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
November 17, 2018, 16:40:54 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing  (Read 17579 times)
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2008, 16:21:51 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.

I don't really see an equivalence between Coulter and Olbermann. Olbermann may be an angry, verbose commentator but as far as I know he has never done the equivalent of calling for the New York Times office to be firebombed.
Logged

wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2008, 20:43:14 EDT »

some radical democrats
And that is the difference.  The republican MAINSTREAM is known for spewing out the kind of madness that the only "crazy guy with lazy eye" types in the democratic party can match.

You can't compare the radical fanatics of one party to the leading representatives of the other.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2008, 10:10:08 EDT »

some radical democrats
And that is the difference.  The republican MAINSTREAM is known for spewing out the kind of madness that the only "crazy guy with lazy eye" types in the democratic party can match.

You can't compare the radical fanatics of one party to the leading representatives of the other.
Pretty much.  We seem to be following a pattern here:

Side A: "The right has crazy people who advocate/do bad and destructive things."

Side B: "Well both sides have crazy people so they're the same." 

Side A: "They are not the same, the nutters on the right are statistically relevant and/or damaging while the crazies on the left are almost entirely ignored or only given token screen time by their enemies."

Side B: "Both sides have crazy people so they're the same." 

Side A: "But the sides are objectively different, one is small and mildly annoying while one is widespread and dangerous." 

Side B: "Both sides have crazy people so they're the same." 

It's kind of like how, since the entire country has a bias towards Obama winning right now, most of the mainstream media is tepidly endorsing him (or not endorsing his opponent), including the historically right-wing (and crazy as three drunk monkeys) Washington Times.  This does not make the demented honking of "lie-brul media!" from Fox news correct, it merely points out that most media sources know when it's time to jump ship.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2008, 11:58:07 EDT »

I'm sorry, I reject the premise of powerless without the president.

The congress controls to purse strings, they are not required to fund anything.  Stopping the war is relatively easy if you stop funding it, you don't need to pass a bill, you just need to not-pass a spending bill.  They don't want to be called unmilitarisitic, so they book and run.  That is what is known as being cowardly.  They then rail about the administrations coninued abuse of power, but keep passing spending bills so that power can be abused.  I don't fault them for not getting bills passed, i fault them for passing a whole hell of a lot of really, really bad legislation because they were bullied.

boring, I'm not sure the nutters on the left -are- not influential.  I stay with that both sides are bad, but not equal.  The right is more dangerous, because they tend to actually believe things and act cohesively, but the nutters on the left are more "evil" in that they know better.  I don't think Sean Hannity knows what he is talking about, so I let him some slack for ignorance.  I do not give the same level of tolerance for someone flinging out false numbers on the left (just because they are in the news, let's pick ACORN).  They are knowingly lying, and obfuscating it with degrees and numbers so as to seem legit to people who lack a background.

It may just be too much Christianity in my youth, but I feel deliberate obfuscation by the knowledgable is perhaps the worst cancer within a society.
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
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2008, 12:09:29 EDT »

(just because they are in the news, let's pick ACORN)

You picked a bad example. ACORN were the ones being defrauded, and by their employees.
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...
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2008, 12:17:08 EDT »

And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.
Logged

rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2008, 12:46:50 EDT »

And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.

Nor the fact President Bush's "interesting" use of 'line item' vetoes, to let a bill pass, like a funding bill, and vetoing only the restrictions in it that he does not like. so the bill is NOT returned congress as it "passed"
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2008, 13:41:50 EDT »

I'm sorry, I reject the premise of powerless without the president.

The congress controls to purse strings, they are not required to fund anything.  Stopping the war is relatively easy if you stop funding it, you don't need to pass a bill, you just need to not-pass a spending bill.  They don't want to be called unmilitarisitic, so they book and run.  That is what is known as being cowardly.  They then rail about the administrations coninued abuse of power, but keep passing spending bills so that power can be abused.  I don't fault them for not getting bills passed, i fault them for passing a whole hell of a lot of really, really bad legislation because they were bullied.
What part of any stalemate/lockdown in the political machine will be blamed on the democrats by the conservative supporting media do you not understand?  Or that because we only have a pitiable and uncohesive majority that is in no way able to neither fight filibusters, vetoes, or supreme court rulings, such stalemates/lockdowns will occur basically constantly if the democrats try advocating for their policies?

boring, I'm not sure the nutters on the left -are- not influential.
Huh, so the nutters on the left also have a news channel for them to discuss their views in a favorable light, and that is more watched than any other news channel? 

I stay with that both sides are bad, but not equal.  The right is more dangerous, because they tend to actually believe things and act cohesively, but the nutters on the left are more "evil" in that they know better.  I don't think Sean Hannity knows what he is talking about, so I let him some slack for ignorance.  I do not give the same level of tolerance for someone flinging out false numbers on the left (just because they are in the news, let's pick ACORN).  They are knowingly lying, and obfuscating it with degrees and numbers so as to seem legit to people who lack a background.

It may just be too much Christianity in my youth, but I feel deliberate obfuscation by the knowledgable is perhaps the worst cancer within a society.
Actually I think people who can believe the lies they advocate are far more dangerous than those who say them for political reasons.

Also, do remember that we have far better grounds.  Saying Clinton is a mass murderer is significantly more extreme than saying that Bush is a mass murderer, seeing as one started a war on false pretenses that has lead to the death of a million people, and the other got a blowjob.
Logged

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

Posts: 202



« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2008, 19:05:51 EDT »

Also, do remember that we have far better grounds.  Saying Clinton is a mass murderer is significantly more extreme than saying that Bush is a mass murderer, seeing as one started a war on false pretenses that has lead to the death of a million people, and the other got a blowjob.
Won't somebody please think of the sperms?


Sorry, I had to.
Logged

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

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2008, 21:47:16 EDT »

And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.

Nor the fact President Bush's "interesting" use of 'line item' vetoes, to let a bill pass, like a funding bill, and vetoing only the restrictions in it that he does not like. so the bill is NOT returned congress as it "passed"

Wait... is that legal?
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...
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2008, 22:15:55 EDT »

And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.

Nor the fact President Bush's "interesting" use of 'line item' vetoes, to let a bill pass, like a funding bill, and vetoing only the restrictions in it that he does not like. so the bill is NOT returned congress as it "passed"

Wait... is that legal?

Bush declared it was. "To fight pork projects"
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2008, 03:14:29 EDT »

Its probably unconstitutional, but it hasn't been challenged yet.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2008, 13:09:29 EDT »

Brings us back to the "democrats are toothless" thing. 

They are spending all their time afraid that hitting Bush will cost them the election (and/or the nation is tired of impeachments) or, more seditiously, thinking that they can "get 'em back" if Obama will use those powers too.  Congress is at that William Wallace speech from Braveheart, and the question is whether they will fight for their freedom and possibly lose or just "run away and live, for a while."  I think they are wrong to run away, but that *is* a separate issue. 

As for ACORN...yeah.  ACORN is neither "on the left" (ask the 2006 McCain) nor at fault for horrible democracy-undermining evils.  ACORN works in the cities, which are more likely to have democrats as workers and targets (see "small town elitism") but it registers republicans too.  ACORN is one of those "we aren't trying to make a profit, we just have a cause" organizations that tries to get the voting numbers higher than American Idol viewership.  Since they ask for volunteers or people willing to work for chicken feed, they will get people with other motives, (fill the rolls with fakes for a bonus, fill the rolls with fakes that could vote fraudulently) in the same range as the republicans who call up registered voters and try to convince them it is illegal/dangerous for them to vote because they might get arrested or they "got purged from the voter rolls, so they shouldn't bother" or whathaveyou. 

ACORN's goal of "more voters" is more valuable than it's cost of "another venue for fraud."  This relative value is determined by the fact that it plays within the rules enough to not be sued out of existence.  They do their best to yank out the fraudsters, and call me a pessimist if you must but I always assume a little bit of individual fraud is going to happen from whatever sides *cough*2000 election*cough*.  This is also part of why I assume a presidential election has a "margin of error" because aside from individual cases of fraud slipping by, ballot boxes can get into car accidents when driving to the voting places, etc. 

Oh, and I mixed up the Washington Post and the Washington Times above.   my bad. 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2008, 17:50:16 EDT by boring7 » Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2008, 11:35:31 EDT »

Well, consider me chastised, though I still find they are at least culbable in the same way that a negligent parent in culbable if their child falls down the stairs (I'm actually okay with that, children are coddled too much), that being said, i disagree with their goals, but then again, I'm not for a total 1-to-1 democracy (I think the weak and stupid should have a lesser vote then the strong and intelligent).

Also, Obermann and Maddow have shows, and they are rather, well, very left of centre, and I get sick of the whining about the media bias.  The media is stupid and lazy, not really so much biased.  The republican dominance has more to do with their ability to make a cohesive and simple story then outright media favouratism.  From what I can tell, MSNBC has the express goal of being a left-leaning Fox copycat.

Wodan, that's exactly what I mean.  They are afraid that, say, defunding the war will cost them an election and so continue the war.  Being in power is not about winning the next election, it -should- be about doing what you consider is right and then leading others to see why you think it is right.  If this is not why you're in power, either you are A: so far out of the mainstream you know your views will be unpaltable, but are trying to do they best you can fro the people anyway, or more likely B: A coward.

People do not like to be ruled by cowards, so oddly, by being cowardly one avoids the short death but signs a more certain long term certificate.
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
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2008, 13:19:24 EDT »

Clinton lied directly to the american people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it.  If he had said that he had a gluten allergy while eating white bread, the lie would still have been a lie--and he still would deserve to lose trust.

On the other hand, nobody has ever proved that Bush lied.  In fact, the person many people say was responsible for the "lie us into war" just endorsed Obama.  Food for thought.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
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!