Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[BLOG] Fear and Loathing
I Read This
May 27, 2018, 13:27:53 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing  (Read 16264 times)
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2008, 18:27:15 EDT »

I think part of why the democrats come across as less spiteful is because, well, there are an awful lot of democrats who do double-time as absolute cowards.
As Boring7 said, it is in party a willingness to value law and order over crushing the opposition.  Whereas the Republicans chose to literally grind the government to a halt rather then compromise on a budget back when Clinton was in charge.

Also note that the media supports the conservatives.  As such, even though Democrats choose to crush far less than the Republicans despite having far better justification to do so than the Republicans, the media still tries to depict them as just as bad.  If the Democrats gave the Republicans the crushing they deserve, let alone a crushing on the same ratio of crush to justifiability that Republicans use, the media would sink them happily.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2008, 19:30:01 EDT »

Roberts, having nothing better to reply to Krugman with, pulls out the good old "Yeah, but you do too!" for a fallacy double threat, with a side order of lazy journalism.

Ignoring for a second the tu quoque fallacy, when you compare Krugman pointed out to what Roberts is trying to make equivalent to the follies of the Republican party, it doesn't stack up. It's deceiving to list the two side by side, because they're not equivalent. Roberts lies when he tries to make them so, and suffers from lazy journalism because the Democratic party is not too far from being an easy target.
But they are not comparing the follies of the Republican party to the Democratic party.  They are pointing out how opposed factions in those parties are to governance by the other side.  And both of them are right.  There are in fact many in the Democratic party who responded this way to Bush's presidency, there still are.


Poor phrasing, sorry.

In more detail, Krugman's pointing out that Republican voters stated that Clinton was an illegitimate president. That is, he didn't earn the job through fair means. Roberts says the same thing of Democratic voters. While true on the surface, there's no basis to the Republican claim. The Democratic claim is backed by the fiasco in Florida. Thus, tu quoque, lies and lazy journalism. And this kind of equivalence is common in US journalism. By conservatives the world over, if my local conservative rag is any indication.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2008, 21:06:24 EDT »

I also hope that its realized that Democrats and Republicans are NOT static blocs, and have a wide variety of individuals within them.  If any third party were to be elected to Congress or the Presidency, they would end up playing the same politician game that the current parties do.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2008, 05:32:45 EDT »

Roberts, having nothing better to reply to Krugman with, pulls out the good old "Yeah, but you do too!" for a fallacy double threat, with a side order of lazy journalism.

Ignoring for a second the tu quoque fallacy, when you compare Krugman pointed out to what Roberts is trying to make equivalent to the follies of the Republican party, it doesn't stack up. It's deceiving to list the two side by side, because they're not equivalent. Roberts lies when he tries to make them so, and suffers from lazy journalism because the Democratic party is not too far from being an easy target.
But they are not comparing the follies of the Republican party to the Democratic party.  They are pointing out how opposed factions in those parties are to governance by the other side.  And both of them are right.  There are in fact many in the Democratic party who responded this way to Bush's presidency, there still are.


Poor phrasing, sorry.

In more detail, Krugman's pointing out that Republican voters stated that Clinton was an illegitimate president. That is, he didn't earn the job through fair means. Roberts says the same thing of Democratic voters. While true on the surface, there's no basis to the Republican claim. The Democratic claim is backed by the fiasco in Florida. Thus, tu quoque, lies and lazy journalism. And this kind of equivalence is common in US journalism. By conservatives the world over, if my local conservative rag is any indication.
But aren't they talking about what various groups *think*, not what the facts are?
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2008, 08:43:55 EDT »

Nope. They're talking about how groups have acted.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2008, 09:12:11 EDT »

Nope. They're talking about how groups have acted.
Krugman says "for a long time we have had a substantial fraction of the Republican base that just does not regard the idea of Democrats governing as legitimate", he is talking about what people think, their regard.

Then Roberts says "I think that you've also had a huge number of Democrats who think that the Republicans are illegitimate".

That said neither of them are being particularly coherent.
Logged
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2008, 09:47:17 EDT »

Quote from: Current
But aren't they talking about what various groups *think*, not what the facts are?
One cannot dissmiss facts altogether.

If one group thinks the earth revolves around the sun, and another thinks it's the other way around, they both *think* relatively similar things, but one cannot assume it means the two groups are similar or believe these things for the same reasons... nor can one deduce an equivalence between the two beliefs.

I belive that was both Krugman's point and Eagle's.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2008, 11:48:50 EDT »

Really, so the dmeocrats are a brave and stalwart party who stands up for their beliefs?

Thank god, I thougt I'd heard on the news they had yet to defund the war, and kept getting steamrolled into appoving insane legistlation because they have no spine.  Good to know that was all right-wing lies and they have actually managed to defend the constitution and fundemental human decency.

(I think when you say democrat you mean Kucinich, who is awesome in all ways, not, say, most of congress)
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2008, 12:10:52 EDT »

Quote from: Current
But aren't they talking about what various groups *think*, not what the facts are?
One cannot dissmiss facts altogether.
No, but if you're not talking about facts then they aren't really relevant are they?

If one group thinks the earth revolves around the sun, and another thinks it's the other way around, they both *think* relatively similar things, but one cannot assume it means the two groups are similar or believe these things for the same reasons... nor can one deduce an equivalence between the two beliefs.

I belive that was both Krugman's point and Eagle's.
Well maybe.  I think though the point the two pundits are discussing is what things are going to look like after the election.

Krugman correctly point out how hostile some republicans are to the democratic party holding power.  Roberts mentions that similarly the many democrats are hostile to republicans holding power.  Surely when discussing how ugly things will be after the election the reasons that each group have this hostility is not so relevant?
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2008, 18:49:05 EDT »

Really, so the dmeocrats are a brave and stalwart party who stands up for their beliefs?

Thank god, I thougt I'd heard on the news they had yet to defund the war, and kept getting steamrolled into appoving insane legistlation because they have no spine.  Good to know that was all right-wing lies and they have actually managed to defend the constitution and fundemental human decency.

(I think when you say democrat you mean Kucinich, who is awesome in all ways, not, say, most of congress)
With Republican control of the Presidency, the Supreme Court, enough of the Senate to filibuster, and the Media, Democrats are hardly in a position to fight off Republican policies.  The best they could achieve is a stalemate, and since Republicans have control over the media, all the blame for the consequences of the stalemate will be heaped on the Democrats.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Schmorgluck
Devout Discordian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2008, 23:32:26 EDT »

Christopher Buckley is mentioned in the article, and his endorsement of Obama. I had never heard of this guy until just a few days ago, when I randomly found his column for the Daily Beast in which he expressed his position: Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama.

When I retrieved this article for linking it here, I went on to reread it: Buckley's views are interesting, and his writing style is great. I encourage you to read it.

When I was finished, I found a link that wasn't there initially, a link to another article, published today, in which he details the consequences of the previous: Buckley Bows Out of National Review. It's sad, a bit frightening and, it seems to me, relevant to the discussion we have at hand.

Well maybe.  I think though the point the two pundits are discussing is what things are going to look like after the election.

Krugman correctly point out how hostile some republicans are to the democratic party holding power.  Roberts mentions that similarly the many democrats are hostile to republicans holding power.  Surely when discussing how ugly things will be after the election the reasons that each group have this hostility is not so relevant?
The point is that never the Dem camp did give Bush shit of the same tremendous magnitude than that which Clinton had to face. And Obama is already facing a tremendous amount of shit as well.
The reasons why it is so, of this difference in attitude, are a matter of interest by themselves.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 23:42:24 EDT by Schmorgluck » Logged

There's no such thing as female intelligence.
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2008, 04:55:57 EDT »

Christopher Buckley is mentioned in the article, and his endorsement of Obama. I had never heard of this guy until just a few days ago, when I randomly found his column for the Daily Beast in which he expressed his position: Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama.

When I retrieved this article for linking it here, I went on to reread it: Buckley's views are interesting, and his writing style is great. I encourage you to read it.

When I was finished, I found a link that wasn't there initially, a link to another article, published today, in which he details the consequences of the previous: Buckley Bows Out of National Review. It's sad, a bit frightening and, it seems to me, relevant to the discussion we have at hand.
Well, W.F.Buckley was never quite like other conservatives.

Well maybe.  I think though the point the two pundits are discussing is what things are going to look like after the election.

Krugman correctly point out how hostile some republicans are to the democratic party holding power.  Roberts mentions that similarly the many democrats are hostile to republicans holding power.  Surely when discussing how ugly things will be after the election the reasons that each group have this hostility is not so relevant?
The point is that never the Dem camp did give Bush shit of the same tremendous magnitude than that which Clinton had to face. And Obama is already facing a tremendous amount of shit as well.
The reasons why it is so, of this difference in attitude, are a matter of interest by themselves.
Well, I see what you mean if they're talking about the congressional parties.  But are they talking about that?
Logged
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2008, 14:01:42 EDT »

It is a question of objectivity and truth.  In the past 16 years, when their party was the "loser" of the two:

-Democrats made up motives for actions, Republicans made up actions and motives. ("blood for oil" vs. "committed murder/rape")

-Democrats screeched and railed about legitimacy with a marginal election, Republicans screeched about sexual misconduct.  (Florida and Monica)

-republicans held an impeachment over a blowjob, democrats did not hold an impeachment over a war.

-the republican mainstream talks about Obama being a secret muslim operative.  The left "crazy guy with lazy eye" talk about McCain being some Vietnamese "Manchurian Candidate." 

-Ann Coulter calling for murder is "the same thing" as Micheal Moore calling for people to elect someone else. 

Both sides have hostility, but both the reasons and the level of hostility are better on the democrat's side than the side of the republicans.  The right has more hate, the hate is more irrational, and the negative effects of that hate are greater. 

On an unexpected tangent, does anyone know if there has been a presidency that actually did "reduce government"?
Logged
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2008, 14:07:41 EDT »


Both sides have hostility, but both the reasons and the level of hostility are better on the democrat's side than the side of the republicans.  The right has more hate, the hate is more irrational, and the negative effects of that hate are greater. 

On an unexpected tangent, does anyone know if there has been a presidency that actually did "reduce government"?

Levels aside, I think the hatred is pretty irrational on both sides. For example, back in 2006 when Joe Lieberman ran to keep his Senate seat as an independent, some radical democrats angry with him made horrible comments along the lines of "Lieberman should have been sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz", and portrayed him in blackface. That's pretty hateful to me. And the problems are worst with those on the far right (Coulter, Limbaugh) and those on the far left (Olbermann, Moore). Rational people in both parties I think are wise enough to ignore the bullshit.

In response to your tangent, the answer is sadly no. The only way we'll ever have a presidency that will cut back on government spending and interference in our lives is to vote for a libertarian president. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Logged
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2008, 16:09:46 EDT »

In response to your tangent, the answer is sadly no. The only way we'll ever have a presidency that will cut back on government spending and interference in our lives is to vote for a libertarian president. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I wouldn't count on anyone who wants to office of president to reduce the size of government.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!