Topic: Republican Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center 2012
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think it WOULD be accurate in so much as America is no longer actually fighting the war. If you outsource your production to China your still not making them in the US are you?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The Right reviles it cuz its associates won't allow themselves to look obviously absurd: eg won't endorse "Obama is an illegal alien Muslim extremist bent on the total destruction of America."
Yeah, that must be it.
You know, I think I'm paraphrasing a quote here but I can't remember who and my google-fu failed me, but I think this is a generally true piece of advice about arguing: If you can't articulate your opposition's position in a way they would agree with, you probably don't actually understand what their position is, and therefore can't accurately criticize it.
Edit: Destineer, I answered your question on the very end of the previous page, just FYI. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Another question: do you think your repeated insistence that someone is chickening out or behaving contemptuously is an incentive to respond as you demand, or an incentive to refrain from discussing a few clusters of issues with you?
(Hint: this is one of those questions about what IS, not what should be. Further hint: how easy is it for you to find someone to have a lengthy discussion with you that follows the sorts of forms you like on, say, Republicans or China?)
% Wise I hardly ever post about Republicans or US politics anywhere nearly as much as other posters here. Additionally I do not believe I've in the past experience people "chickening out" from a conversation, this is arguably the first time.
Uh, you did it earlier in this thread, to me. You've done it twice in just the last 3 pages of this thread.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No idea what you are talking about, nor do I give a shit, nor does anyone else give a shit.
IP: Logged |
posted
I have a better one. If your opponent is a paid liar, he'll deny any description of his true position that isn't a lie.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think I'm paraphrasing a quote...: If you can't articulate your opposition's position in a way they would agree with, you probably don't actually understand what their position is, and therefore can't accurately criticize it."
I have a better one: If your opponent is paid to lie, he'll deny any description of his true position that isn't a lie.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly. [/QB]
You pathetic liar.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I think I'm paraphrasing a quote...: If you can't articulate your opposition's position in a way they would agree with, you probably don't actually understand what their position is, and therefore can't accurately criticize it."
I have a better one: If your opponent is paid to lie, he'll deny any description of his true position that isn't a lie.
So, the best way you have of understanding people who have very different ideas than you is to believe they are actually liars and have secret, nefarious agendas?
Don't you think that's interesting?
Have you considered what might happen if you tried to interpret everyone's behavior and statements as straightforwardly and positively as possible?
Just to see if you might draw any different conclusions about why people have different opinions than you. Even if some of them are liars, would addressing them as if they believe what they say hurt anything?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly.
You pathetic liar.
Go suck on a pistol. [/QB]
Quoted for posterity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If I'm asked to edit it, I'll edit it. Your the one who wouldn't let the thread move on, as everything has to be about you apparently and your beef with everything I do so yeah that's a victory for you I guess.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, big bad me and not liking being called a fraud and a liar, seeing sworn at and defamed and insulted at every turn. Such a villain.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yeah your totally not bullying people every other thread like Stonewolf for his common internet witticisms and not trying to prove your superiority every other post, your just totally a blameless victim who did absolutely nothing wrong and kept to yourself and never bothered with me before this moment, oh how could I dare be so blind in my victimization of you.
IP: Logged |
posted
:snort: tell me to shoot myself again. You've got the high ground. You're all bout class an decorum, as we all know.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Uh, guys, considering this thread is a good 50+ pages, it sure would be a shame to get it locked now, wouldn't it?
[selfish] Plus aspectre hasn't replied to my questions yet. [/selfish]
Don't make me bully you Frank. You know you can't resist my terribleness.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I really don't care, nothing you've ever said or done has ever indicated that I should.
quote: Blayne, if you weren't such an unconscionable ****, I would find it harder to justify how I talk to you.
But you are. And you continually pave over all your redeeming qualities by being a feckless, pigheaded, whiney little ****, crying and bitching for respect you have never earned; and vomiting abuse like sour milk at anyone who refuses to grant you the courtesy you have NEVER shown another person in all the years I have interacted with you. Once again, **** that.
posted
Let us know when you can speak a foreign language well enough not to use google translate. Then we might be impressed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I could post a picture of my Japanese certificate though you would still be an asshole, just a slightly more informed one about people you know nothing about.
But hey, more on that issue of lowering the level of discourse for all involved.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, sure, I'd love to see how your photoshop abilities are coming along.
ETA: doesn't it suck to have your basic life facts questions frivolously by people who know little about you? Geez, I'm sure glad nobody ever tried to do that to me. I wouldn't like it...
irony 2 |ˈīərnē| adjective of or like iron : an irony gray color.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You *always* questioned them, that's what started this whole thing.
quote: I'll care who's giving you credit for something the second I see you giving someone else credit for anything- particularly on the level of your usual bullshit. You don't *need* credit from me. That's my point. If you could get over yourself for 3 seconds you'd realize that. But that never does change. Back when you were 16 and couldn't write a coherent sentence, you wanted just as much credit as you want today. *That's* bullshit. That's how you've not changed. What, you forget me complimenting you on your improved writing abilities? I did many times. I acknowledged you in many ways. You shit all over that. You don't even remember it. So **** all that. Your strategy for engaging me on some higher level is to question whether I am lying about everything I have ever said about myself? And I'm the bad guy. **** that. Dag can give you a pass for calling me a liar, an evil person, and god knows who can remember what else. And you're the victim. People are just so rough on you. What, do you want to extract some kind of conciliation from me? Why? I should endure all your shit, all your niggling petty bullshit, over and over, again and again in the same way, and I should apologize to you for it? You're not culpable at all? Jesus Christ, you call me an evil bastard- I've never seen anyone with so little sense of shame.
"Would it be better if he didn't blow up? Sure. But it would be even better if people didn't treat him like shit."
He treats others like shit. I have no sympathy in that regard. How do you fix it? Meh, not my responsibility.
posted
Really, that's me questioning your basic life statistics? That's me calling you a liar? I see me calling you a lot of things. A liar is not among them.
I like that you think my words will be embarrassing or impeaching to me. They are not. I stand behind everything you've quoted. And you've gotten worse, not better.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
People have been more often damned standing by and behind their words then away from them.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, now we know why you so often pretend never to have said most of the unbelievably stupid things you say.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*shrug* Nothing remains to be said.
IP: Logged |
Not a surprise really. Newt is on the verge of campaign collapse if you believe recent news. Santorum is dead in elections for the next month, and Obama has begun directly addressing Romney by name. Santorum might try to stretch this thing out for a few more months to the convention, but I think Romney is done wasting time and money.
Sad thing is, Romney has had to spend four times as much as Santorum for every vote he won. This primary lasted way longer than most people thought, and bled millions from his campaign coffers. But now that he and Obama are starting to directly hit each other, I think we're seeing the beginnings of the real race. More and more I think you're going to see Romney ignore the other candidates entirely. It will take a miracle now for Romney to lose a brokered convention.
PS. Please don't get my thread locked. We've always managed to keep these threads civil and long lasting despite the hot topics often being discussed. Hopefully you guys respect me, BlackBlade, and the other posters here enough to take a time out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
This smacks of Accelerationism, even if this end's up making single payer a core democratic issue it will still end up like 30 years from now.
IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I hadn't quite considered it from that angle, but it makes sense. A lot of people complain that "Obamacare" as it is will lead to single payer in the far flung future, though that seems like a pretty convoluted process.
But I think he's right. Obamacare, no matter how much conservatives want to scream otherwise, was a compromise. Liberals wanted single payer, or at LEAST a public option, and were stymied on both. So they went with a model created by conservatives that married universal coverage to the private market. If SCOTUS says that's off limits, then so is compromise, and it's back to what they wanted originally.
I question how militant they will be about it. I'm perfectly willing to buy the ideological half of the argument. With nothing else to compromise on, no more ground to give up, and this being an issue they've fought over for decades, liberals WILL coalesce around single payer. But how angry will they be? How much will they push? That's the big question, and history suggests they back down far more often than I'd like. So while I think the rhetorical argument will head in that direction, I question how much they'll push.
Meanwhile, conservatives are trying to dismantle the government-provided options we already have with Medicare and Medicaid. For all the talk about both parties not being much different, I don't see how this issue, in particular, doesn't dramatically separate them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yup, there is no question in my mind that while both parties are corporatist hacks one side is clearly less worse than the other, and its rests on which party is actively trying to roll back social reforms.
IP: Logged |
posted
Tough one to call on who made more of a fool of themself in this thread. I think the bar is set higher for one, so he had lower to fall.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I question how militant they will be about it.
I'm sure they'll show their same characteristic restraint, said sam, with a completely straight face
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Sam is acknowledging that Congressional Democrats tend towards unrestrained histrionics and vitriol.
Doesn't mean he doesn't agree with their goals, he's just big enough not to give 'em a pass for their behavior. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think he's saying that while BOTH sides tend towards unrestrained histrionic and vitriol, Democrats generally fail to follow through with action, while Republicans are loud AND throw an elbow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't doubt that he thinks the same is true for Republicans.
I actually thought jebus was right, and he did misread you, and meant to only be speaking about Republicans in the first place. But perhaps I'm mistaken, and my sarcasm was unnecessary.
I mean, even more unnecessary than sarcasm normally is.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Actually, I think he's saying that while BOTH sides tend towards unrestrained histrionic and vitriol, Democrats generally fail to follow through with action, while Republicans are loud AND throw an elbow.
Yeah, we're not talking about effective bitching.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:CPAC is here, so it’s time for everyone’s annual look at the psychos invited to the premier conservative event of the year, and those unfortunate enough to have been excluded.
GOProud, the gay Republican group that was founded because the Log Cabin Republicans were considered too concerned about gay civil rights and not sufficiently focused on “fiscal issues,” is not invited this year, because they are too “aggressive” about being gay, which made Jim DeMint uncomfortable.
CPAC also uninvited the John Birch Society, which had made a triumphant return to mainstream conservative acceptance in 2010, when they co-sponsored the conference.
But! While the Birchers and the open homosexualists are no longer welcome, there is still room for multiple outspoken white nationalists!
quote:One is Peter Brimelow*, founder of the nativist site VDARE which publishes the works of white nationalists like Jared Taylor, and the other is Robert Vandervoort, who runs a group called ProEnglish and according to the Institute for Research on Education and Human Rights, "was also the organizer of the white nationalist group, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance," which is affiliated with Taylor.
They'll be appearing on a panel titled "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity" alongside National Review's John Derbyshire, who believes "that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races," differences that are "facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets." I'm not sure whether there's really any daylight between Derbyshire, who is a long-time writer at American conservatism's flagship magazine, and the two other men he's appearing with.
Scratch the downgrade to stealth from Derbyshire. He decided to be on the up-and-up and get all straightforward about the issue. Of whether or not he's a racist prick.
quote:The conservative columnist and author John Derbyshire has prompted outrage after penning an article in which he urges white and Asian parents to tell their children to avoid contact with black Americans they do not know.
...
Derbyshire added: "If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving." He also suggested not living in an area run by black politicians. "If you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives," he concluded.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
We've always managed to keep these threads civil and long lasting despite the hot topics often being discussed. Hopefully you guys respect me, BlackBlade, and the other posters here enough to take a time out.
