Could Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate?

[bascule]

Bascule, [...] straw men [...] right-wing dictatorship that you want people to believe that we've become.

 

That's about the most succinct example of your hypocrisy I think I've ever seen

 

Here, let me help you out:

 

"right-wing dictatorship that you want people to believe that we've become" <--- this is a strawman

[Pangloss]

Should I ask you to defend why civilizing and Christianizing foreign countries is a good idea? Or how about lynching black people, because it's conservatives who tend to do that? Your kind seem to think women belong in the kitchen, not the workplace. Care to defend that?

 

"right-wing dictatorship that you want people to believe that we've become" <--- this is a strawman

 

Whatever you say, man.

[iNow]

Whatever you say, man.

 

When taken in context, bascule was clearly suggesting that he should each only be asked to defend comments which he himself has made, not the comments of others who are lumped into some ideological group with which you've associated him. You then tried to suggest that what he was doing with his examples ("should I ask blah blah blah about you, or this other thing about you?") were some sort of strawman... man.

 

Okay, see the difference... guy?

[Pangloss]

Sure, he didn't say Bush took the country to an ideological extreme, he just said "that wasn't what happened in 2004". In other words, he threw out yet another blatantly suggestive, elliptical statement, the meaning of which was clear, and called it a day.

 

And when I challenged him on it he admitted that was what he meant with his response in post #21, with the following rant:

 

...elections won under dubious circumstances...

 

... the Bush administration was spying on U.S. citizens

... torturing prisoners of war

... and above all else "spreading democracy" in the name of an overarching "war on terror".

 

That's not an ideology gone too far?

 

So I was correct in my interpretation of his "that wasn't what happened in 2004" comment.

 

When Bascule does this he is essentially saying' date=' "Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, we all know who the progressives are here and I just can't finish that sentence because Pangloss will get angry, so I'll use a code instead and you'll know what I mean. Of course, if a [i']conservative[/i] posts something we disagree with, why, we'll challenge him for evidence and logic. But amongst ourselves, of course, the most obtuse reasoning is perfectly acceptable."

 

Well I don't accept that, and I will continue to challenge him on that behavior. The only reason he said the above is because I challenged him on it. I'd call that progress. But I do appreciate the opportunity to elucidate on my views on this.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Pangloss

[Realitycheck]

There is no more right-wing dictatorship. They have already been castrated. We are just waiting for him to be beheaded.

[bascule]

So I was correct in my interpretation of his "that wasn't what happened in 2004" comment.

 

You've conveniently omitted the reasoning for that statement.

 

Here, again, is the evidence for mine:

 

• The Bush administration was spying on U.S. citizens: a U.S. district court has found him guilty of violating FISA, which is a felony
  
• torturing prisoners of war: Bush gave the OK to waterboard, although I'm sure you'd still persist in the "waterboarding isn't torture" line
  

[Pangloss]

Yes but that doesn't refute my point. In fact it supports my claim that you're exaggerating. A few people getting tortured or thrown into Guantanamo Bay clearly was obviously not enough to overcome the bread and circuses -- beer and gas were still cheap, football still comes on on Sunday, and George W. Bush got re-elected. I rest my case.

[bascule]

A few people getting tortured or thrown into Guantanamo Bay clearly was obviously not enough to overcome the bread and circuses -- beer and gas were still cheap

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, gas wasn't cheap

 

football still comes on on Sunday, and George W. Bush got re-elected. I rest my case.

 

Your whole argument is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Not to mention one of your premises is false.

[Pangloss]

It was less than half of what it peaked at earlier this year. The death of the SUV was just within the last year, not in 2004. I agree with you and Phi that it was *A* factor in the election, but I stand by the argument -- the extreme case you pose does not apply.

[iNow]

It was less than half of what it peaked at earlier this year. The death of the SUV was just within the last year, not in 2004.

 

Hence the mention of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[D H]

There is no more right-wing dictatorship. They have already been castrated. We are just waiting for him to be beheaded.

There never has been a right wing dictatorship. If there had been we wouldn't be having an election in less than a month.

[Pangloss]

Hence the mention of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

Since in this case A didn't occur before B, it clearly can't be that. Now can we move on, please?

Edited October 11, 2008 by Pangloss

[Realitycheck]

You're wrong -- 2004 proves my point. Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. That's what happens when you build an opinion off an ideological predisposition instead of the facts -- you come to conclusions based on fears of what MAY happen, rather than what's ACTUALLY happened. You hear people say how the country has slid into religious dictatorship so often that you figure it must be true, then go on to draw conclusions based on that erroneous reasoning (like your statement above). Again, this is why I challenge you when you use ellipses instead of argument. Kudos for not doing so here. You're being straight-up now, and the result is a more reasoned, more factual, and more illuminating discussion.

 

So sure, enjoy the victory. Just like your side did in 1992. Just like your enemies did in 2000. How's that working out so far? Good? Great, keep going. Nobody seems to want to change that pattern. Might as well continue. All it's cost you in the last week is $15,000. Surely a small price to pay for a brighter, more progressive future.

 

This is where this thread careened into a ditch.

 

Gas prices were actually pretty good, under $2.

 

 

The economy was still growing moderately.

 

 

But these ideological programs were out of this world. This is when everything went to hell and whose idea was it to categorize axes of "evil" and embark on holier than everybody missions from God and invade Iraq with their clandestine labs and fictitious nuclear arsenals simply because he thought it was possible for us to clean house around the entire world? I mean, just how idiotic was this? (In case you did not hear this soundbyte, Bush did claim that he had a "calling from God" which led him to do all of this.)

 

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/06/mike_malloy_george_w_god.mp3

 

George W. Bush getting communication from God, as reported in Israel's Ha'aretz:

 

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

 

JANUARY 17, 2004: 500 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq since the invasion.

JANUARY 22, 2004: CIA officers warn of civil war.

JANUARY 28, 2004: Iraq Survey Group inspector David Kay reports, "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."

FEBRUARY 10, 2004: U.S. Military uncovers letter addressed to senior al-Qaida operatives seeking help in waging a “sectarian war”.

FEBRUARY 19, 2004: Chalabi declares that he and Bush administration have been “heroes in error.”

MARCH 5, 2004: Former chief U.N. weapons inspector declares Iraq war illegal.

MARCH 24, 2004: Bush jokes at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

MARCH 31, 2004: Four Blackwater contractors killed and their bodies mutilated in Fallujah.

APRIL 28, 2004: Images of torture at Abu Ghraib are revealed.

MAY 1, 2004: Bush says “daily life” of Iraqis is improving. (Oh really?)

MAY 11, 2004: Video released showing Nicholas Berg, an American contractor, being beheaded by Iraqi militants.

JUNE 28, 2004: U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraq. Bush’s response: “Let freedom reign!”

AUGUST 27, 2004: Bush acknowledged for the first time that he made a “miscalculation of what the conditions would be” in postwar Iraq.

AUGUST 30, 2004: “Catastrophic Success” BUSH: Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success–being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day. (LOL)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004: Bush administration requests that the Senate shift $3.4 billion of the $18.4 billion Iraqi aid package meant for reconstruction work to improving security measures.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2004: Intelligence report delivered to Bush warns of civil war. Bush’s response: the CIA is “just guessing”.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2004: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declares Iraq war illegal.

OCTOBER 7, 2004: Duelfer Report: Iraq did not have WMD. Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

OCTOBER 25, 2004: The New York Times reports that about 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared from military installation called Al Qaqaa sometime after the U.S.-led war began in March 2003

NOVEMBER 2, 2004: Bush wins re-election, (BECAUSE WAR IS COOL! AND THIS WAS HIS WAR, BY GOLLY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET SOME PRISSY-TOED SWIFTBOATER TAKE CREDIT FOR IT!

Edited October 11, 2008 by agentchange
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Gas prices were actually pretty good' date=' under $2.

The economy was still growing moderately.[/quote']

 

I appreciate that.

 

But these ideological programs were out of this world.

 

Well obviously they were far-gone enough for me to change my vote, but I'm not a typical voter, nor is anyone here. My point to bascule was that those factors were clearly were not enough of a deterrent for the average American to change their vote, and the result was that Bush got re-elected. Americans were (and still are) unaffected by those things, simply going about our business, working, buying Playstations, watching movies, drinking beer and watching football. That's what I mean when I say that however bad you guys view it from an intellectual perspective, the reality was (and is) that stuff didn't affect people enough to matter in 2004 (and that's still true in 2008, IMO).

 

I'll put it this way, if you prefer: People care about Guantanamo Bay and global warming. They "HOLY FREAKING MOTHER OF GOD!" care about gas, food and jobs.

 

The sad reality from the perspective of partisans of the left is that America is about to do the right thing for the wrong reason. Democrats are going to jump up and down and pat each other on the back and tell us that it was all about global warming and healthcare and Iraq and gay marriage, when in fact it was about one thing and one thing only -- the one and only thing that broke months -- MONTHS! -- of statistical dead-heating between the two candidates: The economy.

 

And the only reason that tie-breaking factor is going Democrats' way is because a Republican was in the White House for the last eight years. The single-digit congressional approval rating proves that only a partisan believes that Democrats can or will actually do a better job than Republicans. The people aren't giving Democrats a mandate, they're expressing their displeasure. LOUDLY. And if Democrats aren't listening, the people will explain it to them in very short order by re-empowering the minority party, just as they have with the past two administrations.

[Realitycheck]

The war caused so many of these things. It wrapped its tendrils into every facet of our existence - gas prices, absurd defense spending, consumer confidence, fear of loss, conservatism, global respect - I mean, why didn't they ever think up forming an alternate United Nations before? Of course, the economy is penultimate, but there is a direct correlation between what we have been engaged in for the past 8 years and where we are now. It didn't just get this way out of blindness.

 

Let's go back to Politics 101

 

Republicans - Small government, Strong Defense, Individualism, etc.

Democrats - Social services, Negotiation, Group, etc.

 

Democrats are not exactly known for being trigger happy, though I can't say much about times before Jimmy Carter. All I know is that he didn't start a war because some hostages got kidnapped in Iran. I wonder how many billion dollars it would have taken to free them by force en masse.

 

This was driven, out of ignorance, out of "responsibility for correcting our mistakes", but we, as a nation, do not have to accept responsibility for the ruling party's errors, especially when they have been so grossly overblown. It's not all of our fault. If we were led to believe things that were untrue, then we have even more reason to be dissatisfied.

 

Also, I think there is a substantial percentage of people who vote a certain way because that's the way that they were raised and they would not have it any other way. It is simply unthinkable. I was a Republican for most of my life because I never really thought much about it until I realized the injustice of being uninsured for 10 years of my life while the chiropractors ruined my life, simply because medical care was out of reach, when I could have simply moved to Britain or France and lived in Utopia.

Edited October 11, 2008 by agentchange
multiple post merged

[Phi for All]

Gas prices were actually pretty good, under $2.

Pretty good compared to now. At the time of the 2004 election, they were the highest they'd ever been, and many thought securing Iraq would bring much needed relief. Gas prices were very much a factor in 2004, no matter how much we look back in retrospect.

 

Come on, guys. I know it seems like nothing now, but don't you remember shaking your head when gas went over $2? At least here in Denver, the talk that summer was about how this ex-oil maverick (grin) took office and four years later, after invading an oil producing country, the price at the pump was up almost 80%.

[ParanoiA]

I'll put it this way' date=' if you prefer: People care about Guantanamo Bay and global warming. They "HOLY FREAKING MOTHER OF GOD!" care about gas, food and jobs.

 

The sad reality from the perspective of partisans of the left is that America is about to do the right thing for the wrong reason. Democrats are going to jump up and down and pat each other on the back and tell us that it was all about global warming and healthcare and Iraq and gay marriage, when in fact it was about one thing and one thing only -- the one and only thing that broke months -- MONTHS! -- of statistical dead-heating between the two candidates: The economy.

 

And the only reason that tie-breaking factor is going Democrats' way is because a Republican was in the White House for the last eight years. The single-digit congressional approval rating proves that only a partisan believes that Democrats can or will actually do a better job than Republicans. The people aren't giving Democrats a mandate, they're expressing their displeasure. LOUDLY. And if Democrats aren't listening, the people will explain it to them in very short order by re-empowering the minority party, just as they have with the past two administrations.[/quote']

 

Nice post. Spot on, imo.

 

Also, I think there is a substantial percentage of people who vote a certain way because that's the way that they were raised and they would not have it any other way. It is simply unthinkable. I was a Republican for most of my life because I never really thought much about it until I realized the injustice of being uninsured for 10 years of my life while the chiropractors ruined my life, simply because medical care was out of reach, when I could have simply moved to Britain or France and lived in Utopia.

 

It's the trust thing really. If you grew up republican, even if you delve into the details of it and don't like what you see, you still have an impulse to trust them over "the other guy".

 

Sounds to me like you're more of a liberal with a tradition of republicanism. Anyone who thinks it's an "injustice" not to be "insured" - an insidious wart on the ass of capitalism - is definitely a large group social services via coercive theft thinker. By the way, you might correct that redirection conditioning by asking yourself why you think "insurance" is the problem and not the "cost of healthcare".

 

I see that as one of the biggest problems of group-think politics - it's so easy to condition the populace to make arbitrary connections that miss the point (and keep others rich) like insurance = healthcare.

[Realitycheck]

Anyone who thinks it's an "injustice" not to be "insured" - an insidious wart on the ass of capitalism - is definitely a large group social services via coercive theft thinker. By the way, you might correct that redirection conditioning by asking yourself why you think "insurance" is the problem and not the "cost of healthcare".

 

Man, these are quite strong words and imply a hefty amount of assumption. I was already about to embark on a comparison of our system to others that are much more highly regarded in terms of fairness. Oh yeah, life is not fair. Capitalism is supposed to be another word for survival of the richest and anything other than that is un-American, unconstitutional, and evil. LMFAO

 

"Is healthcare a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" WTF?

 

This quip keeps resounding through my head and while you might not like to confront it, I'll take efficiency over a quagmire any day. It's just that so many people believe that capitalism and free markets naturally promote efficiency in every possible way without any thinking required. It does not belong in the area of healthcare. It's really a pathetic case of affairs that healthcare in this country is controlled by egalitarian, capitalist pigs. (FYI: My grandfather was a State Board Medical Examiner.) As ecoli pointed out from his textbook, it is a responsibility. So do you want to do it half-ass and every other way but the right way, or do you want to do it efficiently? You don't even have to answer, because even with a Democratic monopoly, it really seems out of reach now with our country's financial status in the shape that it is.

Edited October 11, 2008 by agentchange

[ParanoiA]

Man, these are quite strong words and imply a hefty amount of assumption. I was already about to embark on a comparison of our system to others that are much more highly regarded in terms of fairness. Oh yeah, life is not fair. Capitalism is supposed to be another word for survival of the richest and anything other than that is un-American, unconstitutional, and evil. LMFAO

 

America isn't about fair and neither is any other government. America is about freedom, public participation in law and order, sweeping individual liberty, self empowerment - all of these things add up to survival of the fittest. Ingenuity rewarded with profits. There's plenty of degrees of socialism, communism spread around the world's governments - we're capitalist, and should stay that way if for no other reason than diversity.

 

What's fair about wealth redistribution? What's fair about coercive morality enforcement? What's fair about welfare? Income taxes on labor?

 

There is no fair government on the planet. What is fair to you is coercive to someone else. The most even handed approach is to maximize individual freedom to pursue security and wealth by one's own achievements. For each individual to earn their property, their keep. Anything else is stealing what hasn't been earned.

[Realitycheck]

Anything else is stealing what hasn't been earned.

 

Yeah, but I helped the government collect about a quarter million in unpaid taxes ... twice. So I'm different.

 

Basically, all I am trying to say that is that it gets done, regardless of whether you think it should happen or not. The only difference is whether or not the poor black man's credit gets $100,000 of medical bills tacked onto it. So what is the point? Why treat him if you are going to kill him? Makes all the sense in the world, doesn't it? At a different hospital, he's probably covered by an in-house, indigent healthcare plan, where he pays a 50 dollar copay to receive a 20,000 dollar surgery. The fact remains that it is going to get done, presumably by law (because it is a "responsibility") and the almighty capitalist healthcare network simply raises the cost of YOUR healthcare to cover it, in addition to Medicare supplements and Medicaid supplements (which YOU pay for again), local sales taxes?, and endowments, and anything else to make up for it ... when we could all get a clue and practice basic cutting edge organizational philosophy by centralizing data and decentralizing operations.

 

This "model" of capitalist efficiency is one big joke.

Edited October 11, 2008 by agentchange