly get crazier, without the calming influence of the stable ones.
In this country, it's always been the economic conservatives that were the extremists. In Soviet Russia, it was the opposite. There, the paranoid rabid extremists were all pro-Communism to the nth degree. Here, it's the Randians and the Rush Limbaughs who are frighteningly extreme and paranoid.
I think that reasons #1 and #3 also apply to American society at large, with the expected effects on the parties. Democrats elect centrists, and it's centrists that usually win primaries. Republicans have gotten so goshdarn extreme, in many cases, that only extremists can win the primaries, more and more.
If it weren't for the excess power that rural states still wield in Presidential elections (via the electoral college), we'd be electing a lot more Democratic Presidents, and their margins of victory would be larger, I think.
You're right, the Republicans are being taken over by the extremists, more so every election cycle.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney continues to win in places where people actually have to deal with other people on a daily basis.
The democrats, despite not having a race, are still dealing with circling the wagons. I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist, but it does seem like the people insisting on it are being impatient to their own disadvantage. It would be easier for Obama to win without it, and they are certain to get better results if Obama is re-elected rather than whoever the Republicans nominate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the Colbert Report last night, Mark McKinnon (a former insider in GWB's and McCain's campaigns) posited that Mitt won't be able to get the nomination with just his own delegates, and since Ron Paul's won't be enough to tip the balance even if they all go for Romney, that if Newt and Santorum throw in together, Santorum could win the nomination.
Colbert smiled and said, "That's f...un!"
I would almost like to see Santorum running for President for the comic potential, but it's more than a little scary.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist...
Whether it's PC or not, it's not sensible or accurate.
QFT. Who exactly cares?
I've said this a zillion times, so forgive me, but the notion of "PC" before it got co-opted to mean: "being overly sensitive and ridiculous," meant literally: "correct." That is, saying something in such a way as to be as accurate and non-unintentionally insulting as possible. It is done to avoid misunderstanding.
Like you say: "Black American," because calling someone an "Negro" recalls the * inaccuracy* of sociological theories about black people, and the previous usages of the word which were mostly derogatory. And then when people point to things like: United Negro College Fund, and say: "bububub what about that?" they forget that it retains the name for the purpose of *being expressive*- not being accurate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer:
3. radical Islam just isn't as frightening an enemy as the former Soviet Union, which reduces the cohesive effect of 'us versus them' that we had during the Cold War and WWII
You've made me imagine a scary world where that cohesive effect was potentially stronger.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I miss John Huntsman. At least he was willing to go on record saying that science is a thing.
Me too. I miss him as governor too. Utah had a few good years of very sensible leadership, and now we're overcompensating by making it illegal for bartenders to pour or open drinks where minors can see them and by requiring abstinence-only sex ed. Yay regressivism.
quote:I used to be a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I maintain it's the party that moved, not me.
At first I thought it was just the party that moved, but that shift caused me to reexamine a lot of my political views, and I've found that I've moved to the left. I think I'm still pretty moderate, though.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist...
Whether it's PC or not, it's not sensible or accurate.
It's no so much the content of the demand, put holding the platform hostage to the demand. Like what happened with immigration reform for Republicans in 2008.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh, these women. Who the hell do they think they are, anyway? Wanting us to pay attention to their 'issues' and having some crazy-they're so emotional-frustration at government intrusion into their deeply personal lives when it's quite clear that government isn't doing it for them, but in this case to them. Acting all outraged like they're some sort of big chunk of the population that is very poorly represented in our government.
Can't they all just go shopping and then catch some Sex in the City? Haven't we men suffered enough in protecting these women from themselves?
-----
If these laws were truly about ensuring women were informed about pregnancy-and, in fact, their husbands or the father if he is listed-informed about pregnancy and birth in a comprehensive way, I'm not sure I'd mind some targeted, grim information being included, as well as a waiting period outside of medical emergency or various disqualifiers, such as having seen multiple doctors already.
I'm not sure I'd mind because after all, I'm deeply uncertain about when and how the pregnancy becomes a human life, and I think there's a chance it happens earlier than we think and we have a duty as humans-even if we don't acknowledge it-to take that very seriously, and avoid it if we can. But if the information is clearly targeted to simply prevent abortions by a cadre of almost entirely men? Who tell us like we're stupid it's about information only?
Yeah, to hell with that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Waiting period issue- there are a limited number of places that do abortions. If you have a waiting period and the woman has to drive 3 or 4 hours or in some cases even more than that, the waiting period is more than just an inconvenience. And the assumption that women are just too stupid to have thought out these decisions is ridiculous.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Because reproductive sex is something that women do alone and after that women should have no control over what happens to them because they are mentally about the level of a sheep. Keep your knees together, even under duress, or be punished. And yes, for some people a baby is punishment. Life is not what we want it to be, reality is not a Saturday afternoon made-for-TV movie. When, as someone I knew discovered, your beloved baby has almost no skull and half a brain, it's torture.
Arguments like this just make me cross. It's not that simple. It's not that reductive. And what's going on in America at the moment, and increasingly (supported by American money) Europe is just weird.
(I might just be over reacting because I'm an overly emotional woman. Hell, this week a guy asked me the same question three times in two hours because 'women don't know what they want, or what they think'. He got the same answer the first two times, and a total bollocking the third time for being an idiotic so-and-so. Emotional, see.)
posted
Ugh. Please don't be so successful at making men look bad, capax.
-----
Did that alone, did she? Or is pregnancy and childbirth to be deemed a punishment? Or is it rather that once a woman has sex, she cannot possibly later consider the question of abortion in a thoroughly informed way on her own? So many vaguely or even outright hostile to females options to choose from!
(Wait a second...isn't this government in medical decisions?! I thought that was the sure and irrevocable to socialism and death panels?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
