Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Progressive Conservatives

In his recent column, "Obama: The conservative in 2012", E.J. Dionne says:

Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.

Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.

If anything, we can now confuse and annoy the Right, the regressive conservatives, by claiming to be “progressive conservatives”.

I think I like this new brand we have here. I hereby welcome you all to the Progressive Conservative Movement. Let’s conserve what’s best about America, and not sell it all off to the corporate and economic elite highest bidders.

118 comments:

Tom Harper said...

We could confuse the Right even more by reminding them that when the CIA was first created (after WWII), the biggest opponents were conservative Republicans. They were against the idea of a huge government agency having this much power over individuals and being unaccountable to the public.

Jerry Critter said...

Democrats are progressive conservatives and republicans are the radical conservatives. Are there no liberals left?

The Heathen Republican said...

Dave, this isn't an original idea, unfortunately for Mr Dionne Jr. On Dec 23rd, Forbes ran an article naming Newt Gingrich the "populist progressive conservative." From the article:

“Populist progressive conservative” is a hard combination to pull off.  But it can be done.   Populist means optimistic about people’s ability to govern themselves.   Progressive stands for champion of the little guy against powerful insider special interests.   Conservative?  Fundamentally committed to free enterprise, traditional values and a robust America.  Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, two Gingrich icons, did it. Gingrich, perhaps uniquely this cycle, may have threaded this very needle.

Jerry Critter said...

The same article says "Gingrich is likely to sweep the primaries and, America truly being exceptional, win the Osawatomic War of 2012."

I'd say they are wrong on both counts, but we will have to wait to see.

free0352 said...

I have to admit, Romney may be more liberal than Obama...

John Myste said...

I would like to point one thing out. I don't have one thing to point out, though.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I think today's GOP is more likely filled with reactionary conservatives.

"Conservative? Fundamentally committed to free enterprise, traditional values and a robust America."

I would guess that being committed to "traditional values" would mean the elimination of gay marriage and gays openly serving in the military? Reactionary.

We can't go backwards. For a nation and culture to survive, it must move forward and change.

I think most of the apprehensions that haunt the reactionaries in the GOP come from the fear of change--accepting gays and lesbians as fully equal American citizens; seeing people of color increasing in the population and becoming the majority in some large states in the near future, and inevitably accepting that nonbelievers have the same right to express their opposition to religion as religious people always have in expressing their beliefs.

These are all quite disturbing issues for reactionaries, and, I think, the reason for so much divisiveness during this transitional period in our country's history.

S.W. Anderson said...

"(Obama) is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled."

Well, if they didn't completely dismantle what several Democratic presidents and congresses starting with FDR wrought, Reagan, the Bushes and a decade and a half of Republican congresses managed to do a hell of a lot of damage to it. And they were aided in no small part by Bill Clinton, who along with setting us up to export our manufacturing base and millions of jobs, signed legislation nullifying Glass-Steagall. That set us up for the bubble and bust we're still suffering from.

I usually agree with Dionne, but not on this one. He should go back and think this through. Yes, we still have Social Security, but it looks as though it's going to be an ongoing fight to keep the bastards' hands off of it from here on out.

That said, I would much prefer for Obama to be regarded as the (slightly) left-leaning moderate he is. "Conservative" has already been defined by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, Grover Norquist and a couple hundred other influential lowlifes. I get Dionne's point, but think it's a bad idea.

On similar grounds, I wouldn't recommend to Ford that it bring out a "New Edsel" car line, even if the cars were a zippy new design. Why burden them with so much unhelpful baggage?

Jerry Critter said...

Newt is the republican Edsel.

free0352 said...

Newt is crazy. I was willing to hold my nose till he started talking about dragging a co-equal branch of government in front of Congress for public floggings. He lost me there. The guy is Nixon or worse.

As for Clinton, he's the only decent President the Democrats have put up in the last 100 years. I say decent, not great. Then again the Republicans only put up two half way decent Presidents in the last 100 years so they aren't much better.

Just the Facts! said...

I would like to point out one thing, that I agree with John Myste.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I have to admit, Romney may be more liberal than Obama..."

Well Romney certainly leaned way to the left when he was campaigning for the governorship and when he governed in Massachusetts.

Willard is on video stating his undying support for a woman's right to choose, and it was Willard's with help from Ted Kennedy who gave Massachusetts its first-in-the-nation universal health care reform.

Willard is now disavowing all those center/progressive ideas and pandering to the hard right.

How does a mature, grown man change his core values in less than 10 years? Could it be that he does that in order win politically, and that perhaps there was never any core values to the man in the first place?

There's a reason the base of the GOP does not embrace Willard: He has no deeply held convictions, only panderings that will get him elected.

Leslie Parsley said...

Republicans who had to work with Newt in the past remember all too well his arrogance, craziness and unreliability, which is why they've been turning the screws on him - behind the scenes and up close and personal. He, along with Perry and that goofy woman need to bow out.

okjimm said...

I would like to point out that I am in agreement with Myste and Facts.

Dave Dubya said...

Tom,
I too, am uncomfortable with power unaccountable to the public. That’s the conservative side of me... or is it the liberal side? I feel this is how we are “divided and conquered”. Almost all of us have some liberal, conservative and independent streaks. The unaccountable powers don’t want us to reconcile the fact that the majority does indeed have common interests.

Jerry,
There certainly are liberals left in the US Government, maybe at least three or four. The reason we never see much of them on national news is the moderate right corporatist party (D) and the radical right corporatist party (R) dominate the discussion.

HR,
You’re right. There’s really nothing new in American politics. Newt may be a populist according to Forbes, but they are Forbes, for Pete’s sake. And he is not progressive at all by unanimous consensus of progressives. I think I’m more conservative than Newt could ever be progressive or populist. I at least have my guns and Bible. ;-)

Free,
I think Romney is “triangulating” from his party like Clinton, and now Obama, did from their party. Newt is purely and clearly in it for Newt. Just as Bachmann and Palin are in it purely for their egos and bank accounts. Most dems are no different. My general thinking is anyone who wants political power probably shouldn’t be allowed to have it.

Shaw,
Yeah, “traditional values”, “free market” and “robust America”... those are loaded terms all right. Turns out I have traditional values, and want a free market and a robust America too. Just not according to what a corporatist radical Rightist would believe. no deeply held convictions, only panderings that will get him elected is the rule more than the exception for most politicians.

SW,
I agree with what you say. Unfortunately the corporate media have not only allowed the radical Right to define conservatism, but they have allowed them to re-define and demonize liberalism, and corporate media itself, as well. If I were allowed such weight in public perception, I’d clearly draw the line between the Right and Left by simply saying it is a choice between anti-democratic conservatism and democratic liberalism. Liberal democracy is what used to be America’s, and the free world’s, preference, but no longer. And this explains a lot about how we are losing to Big Money.

Leslie,
The side show will have to pack up their tents soon enough. I kind of like having them around to represent and bring out the wacky fringe. Santorum will no doubt continue his contributions for a while.

John, JTF and Jimm,
I see your point. It's the thought that counts.

S.W. Anderson said...

Jerry Critter wrote, "Newt is the republican Edsel."

You're too kind. Make it Yugo and I'm with you. ;)

free0352 said...

Dave,

I think Gingrich is going to go for Romney's throat. All those negative Iowa adds really pissed him off. Those two are going to hopefully destroy one another. Who's waiting in the wings looking all innocent? Rick Santorum. I don't exactly love Santorum, but the cat fight that is going to erupt between Gingrich and Romney regardless of what I think of him could position him as nominee. Obama isn't exactly popular, and he's very vulnerable. Probably more vulnerable than you guys will admit. Obama could loose to Santorum - because the Republican base will show up and the Independents who hate Obama will too.

John Myste said...

Newt is going for Romney's throat and I love it! I enjoy watching it. It is entertaining, and that's what really matters. Moreover, Romney earned it, and I want to see him suffer (though he is near my top choice on the GOP side).

Santorum is an absolute nut. I don't see how anyone could vote for him.

Jerry Critter said...

Santorum will be going for Romney from the other end.

Dave Dubya said...

Free, John, and Jerry:

No doubt the Bible-thumping base will support Santorum. I'm not so sure many moderates will go for a guy who says, "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

This guy could want to bring back witch burning. To him, that just might be "how things are supposed to be".

Romney the Mormon is their best hope, odd as it may be.

Besides, he's next in line and the Republicans usually follow that pattern.

free0352 said...

No doubt the Bible-thumping base will support Santorum.

The Bible thumping base isn't what it used to be. The TEA Party has changed the priorities of the base... just not those of the RNC unfortunately.

As for Santorum's stance on contraception, that's ever so EASY to counter.

My Catholic faith, shared with millions of Americans and people the world over... even Democrats, believes contraception is a sin. So yes, I think it's wrong. However I do not believe it is the Federal Government's job to enforce my religious beliefs on Americans who do not share them. So don't worry, I won't sign a bill that outlaws condoms or the pill, however I will counsel my children that these things are according to our private, religious beliefs wrong. You might disagree and that's fine. My Democrat Party opponents are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill about this religious belief I hold. They must have forgotten, that President John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, heck... so was his brother Senator Ted Kennedy - and hence also thought contraception was a sin. Neither of them tried to force our churchs beliefs on the American people, and neither will I."

Boom. I should be a political consultant.

free0352 said...

Obviously Santorum didn't say that - I did pretending to be Santorum... but my point is if I can come up with it in about 2 seconds so will any political consultant worth his salt. Like I said I don't like Santorum, but I hate Gingrich and Romney with the fire of a thousand suns, so I'd like to see them eviscerate each other and see both their camps implode.

Dave Dubya said...

This may be a logical contention and would be a good example of the kind of back spin he would need, but would it sell? Santorum’s no Jack Kennedy, but I’m guessing he won’t be spewing any more such nonsense. Personal choices in one’s private life are not so uniform for moderates. I know a lot of Catholics. Most of them don’t hold the belief that contraception is a sin, at the very least not a mortal sin. They know that’s Papal doctrine, not scripture, and are pretty sure they won’t go to Hell for it. (Where’s our Catholic-convert TP when we need him?)

Republicans are not exactly known for separating their religion from politics are they? They’re always harping about not compromising "principles", and religious beliefs are their favorite principles to spout, along with those “principles” of directing and securing wealth and power to the elites.

I thought George “God Told Me” Bush was too much of an Armageddonist, but Santorum appears as if he would be only too delighted to believe he could pull the trigger for the Big One.

It’s sad enough that every presidential candidate must proclaim fealty to the Israeli Right, but they also must pass a de facto “God test” to get near the ballot. No admitted atheist could pass this charade and become president. Those are the mandatory PC rules of American politics.

The Heathen Republican said...

"...along with those 'principles' of directing and securing wealth and power to the elites."

Damn it! I knew I had left one off of my list of conservative principles. Thanks Dave.

John Myste said...

I believe what Santorum said is that he will support the states rights to decide the issue of birth control and that he thinks it should not be in the federal government's jurisdiction.

free0352 said...

Personal choices in one’s private life are not so uniform for moderates.

Again pretending to be Santorum -

Some people have said my personal choice when it comes to my religon might offend some moderates - especially about my support of Catholic Doctrine that certain contraception is a sin. I don't think that's true. I think we can live in a religiously tolerant atmosphere. Look at my good friend Joe Liberman, a Senator who is quite popular with moderate voters. Now Joe is Jewish and has a religious belief that eating pork is a sin. Now I'm Italian, my dad was from Italy in fact. I love Italian sausage. I like pork, but Joe thinks that eating pork is a sin. Do we hate each other? Of course not. We're good friends and worked together to support the Global War on Terrorism when I was in Congress. Most of Joes voters are Christians and they can accept that even though Joe thinks eating pork is an offense against God, Joe isn't going to pass any anti-pork legislation and force them to behave as his religion dictates. We instead believe in the Constitution and freedom, and being tolerant of religious beliefs. I'm going to stand by my church and it's doctrine just as Joe does, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Moderate will eat that kind of stuff up.

Republicans are not exactly known for separating their religion from politics are they?

Eh not lately. I can think of a whole host of liberal nanny laws like banning transfats, smoking, texting, lightbulbs, you name it... but I can't think of any Republican laws forcing me to do anything since forever. I think it's Democrats who have embraced the idea that government should tell you how to live your life. Sure they don't base those principles on Christianity, they base them on... socialism and an extreme paternalistic knee jerk.

Santorum appears as if he would be only too delighted to believe he could pull the trigger for the Big One.

Looks like Obama might think so too if you mean Iran. Looks like they both might be right.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
Although I indicated that was a Republican, not a conservative principle, you're welcome. That's what I get the big bucks for.:)

My principles are for conserving democracy and civil liberties. Neither major party seems too concerned about those principles, although many conservatives and liberals are.

John,
Yes, as we know contraception, like pregnancy monitoring, is not an individual right or responsibility, but falls under "states rights".

free0352 said...

I believe what Santorum said is that he will support the states rights to decide the issue of birth control and that he thinks it should not be in the federal government's jurisdiction.

I agree with that. Not that I'm against birth control, I'm all for it and use it. But I do think the domain to regulate such things belongs to the states. Same goes for food, drugs, and most other forms of regulation. In fact, I think there are only only a few things a State can't regulate, and that list can be found here.

Of course the Supreme Court didn't agree with me on this one, and ruled I'm wrong. So don't worry, no one will ban condoms or the pill, because it's been ruled unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

free0352 said...

My principles are for conserving democracy and civil liberties

No they aren't.

Dave Dubya said...

I can't think of any Republican laws forcing me to do anything since forever.

"Papers, please". "Piss in the cup, please". "Free speech zone, please". To mention but a few.

Maybe you're not forced to do anything, but many are.

My Republican governor raised my taxes to pay for a tax cut for businesses. Trickle up redistribution... again. And to think of all the light bulbs I could have bought with that money...

Oh, well, maybe my buddy who'll be getting ten grand more this year will buy me lunch, useless parasite that I am.

Sometimes I think you must not pay attention, or only do so selectively.

Dave Dubya said...

No they aren't.

Are too.

The Heathen Republican said...

"Free speech zone, please"

Holy cow, Republicans support free speech zones? The tragedy! Is it safe to assume Democrats are against free speech zones?

Dave, when was the last time you were asked for your papers? It's never happened to me.

The only pissing in a cup that I've done has been for a job, not Republicans.

If those are the best three examples you could come up with, Republicans must not be that bad.

Jerry Critter said...

Just because a State can regulate something does not mean that the Federal Government cannot.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Obama could loose to Santorum - because the Republican base will show up and the Independents who hate Obama will too."

Santorum will not survive the vetting.

"Santorum is beloved among "values voters" for his stand on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. But his record is rich in polarizing policy positions and questionable associations that support the charge of "Washington insider."

For example, his million-dollar-plus 2010 income included payments from a lobbying firm, an energy company engaged in controversial "hydrofracking" and a hospital conglomerate that was sued for allegedly defrauding the federal government...

Santorum, 53, was a big spender in Congress who voted to raise the debt ceiling and approved such pork-barrel projects as Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere, a tea pot museum in North Carolina and an indoor rain forest in Iowa.
(link.reuters.com/nug85s)

And his involvement in the Senator John Ensign scandal.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
"Free speech zones" mean there is no free speech tolerated where it is intended to be expressed. But you know that.

It doesn't have to happen to me to be an issue. Read Niemoler's "First they came for..."

Shaw,
I agree. Soon all the fervor of the Right will be in support of Romney.

The Heathen Republican said...

""Free speech zones" mean there is no free speech tolerated where it is intended to be expressed. But you know that."

No, actually I didn't know that. I guess I should have since it's so intuitive: free speech zone = no free speech tolerated. Silly me.

free0352 said...

Papers, please".

Huh?

"Piss in the cup, please".

For that welfare check? Damn right. If you don't like it, don't get welfare. In fact, lets just get rid of welfare.

"Free speech zone, please".

As opposed to "We're going to stand in the entrance and not let anyone in." I say simply arrest all who impede traffic or private/public business but I'm not as nice as certain city governments are. Some of whom happen to be run by Democrats. In fact, most are who've implemented "Free Speech Zones."

However, there are always Democrats around to decide for me how much salt I should eat, tell me not to smoke in my own restaurant or store (If I owned one), ban supersized meals and toys in the happy meal, tell me if and if so what kind of gun I can buy, make sure I install those hand rails, make sure I put a wheel chair ramp on my rock climbing store (if I had one), make sure I don't cut down that tree in my own yard, ban some nasty music lyrics and violent video games, tell me how much I have to pay my employees (If I had some - who would work for me by their own choice obviously), require me to get a license to do everything from get married to open a business, tell me I can't sell raw milk to people who know what it is and want to buy it...

I mean really, need I go on? The Democrat party is like a big, giant, overbearing mommy... like the Mom from Pink Floyd The Wall. She wants to tell you what to do, and protect you, and make all your decisions... or else.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Piss in the cup, please".

For that welfare check? Damn right. If you don't like it, don't get welfare. In fact, lets just get rid of welfare.


For that subsidy for oil? Damn right. Get those oil exes to stream it. Why must it always be the poor and powerless that you people go after? What they take in government subsidy is pittance compared with what corporations and farmers take in subsidies and avoid in taxes. But the poor and powerless don't have lobbyists to bribe Congressmen for those subsidies and tax deductions the way corporations do.


"However, there are always Democrats around to decide for me how much salt I should eat,".

Bullpuckey. Your doctor tells you that no Democrats. There is no law passed by a Democrat or anyone telling you how much salt you should consume. BTW, consume a kilo a day for all I care. I encourage you to.


"tell me not to smoke in my own restaurant or store (If I owned one)...

Here's the thing you seem not to understand. A majority of people don't like second hand smoke in their lungs. Your second hand smoke impacts other people's health. Why don't you move to France where they're still smoking their brains out. You'll love it there. And the cheese is great.


"ban supersized meals and toys in the happy meal,"

Bullpuckey. No one's banned the rancid swill McDonald's sells to the American public. You're free to eat that caloric disaster three times a day if that's what thrills your palate. And I encourage you to do so, along with your pound of salt and pack of cigarettes. Please do. There's no one stopping you from making those fabulous choice.


"require me to get a license to do everything from get married to open a business, tell me I can't sell raw milk to people who know what it is and want to buy it...

Every state has a requirement to get a license to marry. You sound like a retro hippie who belongs on a commune somewhere in Idaho. Lots of unpasteurized milk there, and you're free to drink it and consume all the Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria you desire, and your kids as well. No one's stopping you or anyone else from taking that sort of stupid risk.

Whine, whine, whine. Civilization is a bitch, isn't it.

Dave Dubya said...

Thank you, Shaw. Civilized society is not a Republican value. Taxes, you know. Free does get carried away with his ideological excitement. Whatever sounds good and feels good to for him to say is the guiding factor.

Once again I'm proven right with, "Sometimes I think you must not pay attention, or only do so selectively".

There's no cure for deliberate ignorance. Or is it deliberate deception and dishonesty?

"Free speech zones" were Bushie tactics to censor protest. Imagine if one of them carried a semi-automatic rifle near a Bush rally like the nut did near an Obama event. Just like the media fawning over tea cult rallies, double standards galore.

Republicans want drug tests for unemployment compensation, not just welfare. Never mind they didn't choose to be unemployed.

And don't test them for alcohol, that's a republican drug. Double standards.

Blame and humiliate the victim is so Right wing. This is from the folks in Florida where their governor's corporation was convicted of Medicare fraud. No test for him because he's a rich republican.

No test required for corporate welfare. They are rich republicans.

Papers please, to vote, papers please, to walk on the street in Arizona, to fart in public if the GOP doesn't like you.

I haven't even mentioned the Patriot Act yet. God help you if the Republicans don't like what you read in the library.

Republicans are all about freedom and prosperity for the elites. Not at all for the rest of us.

Double standards. Equality is some kind of despicable socialist French concept.

“What’s that, Granny? You have always voted here and now you lost your drivers license? You dare to think voting is a RIGHT?? No vote for you. Now go and pee in a bottle if you want Medicare or unemployment compensation. This is the Republikan New Order. We don’t want democracy.”

free0352 said...

For that subsidy for oil?

Sure. Lets get rid of ALL subsidy while we're at it. I'm down, where do I sign?

Why must it always be the poor and powerless that you people go after?

Why is it the productive the ones you people go after? Powerless? I wouldn't call the IRS powerless. And who are "you people?" You have a problem with Libertarian Hispanic guys? Powerless? Seems like "you people" I.E. little white liberals want to take with force what they can't get for themselves. Calling yourself government doesn't change that "you people" are people with guns taking money away from the people who made it. Oh I know you don't have the gun in your hand, you have the IRS to do your dirty redistribution work for you. Maybe if you had to go take that money yourself you wouldn't be so quick to demand it.

Your doctor tells you that not Democrats.

Oh really?

Here's the thing you seem not to understand. A majority of people don't like second hand smoke in their lungs.

So don't go to my Restaurant. Who are you to tell a property owner what he can or can't do? Oh, you're a Democrat. I forgot. You're gods. All knowing, all powerful, ready to make decisions for the rest of us "sheeple."

No one's banned the rancid swill McDonald's sells to the American public.

Oh really? I suppose it was the Republicans that run San Francisco who banned them huh?

There's no one stopping you from making those fabulous choice.

Not if I live in San Francisco and liberals are in charge. They know better than I do what's good for me right?

Every state has a requirement to get a license to marry

Why? Why should I bet government to let me get married? I guess if I get on my knees and beg pretty please they might just let me co-own property. Oh how magnanimous of them.

You sound like a retro hippie who belongs on a commune somewhere in Idaho.

Try an Infantry Sergeant in the Army. But so long as we're going how we sound to each other - you sound like a Comrade Commisar from North Korea.

and you're free to drink it and consume all the Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria you desire,

Not if I live in Liberal Venice Beach California. If I sell it there some Nanny Stater like you will come lock me in a cage. God forbid we serfs should be permitted to make our own decisions. Not with Liberals around to regulate me because they need something to do with their time besides get a real job where they might have to actually work.

Civilization is a bitch, isn't it.

A Liberal Progressive one is, because it's not an adult civilization. Its an organization of mass child status... where our Liberal Know-It-All masters tell us how to live, what to think, and how to spend our money. Oh, and lets not forget how much money is too much Only Liberal Progressives with degrees in underwater basketweaving have the knowledge to know that mystery.

free0352 said...

Imagine if one of them carried a semi-automatic rifle near a Bush rally like the nut did near an Obama event.

Oh god forbid a man carry his gun! Oh no! People bearing arms! Terrifying!

Never mind they didn't choose to be unemployed.

Cool with me too. You can always choose to NOT go on unemployment. That is an option. As a taxpayer, I don't really want to subsidize some drug addicts freak'n addiction. Come to think of it, I don't want to subsidize him at all- drugs or no. Get a job. Be productive.

Blame and humiliate the victim is so Right wing.

Whose the real victim here? The people working and paying the taxes or the people DEMANDING more of those tax dollars? Whose stealing here? You tell me?

No test required for corporate welfare.

So end it. Oh wait, Democrats expanded it. My bad. Guess that's why I'm a registered Libertarian. We never redistributed shit.

Papers please, to vote, papers please,

Translation: OH NO! With ID to vote dead people won't be able to vote anymore, and Democrats won't be able to steal elections! How else could Al Franken win?! You talk a good game about Democracy, but when anyone tries to actually ENFORCE a one live persons to one live person vote law you recoil in horror. I'll put it simply, if I have to show an ID to buy a gun and exercise my constitutional right to buy a gun (and undergo an FBI background check no less) then you should at least have to whip out the photo ID and prove you aren't the dead guy you say you are. But then again, how then would Democrats vote early and vote often?

I haven't even mentioned the Patriot Act yet.

Oh, you mean that Patriot Act Democrats just expanded to allow the military to detain US citizens without due process or trial? Yeah. That one right? Guess that's why I'm a Libertarian. Now pot, you go meet the kettle on your way to pull that lever for Obama. Since you don't have to prove who you are, you can go pull it several more times too.

Jerry Critter said...

Free says he is "an Infantry Sergeant in the Army".

Well, what do you know? Just another government employee living off the hard working taxpayers.

The Heathen Republican said...

Jerry, you're not the first to level this stupid accusation at Free. Do you not see the difference between people who work for the government and receive a paycheck and those who live off of government entitlements?

free0352 said...

Yes, because arresting people for the horrid crime of drinking milk is a noble profession, but defending the country is totally wrong.

Either that or you think I'm a hypocrite? That illustrates your extremism. You can't seem to tell the difference between a moderate form of government and rule by iron fist. For you there is only Anarchy or Statist Control. A person in your wold view is a hypocrite unless he embraces one extreme or the other.

Ignorant.

free0352 said...

Do you not see the difference between people who work for the government and receive a paycheck and those who live off of government entitlements?

It wouldn't seem so. I've had lots of experience in the military with extremists. Dave talks about willful ignorance to something that challenges a world view. You want to see what that looks like for real? Here it is, right there.

Jerry Critter said...

Just what are "government entitlements"? Give me an example.

The Heathen Republican said...

Jerry, a simple "no" would have been sufficient.

Jerry Critter said...

Thank you for that informative answer.

free0352 said...

Entitlement: When the government gives an individual money, and they didn't do any work for it at all or provided unnecessary services in exchange for it.

Jerry Critter said...

I asked for an example,not a definition.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Free used an example of how Democrats' intrude into our lives and used an example of one state legislator who PROPOSED a silly law. From that poor example, Free labels all Democrats as wanting to regulate everything.

An Indiana state senator PROPOSED that singing the national anthem in a non-traditional way should be outlawed. Apparently Free would have us all believe that is a perfect example of how Republicans intrude on our lives.

But, of course, both examples are bogus examples of intrusion since the proposed legislation hasn't been voted into law.

As for my use of the phrase "you people," Free understood that I meant "conservatives/libertarians," since the discussion is around Democrats vs. Republicans/Libertarians. Free tried to make it a pc argument by deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

Free wrote about Happy Meals: "Oh really? I suppose it was the Republicans that run San Francisco who banned them huh?"

Free is wrong on that, too. San Francisco did not ban Happy Meals or any crap meal from McDonald's. If you actually read the link, you would see that SF banned the sale of cheap plastic Chinese toys that go with those disgusting meals, not the meals themselves.

And if that offends Mr. Free, I would invite him to take the same advice he gives to others: You don't like it? Go somewhere else. The people of SF voted the city councilors to represent them and their interests. The banning of free plastic toys to entice children to eat corporate crap was brought about through a democratic republican way, through the people's representatives.

He's railing here against laws that individual cities pass and making an assumption that the majority of people who live in those areas didn't want those laws passed. Of course he's wrong.

The laws he linked to as examples are not federal, but local--IOW local control on how a majority people choose to live their lives.

The Heathen Republican said...

Jerry, you're either dumb or playing dumb. Stop wasting people's time. If you don't know what entitlement programs the government runs, see if Google or Wikipedia can help you out.

John Myste said...

Shaw,

An Indiana state senator PROPOSED that singing the national anthem in a non-traditional way should be outlawed. Apparently Free would have us all believe that is a perfect example of how Republicans intrude on our lives.

But, of course, both examples are bogus examples of intrusion since the proposed legislation hasn't been voted into law.


The official term for this kind of thing is Composition Fallacy. Conservatives use composition fallacies to gain most of the “knowledge” they have about progressives. They find a single example of something a progressive does that they don’t like and they forevermore label it progressive behavior. If you challenge it as a composition fallacy, they then accuse you of ignoring facts and disregarding proof.

The unfortunate thing is, they are not being disingenuous when they do this. They actually don't see the flaw in reasoning.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Free wrote: "...that's why I'm a registered Libertarian. We never redistributed shit."

Wrong. You live in the U.S., and your "shit" (read federal tax dollars) is redistributed all the time. And the wealthier blue states' tax dollars, overall, support the poorer red states, because the wealthier, more productive blue states get back fewer federal dollars than what they pay to the federal government.

Don't like it? Move to a Libertarian's paradise, Somalia or North Korea, no tax redistribution there.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, you replied to Dave with...

"Silly me."

No, but totally insincere would aptly apply.

...and you replied to Jerry Critter with this...

"...you're not the first to level this stupid accusation at Free."

It's not an accusation, as much as it's an observation of typical conservative, or more appropriately, libertarian hypocrisy. And yes, the two (government jobs and government entitlements) are intrinsically connected. Now, should Free0352 decline his military benefits; pension, government medical care, the "GI Bill" (the post-9/11 GI Bill benefits were expanded to cover the full costs of in-state public colleges, money for housing and up to $1,000 for books) and all the other "goodies" that will be made available to him when he retires after as little as twenty years, then, and only then, will I recant my labeling of his hypocrisy. I'm guessing Jerry will say the same.

Heathen, as usual, you're insincere in your auguments and unfair attacks upon others, but it's something I've come to expect from you.

Jerry Critter said...

HR,
I find it interesting that you refuse to name a program that is supporting the very people you denigrated when you said "those who live off of government entitlements".

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
In case you forgot, The Patriot Act was an example I provided that was drafted by Republicans. Spineless dems may have collaborated, but let’s give credit where it’s due.

In case you didn’t notice, gun crime is a bit more rampant and dangerous to public safety than a Right Wing manufactured “vote fraud crisis”. I’m sure you’ll disagree.

You also still have a right to own a firearm without a photo ID. If you lose your drivers license they won’t take your gun, will they? You want the right to vote taken away for lack of photo ID, even if the person had the right and legally voted in the past. Voter suppression is fascistic and un-American...and Republican. And Libertarian too, apparently.

John,
I wonder if we can find other fallacies such as Hasty Generalization, Missing the Point, Slippery Slope, Red Herring, and False Dichotomy in this thread.

The Heathen Republican said...

Jerry, I find it interesting that you answered my question with a question and continue to play out this red herring to avoid the fact that you can't tell the difference.

I also find it interesting that the one person to come to your defense is the other person who leveled your stupid accusation at Free.

Jefferson, like a typical lefty, you think you know my motives and can determine my sincerity over the internets.

free0352 said...

From that poor example, Free labels all Democrats as wanting to regulate everything.

I used examples and sources that refuted every point you made. You said Democrats don't intrude on the lives of people, and for everything you said they didn't do I showed you somewhere where a Democrat was doing those things. I used evidence.

Apparently Free would have us all believe that is a perfect example of how Republicans intrude on our lives.

That would be an example.

If you actually read the link, you would see that SF banned the sale of cheap plastic Chinese toys

So what you're saying here is Democrats are so dictatorial that they want to control even what toys parents buy for their children. And then in the next sentence say that somehow means Democrats aren't dictatorial. Good job debating.

You don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Please not I don't live in California and wouldn't for any amount of money. But listen to what you're saying. You're saying you can't tell the difference between a person not authorized to smoke - a perfectly lawful activity, in their own business and GOVERNMENT using it's power to micromanage parents - not just in the confines of personal property but city wide. Well, that's a Democrat for you.

was brought about through a democratic republican way, through the people's representatives.

Just like chattel slavery and Japanese Internment Camps, two other Democrat creations. Just because something is Democratic, doesn't make it any less evil.

making an assumption that the majority of people who live in those areas didn't want those laws passed.

So by your logic, if people in say Georgia want to own Blacks that's fine, because they came to that conclusion in a Democratic way? Or do you admit that not everything done Democratically is ethical?

The laws he linked to as examples are not federal, but local

They provide wonderful examples that refute the claim made on this blog and elsewhere that Democrats are defenders of personal liberty. They aren't. With Democrats, you might not even be able to decide what toys your kids can get out of a happy meal. Or if it's 1941 and you're Japanese you might not get to decide about what camp Democrats put you in.

You live in the U.S., and your "shit" (read federal tax dollars) is redistributed all the time.

Painfully correct but you miss the point on purpose. None of this redistribution is caused by Libertarians. And if you are so upset about blue states funding red ones, then join with my fellow Libertarians and stop that. Under our policy, that would NOT happen.

Move to a Libertarian's paradise, Somalia or North Korea

Somalia is run by Sharia Courts and North Korea is a Communist Dictatorship. Pretty much the opposite of the Libertarian ideal. But if you are so in love with left wing policy, I'm sure Cuba could always use another victim.

free0352 said...

And as for JG's usual nonsense, I already answered it when I said -

Either that or you think I'm a hypocrite? That illustrates your extremism. You can't seem to tell the difference between a moderate form of government and rule by iron fist. For you there is only Anarchy or Statist Control. A person in your wold view is a hypocrite unless he embraces one extreme or the other.

I'm a moderate- you know, root word moderation as in NOT TOO MUCH OF SOMETHING... in this case Government, not a hypocrite. You on the other hand...

I find it interesting that you refuse to name a program that is supporting the very people you denigrated when you said "those who live off of government entitlements".

I find it interesting you don't know what they are? I'll help. Medicade, Social Security Disability or Social Security (for those who haven't paid into the system), various state and federal welfare programs like ADFC, HUD housing, low income housing projects, food stamps, etc.

Dave,

I'm sure you'll tell me all about how Obama signing this monstrosity is terrible right after you vote for him again. Talk about hypocritical! JG, are you listening? This is hypocrisy, I know you get confused about what that is.

If you lose your drivers license they won’t take your gun, will they?

They certainly won't sell you a gun, and good luck not getting arrested carrying a concealed pistol without your concealed pistol license... even if you just forgot it. But that aside, I love how you preach Democracy out your ass while denying voter fraud all that big a deal. JG, are you listening? More examples of hypocrisy here.

Look, I don't mind showing my ID and having a background check to buy a gun. That seems sensible. I think the same should apply to vote, and for the same reason. So felons and people committing fraud don't do it. That's not taking voting rights away any more than it's taking my 2nd amendment rights away. Or are you really suggesting that loosing your ID would be a perfectly fine excuse down at the gun store?

free0352 said...

I find it interesting you don't know what they are? I'll help. Medicade, Social Security Disability or Social Security (for those who haven't paid into the system), various state and federal welfare programs like ADFC, HUD housing, low income housing projects, food stamps, etc.

I should also add, subsidy for energy companies, subsidy for green tech research and production, subsidy for big agra, big pharma, and all other subsidy to business in general.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, you replied to Jerry with...

"I also find it interesting that the one person to come to your defense is the other person who leveled your stupid accusation at Free."

I didn't come to anyone's defense; just wanted to point out, again, your insipid deceitfulness, in addition to your continual duplicity when it comes to truth and untruth. With you, it's never hypocrisy when the shoe (or, in this case, the boot) is on a conservative's foot.

But, as previously mentioned, your behavior ceases to surprise me. It's so you...

The Heathen Republican said...

Jefferson, I have no time for your ad hominem attacks. If you ever come up with a rational argument, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Dave, I've tried to help by pointing out two additional fallacies in this thread.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you mentioned me in your reply to Dave when you wrote...

"I'm sure you'll tell me all about how Obama signing this monstrosity is terrible right after you vote for him again. Talk about hypocritical! JG, are you listening? This is hypocrisy, I know you get confused about what that is."

I sure the hell am listening! I'm apparently listening and paying a lot closer attention to what's going on than you realize. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to call a spade a spade when I witness the deliberate obstruction and/or destruction of our civil liberties -- something I'm not accustomed to seeing from conservatives. As I similarly mentioned to Heathen, for you guys it's only sanctimoniousness when the shoe is on a liberal's foot.

Nice try...

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, you said...

"Jefferson, I have no time for your ad hominem attacks."

No attack was made...just observations.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I used examples and sources that refuted every point you made. You said Democrats don't intrude on the lives of people, and for everything you said they didn't do I showed you somewhere where a Democrat was doing those things. I used evidence." --Free

No you did not.

One example was a PROPOSAL that was not enacted into law, the other, --the McDonald example, was incorrect. San Francisco did not ban McDonald's Happy Meals--it banned the cheap plastic toys used as an enticement to get kids to eat crap. If you insist on using the Venice Beach example--a law passed so that people would not come down with fatal illnesses from drinking unpasteurized milk, you're welcome to get all persnickety over a law that would prevent children and unaware adults from coming down with horrid diseases through drinking tainted milk.

And John Myste explained why your examples are invalid. You claim ALL Democrats/Liberals intrude on personal liberties and privacy, when only a few engage in it.


Free wrote: "So what you're saying here is Democrats are so dictatorial that they want to control even what toys parents buy for their children. And then in the next sentence say that somehow means Democrats aren't dictatorial. Good job debating."

No. I pointed out that the people living in those communities elected representatives to represent their interests, and those representatives did so. Some, who are in the minority, may not like it, but that's how our democracy works. You apparently don't like representative democracy.

Free wrote: "So by your logic, if people in say Georgia want to own Blacks that's fine, because they came to that conclusion in a Democratic way? Or do you admit that not everything done Democratically is ethical?"

Look, Free, I'm willing to debate with you, but when you write goofy stuff like the above, I really can't engage with you.

People in Georgia CAN'T VOTE TO REINSTITUTE SLAVERY BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION--IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

So long as a majority of people in communities pass laws that those people agree on, and so long as they are Constitutional laws, people have the right, through their elected representatives, to do so, even if they are laws that you personally detest.

It's not all about you, dear.

John Myste said...

Free,

Conservatives molest little children. If you research, I think you will find this is true. There are conservatives convicted of this action, which is evidence to prove my point.

Why are you more concerned with Happy Meals than the conservatives need to molest children, that's what I want to know?

The Heathen Republican said...

John, you're always funny about this composition fallacy thing. The way you interpret it, all generalizations are forbidden.

The problem is that both conservatives and liberals have molested children, so your example is nonsense.

In Free's example, only a liberal would consider banning toys in fast food meals to prevent obesity. A conservative wouldn't consider doing something like that, so the generalization works.

Also, banning something for the "public health" or the "public good" is a liberal philosophy. You guys believe you can save us all from second-hand smoke.

To note that liberals treat everyone like children, and then providing an example to back it up, isn't a composition fallacy. But your molestation example is.

Jerry Critter said...

There are republicans in Indiana that think they can protect us for second-hand smoke also.

John Myste said...

Heathen,

John, you're always funny about this composition fallacy thing. The way you interpret it, all generalizations are forbidden.

If mentioning a person doing something, such as the McDonald’s thing, as evidence that this defines the group is not a composition fallacy, then there is no such thing as one. If you argue that progressives believe we should have entitlements, that is not a composition fallacy, because a huge percentage of them argue this. If you argue that progressives try to outlaw fast food and your proof is that you found a progressive doing it, then that is a composition fallacy.

I do not treat the topic oddly. I treat it as a text book would.

The problem is that both conservatives and liberals have molested children, so your example is nonsense.

By the evidence the Free used, that would prove not non sense, but that both progressives and conservatives favor molesting children. I used it to show the absurdity of his (and now your) argument.

Also, banning something for the "public health" or the "public good" is a liberal philosophy. You guys believe you can save us all from second-hand smoke.

Straw man and you know it. Liberals have not outlawed cigarettes. Go to your home and fill it with cigarette smoke or whatever carcinogen you like. Don’t make it so I cannot go out in public without the benefit of your poison. Moreover, don’t lie about my argument or my motives as a rebuttal to my real position.

To note that liberals treat everyone like children, and then providing an example to back it up, isn't a composition fallacy.

That is the text book definition of a composition fallacy: claiming a group of people embrace an idea and then citing a single person who embraces it as proof. Literally, textbook. With all due respect, you don’t have a grasp of this topic.

free0352 said...

JG,

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to call a spade a spade

You'll vote for that spade (no racial pun intended) too. I'll bet any amount of money you'll be next to Dubya in line come this November, and you're going to pull that lever for Obama. Big time.

One example was a PROPOSAL that was not enacted into law,

My contention was that Democrats want to enact these laws, not that they have a 100% success rate.

-it banned the cheap plastic toys

Yes, Democrats banned toys. Got it. Never mind we all know the toy makes the meal "happy," this helps your argument how? Democrats are still telling people what they can and can't buy, for no good reason other than pure paternalism and arrogance. This is what we mean when we call you the liberal "elite." You're not really elite, you just think you are. You think you know better than individuals what's good for them and what's more, you're all too happy to force that elitism on people through law. Good example from your comment-

a law passed so that people would not come down with fatal illnesses from drinking unpasteurized milk

Yes, because people are sooooooo stupid they'd just kill themselves if mama liberals weren't around to protect them from themselves. Do you not see the raw and unbridled arrogance of that? You know better, you know how people should live, what toys they should buy their children, where they should eat, and last of all what kind of milk they should drink. Yeah, no, you don't. You need to learn to mind your own business and take the rest of your political party with you.

You claim ALL Democrats/Liberals intrude on personal liberties and privacy,

I'm saying people represent their party. The Libertarian Party has never done this, yours has... a lot. These are not isolated incidents. There are millions of examples. Heck, you are an example.

pointed out that the people living in those communities elected representatives to represent their interests

So if we all got together and voted through our beloved elected representatives that you had to shave your head that would be perfectly fine by your logic? There is no difference between 10,000 people exercising oppressive government and 1 person.

CAN'T VOTE TO REINSTITUTE SLAVERY BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION--IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

If you're willing to debate please learn how. We weren't talking about the Constitution. We were talking about YOUR LOGIC. Please reread what I said -

So by your logic, if people in say Georgia want to own Blacks that's fine,

See, what I'm trying to say to you hear, and I'll pound it in with all caps for effect because being subtle here didn't work is this

YOU ARE EXACTLY LIKE THE SOUTHERNERS WHO SUPPORTED SLAVERY BY USING THE ARGUMENT OF STATES RIGHTS TO JUSTIFY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. YOUR LOGIC AND JEFFERSON DAVIS' ARE IDENTICAL.

It's not all about you, dear.

Uh, actually it is. Not me exactly but the individual. The Constitution exists to protect individual liberty, not the right of mobs to rule.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear Free,

You have missed my entire point, or you have deliberately ignored it to makse your fallacious one.

The board of selectment, aldermen, legislators, etc., in the communities (cities and states)who propose and then pass the laws you dislike pass them with the consent of the people they represent and govern.

What is it about that statement that you do not understand?

I once drove through South Carolina on a Sunday and had to stop to have dinner. I wanted to order a glass of effete Liberal chardonnay to go with my tofu burger and side of organically grown arugula, but was informed by my very nice waitress that SC does not allow alcohol to be served in restaurants on Sundays. The people of South Carolina apparently wanted that prohibition on their books because of their particular brand of religion. I don't share their religious value of not drinking alcohol on Sundays, but there it is. I conformed because I had no choice--I couldn't even buy a bottle of nice Liberal wine that evening to take back to my hotel. BTW, the tofu burger and arugula were superb.

This sort of thing happens in all our communities all over the country--people, through their representatives get laws passed--laws that THEY agree with and WANT.

You seem to be of the opinion that any law interferring with anyone's liberty is a bad law.

Do you believe it interferes with teenagers' personal liberties to have a drinking age? How about the law that prohibits 12 year olds from driving. My brother knew how to drive a car at 12 and took the damn family car for a ride down the driveway and up our street to prove he could. But he had to wait until he was 16 before he could obtain a license.

Free gets hysterical and writes this nonsense:

"YOU ARE EXACTLY LIKE THE SOUTHERNERS WHO SUPPORTED SLAVERY BY USING THE ARGUMENT OF STATES RIGHTS TO JUSTIFY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. YOUR LOGIC AND JEFFERSON DAVIS' ARE IDENTICAL."

Slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution, and was not abolished until December of 1865.

Another fallacious argument. Nothing that we discussed as laws being passed by those individual communities is unConstitutional, so your point here is absolutely idiotic.

You don't know how to argue, sir.

Good day.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I'm glad you at least agree your right to own a firearm is still intact if you lose your drivers license.

You and the entire radical Right have failed to substantiate the claim of widespread vote fraud. It's just another Right Wing lie. It's far more important, and far more likely, that many more citizens are denied their rights than actual vote fraud cases prevented.

Only the true believers buy into the "vote fraud fraud". We're talking mere dozens of cases among the millions of voters, while thousands are losing their rights.

Even FOX(R) let the truth slip.

"Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud"
Published September 24, 2011



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud/

Indiana's law, passed in 2005, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. Levitt combed through 250 cases of alleged election law fraud cited in legal briefs filed in that challenge. He found only nine instances involving a person allegedly voting in someone else's name, possibly fraudulently or possibly because of an error when the person signed in at the voting booth.

After a five-year hunt for voter fraud, the Bush administration's Justice Department came up with little widespread fraud, finding mostly cases of people mistakenly filling out voter registration forms or voting when they didn't know they were ineligible, The New York Times reported in 2007. But none of the cases involved a person voting as someone else.


Sounds like the Right wants to "kill democracy in order to save it". I've heard that line of reasoning before.

I remember your Decider even fired a US Attorney in New Mexico for failing to pursue groundless charges of vote fraud.

I agree with you on the monstrosity of the NDAA. It goes a long way to "validate" and extend what Bush has done. This is what happens when you have politicians declaring a "war on terror". If they "hate us for our freedom" as the Decider said, the terrorists have won on that issue.

Note that Al Franken, your alleged "vote fraud" senator, voted against it.

Thank you Al.

Obama hasn't earned my vote. I didn't, and will not, so much vote for Obama, but against putting a Republican in the White House to plant more Federalist Society, Cheney crony corporatists on the Supreme Court.

If the choice is beween a radical anti-democracy Rightist and a moderate, I will vote against the radical Rightist. If the choice is beween a corporatist and a fascist, I will vote against the fascist.

This is becoming one of the few differences between the parties to affect my vote.

John Myste said...

Heathen,

but was informed by my very nice waitress that SC does not allow alcohol to be served in restaurants on Sundays.

Assuming the law was passed by conservatives, would you agree that this suggests that conservatives want to control what everyone drinks?

free0352 said...

I'm glad you at least agree your right to own a firearm is still intact if you lose your drivers license.

So why is showing an ID a violation of voter rights?

Only the true believers buy into the "vote fraud fraud".

Only a "true believer" would think having to show an ID would prevent anyone but felons and dead people from voting. If Grandma forgets her ID, she will just have to go home and get it. Oh boo-hoo.

I remember your Decider

Wasn't aware George Bush was a member of the Libertarian Party.

I agree with you on the monstrosity of the NDAA

And you're going to vote for the guy who signed it and support the Senate who voted for it. They BTW, ARE members of the Democrat Party.

This is what happens when you have politicians declaring a "war on terror"

I suppose then that you are inline with characterizing terrorists as "Non-State Actors" and terrorist attacks as "Man Made Disasters." Oh I know, they're just criminals right? Just like the kid who knocks over the corner store for 20$ and a 40.

They aren't criminals. They're enemy combatants. More often that not they definitely have a government supporting them.

And they don't hate us because "of our freedom." They hate us because we're Infidels. Period. After all, the United States is hardly their only target of attacks... or would you argue that places like Thailand who has an ongoing Islamic Insurgency is somehow to blame?

In truth we shouldn't care why they hate us. We should just hate them back, and kill them all... just not shred the Constitution in the process. I have many friends who are Muslims, most are great people. But there is a segment of that religion that is totally bonkers, can't be coexisted with or reasoned with, and must be exterminated. At the very least to benefit the thousands of Muslims killed yearly by these maniacs. After all, Al'Queda has killed far more Muslims than it has Americans. Please explain to me any other reason other than members of Islamic Extremist Groups are utterly insane?

Obama hasn't earned my vote

But as you say you'll vote for him. Oh yes you will. You'll vote for all of it and then blame Republicans when he does things like x-out the Senate for appointments or signs bills like this. You talk a good game... well actually no but then again you don't even have the spine to back your horrible game up. Instead you'll be a good little Party Apparatchik and you'll pull that lever say'n Hope and Change while you do it. At the end of the day for you, it's more about Republicans loosing than anything else. Now complain to me about partisanship right?

And when that first American gets thrown into gitmo without so much as a hearing I'm going to extend my little finger and point right at you and say IT'S YOUR FAULT TOO.

You are such a good German.

free0352 said...

Assuming the law was passed by conservatives, would you agree that this suggests that conservatives want to control what everyone drinks?

In my experience Conservatives are far too concerned with who people have sex with.

The Heathen Republican said...

John, I'm not defending the use of the composition fallacy and I'm not claiming it isn't used. I'm saying that you see composition fallacies everywhere, even when they don't exist. I'm saying that you call every generalization a composition fallacy, but I'm glad that you admit some generalizations are okay.

The composition fallacy is your go-to rebuttal. Progressives aren't perfect and they write some stupid laws. When a stupid progressive tendency is pointed out, backed by examples, you say the examples are composition fallacies. You need to be more accepting of generalization and stop playing the composition fallacy card mindlessly.

There are progressive policies and there are conservative policies. Mitt Romney signed a health care law that no conservative would ever sign. If someone were to cite that example as evidence that conservatives support health insurance mandates, they would be wrong. It's an example of a moderate politician doing a non-conservative thing.

When you try to rebut a point about progressives trying to ban something to end obesity -- something a conservative would never do -- by saying conservatives are child molesters, you venture into the absurd. I know you know it and that was your intent, but at least be absurd by coming up with something conservatives generally believe, like god telling them to run for president.

As for your restaurant example, I have two points. First, blue laws were nationwide at one time, in both Democratic and Republican states, so there is no monopoly on blue laws. But second, if you were to say that conservatives like to restrict vices like drinking, gambling, and smoking, that's probably a fair generalization.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you replied to me with...

"You'll vote for that spade (no racial pun intended) too. I'll bet any amount of money you'll be next to Dubya in line come this November, and you're going to pull that lever for Obama. Big time."

First of all, your initial sentence sounds racial to me. As a matter of fact, it is!

As far as your offer to bet, you're on! How much?

By the way, I've been following this thread and I have to repeat what I initially mentioned to you many months ago when I began commenting on this blog: You're really scary! You're so full of hate and venom, it's a miracle you haven't killed innocent bystanders just for looking at you funny.

Or have you...?

John Myste said...

Heathen,

The composition fallacy is your go-to rebuttal.

It is the number one fallacy of choice, which is why I mention it more often. If you are not claiming that Free did not commit this fallacy, then perhaps you picked a bad time to take a stand. If you think Free did not commit the fallacy, then you picked the perfect time, because it was text book and good example to use to help you understand it better.

When a stupid progressive tendency is pointed out, backed by examples, you say the examples are composition fallacies.

The example did nothing to prove the thesis. If there are millions of progressives in America, this example chose the narrowest of example it could find to prove the nature of progressives. Do you understand this?

You need to be more accepting of generalization and stop playing the composition fallacy card mindlessly.

Composition fallacies are committed mindlessly. Recognizing them and pointing them out is the opposite of a mindless action. I know about them, how they work and the mistake in logic involved. I mindfully recognize it.

There are progressive policies and there are conservative policies.

Agreed, so you should focus on actual progressive policies that are mainstream when you intend to prove the behavior and thinking of progressives. That would be a non-fallacious approach.

Mitt Romney signed a health care law that no conservative would ever sign.

You just made an argument that Mitt is not a conservative because if he were, he would not have signed a specific law. Others could commit a composition fallacy by showing that the fact that he signed the law shows how conservatives think. One side is committing a No True Scotsman fallacy and the other side is committing a composition fallacy. See how that works? The fact that Mitt signed a law does nothing to speak the mainstream nature of conservatives and nothing to prove that Mitt is not a conservative overall. When you use these kinds of fallacies, you can “prove” just about anything you need to prove.

Who said something like, “torture numbers enough and they will confess to anything?” This is just a variation of that kind of thinking.

When you try to rebut a point about progressives trying to ban something to end obesity -- something a conservative would never do -- by saying conservatives are child molesters, you venture into the absurd.

But second, if you were to say that conservatives like to restrict vices like drinking, gambling, and smoking, that's probably a fair generalization.

I agree with this. However, showing an instance of a conservative favoring something to show that conservatives are this way or that is pointless from the perspective of critical thinking. If you don’t know this, you lack a fundamental tool in the thinker’s toolbox and should acquire it. It will make you a stronger thinker and a stronger debater.

Dave Dubya said...

So why is showing an ID a violation of voter rights?

Who said that it was? Denying a long time voter his right is denying their right. This is the goal of the "vote fraud" fraud. Period.

So just where is all that vote fraud anyway? You haven't enlightened us yet.

FOX(R), at least in this case, seems to disagree with you and your fellow opponants of voter rights and democracy.

You are such a good German.

Because I vote against Republicans? Ja, Wohl, Herr Gruppenfuhrer! So what does that make those who vote for Republicans? "Real Amerikaners"?

You are completely around the bend now.

There would perhaps be no Gitmo Gulag, or maybe not even a 9-11, and certainly no Patriot Act and trillion dollar plus war with Iraq, had democracy not been overturned by Florida Republican voter roll purges and Cheney cronies on the Supreme Court.

Nothing good happens to this country and the majority of citizens when the forces against democracy prevail.

You are in lock step agreement with those Republicans and Neocons. You bought every lie from Bush and Cheney, including the famous "nukular aluminum tubes" lie. Some Libertarian.

You simply embrace whatever the economic elites and war-mongers want. Theirs is the minority rule you regard as superior to the principles of democracy.

And I'm the good German.

The Heathen Republican said...

I'd like to name a new fallacy. The Leftist Fallacy is when one claims to know the motives of another. (John, tell me if this already exists by another name.)

"Denying a long time voter his right is denying their right. This is the goal of the "vote fraud" fraud. Period. "

Dave, you've just committed the leftist fallacy. You can't know the motives of those proposing voter ID laws. For all you know, their motives are noble and good but there are unintended consequences you dislike.

Since you can't know someone else's motives, I find it's generally safe to assume someone's stated motives are true.

Mauigirl said...

Love it, you are right.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, once again you've attempted to divert Dave's observation with this:

"Since you can't know someone else's motives, I find it's generally safe to assume someone's stated motives are true."

The motives aren't what's in question; it's the intent. You know this, but you insist on creating diffusion by injecting verbiage that has little or no bearing on what's being said.

Dave Dubya said...

Hi, MG!
Nice to see you. Hope all is well with you and yours.

HR,

For all you know, their motives are noble and good but there are unintended consequences you dislike.

LOL! Noble and good, but with unintended consequences? That’s a good one.

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” – Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich

The Heritage Foundation is one of the primary think tanks of the Republican Party. They even thought the individual insurance mandate was a good idea...until Obama and Democrats went along with it. How gullible do you think we are?

Dave Dubya said...

There’s a recent column by Katrina vanden Heuvel that addresses our topic:

“Three issues that could decide the election “

http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2012-01-03/A/13/34.1.3904526873_epaper.html

First, a surge in voting restrictions: In 2011, 14 states passed laws making it harder for certain Americans, particularly minorities and young people, to vote. The goal is to keep traditional Democratic constituencies from casting ballots, and methods include requiring voters to show government-issued IDs (which more than 1 in 10 Americans lack), reducing or ending early voting, and disenfranchising citizens with criminal records.

In Texas, for example, a concealed handgun license is a sufficient form of voter identification, but a university ID isn’t. In Wisconsin, a voter without an ID needs a birth certificate to get one, but a voter without a birth certificate needs a valid ID to obtain one. In Tennessee, a 96-year-old African American woman was denied a free voter ID because she didn’t have a copy of her marriage license.

Indeed, a Brennan Center for Justice analysis found that as many as 5 million eligible voters will find it “significantly harder” to cast ballots.


This is an outrageous Right Wing assault on democracy. Period. Voting for Republicans is voting against democracy. Or have I said that already?

She adds super PACs as another factor.

Second, the rise of super PAC spending: Among the most devastating consequences of the 2010 Citizens United ruling is the rise of organizations that are not required to disclose their donors but that can recruit and spend unlimited sums in direct support of candidates.

Third is what she calls “the media’s obsession with false equivalence”.

Paul Krugman describes what he’s witnessing as “post-truth politics,” in which right-leaning candidates can feel free to say whatever they want without being held accountable by the press. There may be instances in which a candidate is called out for saying something outright misleading; but, as Krugman notes, “if past experience is any guide, most of the news media will feel as though their reporting must be ‘balanced.’”

For too many journalists, calling out a Republican for lying requires criticizing a Democrat too, making for a media age where false equivalence — what Eric Alterman has called the mainstream media’s “deepest ideological commitment” — is confused, again and again, with objectivity.

In that world, candidates can continue to say things that are “flatly, grossly, and shamefully untrue,” as The Post’s E.J. Dionne described it, without fear of retribution. Obama has traveled the world and “apologized for America,” says Romney. Except that, no, he hasn’t. The stimulus “created zero jobs,” says Rick Perry. Except that it created or saved at least 3 million.

Obama is going to “put free enterprise on trial,” claims Romney. How does he square that with the nearly 3 million private-sector jobs created under Obama policies in the past 20 months? But in this media era, he doesn’t have to square anything at all.


No wonder “death panels”, “government takeover of health care”, and “job creators” are such popular lies. Corporate media knows its place.

The Heathen Republican said...

"The motives aren't what's in question; it's the intent."

Jefferson, you make me laugh. Perhaps you could take a moment to look up the definition of "intent."

"LOL! Noble and good, but with unintended consequences? That’s a good one."

Thanks Dave. If you're having trouble understanding the concept, consider affirmative action. It's a wonderful example of noble and good intentions with very poor results and unintended consequences.

"The Heritage Foundation is one of the primary think tanks of the Republican Party."

You like to recycle this Heritage quote as though it's some kind of meaningful indictment of conservatives, but you don't understand the quote. The intent (take note, Jefferson) is not voter suppression, but winning.

If the goal is to win, you don't want Republicans to vote and I don't want Democrats to vote. That's what voter turnout campaigns are for. I want Democrats demoralized and depressed so that they skip election day.

I'd encourage you to stop using this quote. Perhaps it rallies your lefty friends, but it only demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the point.

free0352 said...

JG,

Or have you...?

Nah, I'm just from Detroit. It's part of our charm. I love how your little panties get all wadded up when I talk about killing people. Justin Bieber called, he found your masculinity if you want it back. But just to keep you from shaking in your little Berkenstocks you can rest assured there are plenty of authentic enemies for me to unleash my blood lust on. Now pick your vagina up off the ground sweetheart and welcome to Detroit. Don't be scared, you'll give yourself a heart attack with your anxiety disorder.

Dubya,

This is the goal of the "vote fraud" fraud. Period.

Haha, you're right on accident. Vote Fraud does defraud actual voters. Once again however you find yourself on the wrong side of freedom.

So just where is all that vote fraud anyway?

Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, the Bronx. Where do you want me to start? There hasn't been a fair election in a union town like Detroit ever... or are you such a sucker you think Kwame really won?

Go look at a map of the compiled data.

FOX(R), at least in this case, seems to disagree with you and your fellow opponants of voter rights and democracy.

I might care if I watched Fox News.

Because I vote against Republicans?

Nah, because you vote for Obama No matter what. Obama could kill jews on national TV and rape the bodies and you'd still vote for him so the Republicans wouldn't win. He could light his daughters on fire and feed them to Mike Tyson and you'd be in line with a smile on your face saying "He didn't earn my vote but those Republicans..." But keep going on and on and on about shit that happened ten or eleven years ago and try and tell me that shit matters now. Your excuses for the President which are shit that happened before the man was a Senator make your Obama Apologist attempts that much more pathetic.

I mean, oh I bet it stings doesn't it? Back in 2008 when Obama was saying how he'd get rid of the Patriot Act and Gitmo and now four long years after Obama made his campaign promises and he got his little hands on all that power guess what? Yeah, he expanded it. I bet you were there, back in 08' all hot and bothered over it and now it's a tiny tiny four years later and you get to DEFEND the guy who not only resigned the Patriot Act but.... oh this is the best part... signed a bill that allows him to detain American Citizens without so much as a hearing INDEFINITELY. Where you at Jefferson Guardian? This is authentic hypocrisy live in living color. But keep bringing up your aluminium tubes... if that makes you feel better.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, your scoffing remark made me laugh...

"Jefferson, you make me laugh. Perhaps you could take a moment to look up the definition of 'intent.'"

Maybe you should dust off the dictionary. No, I'll look it up for you (which I find I'm habitually having to do for you):

Motive: Something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act; Intent: An aim or purpose. Source: Merriam-Webster

Therefore, using what you've just learned, because conservatives stupidly believe Obama's a "socialist" (the motive), they're willing to deny citizens their constitutional rights through inane Jim Crow-like laws in order to make sure he's unseated (the intent).

That's today's English lesson for you, Heathen. Possibly tomorrow I'll teach you something about history.

So, tell me, are you going to cry to Dave, like you always do, and whimper about how I'm not playing fairly?

The Heathen Republican said...

Jefferson, I can't believe you're going to such lengths. Perhaps you're unaware that motive and intent are synonyms.

From Thesaurus.com:

Main entry: motive

Definition: reason, purpose

Synonyms: aim, antecedent, basis, cause, consideration, design, determinant, drive, emotion, end, feeling, grounds, idea, impulse, incentive, incitement, inducement, influence, inspiration, intent, intention, mainspring, motivation, object, occasion, passion, rationale, root, spring, spur, stimulus, thinking

There are really important issues at stake in the world today. And this is how you waste our collective time?

(word verification: dingly) LOL

Anonymous said...

Wait a waste of time. Left the lefties win every thing like they did in 2008, watch them destroy whats left of our economy and then maybe the people will realize that liberal plans have a zero success rate.

Will mean starting all over but that may be better than wasting our time and money trying to get these lazy fools to quit believing in command economics and let demand economics return.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
Affirmative action never denied a citizen’s right to vote. There’s no equivalency between the injustice of segregation and discrimination and the radical Right’s trumped up “Voter Fraud” Fraud.

So you don't want the majority of Americans to have representation and desire a one party dictatorship that serves the interests of the economic elite minority. We get it.

If the goal is to win, you don't want Republicans to vote and I don't want Democrats to vote. That's what voter turnout campaigns are for. I want Democrats demoralized and depressed so that they skip election day.

Yes, the goal is to win. And Republicans use any and all means they can get away with, including disenfranchising voters.

Thank you for admitting we are correct about the motives/intent behind the great “Voter Fraud” Fraud.

Free,

Anti-Acorn propaganda the best ya got? Wow, that theres somma that real Murikin jernalism fer ya.

Still no actual widespread fraudulent votes noted. You fail to make the case.

Again, Obama hasn't earned my vote. You keep trying to get me to defend Obama. I don't need to, his deranged opposition provides abundant evidence as to why we have no other choice.

Nah, because you vote for Obama No matter what. Obama could kill jews on national TV and rape the bodies and you'd still vote for him so the Republicans wouldn't win. He could light his daughters on fire and feed them to Mike Tyson and you'd be in line with a smile on your face

Can anyone BE any more deranged? There's no point in indulging your madness with any attempt at discussion when you spin so far out of reality.

Perhaps medication could help you.

By the way, they were "nukular aluminum tubes". Let me know when Obama tells that blatant a whopper.

free0352 said...

Let me know when Obama tells that blatant a whopper.

I like these -

As President, I'll revisit the Patriot Act. I think there are some provisions in there that are counter intuitive to our civil liberties

Barak Obama 2008

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process,"

Barak Obama 2008

As for ACORN, I gave you a map of compiled data from election fraud cases. You don't like the truth, too bad. Funny how you'll "question authority" when it comes to twoofer propaganda but not compiled data from one of my sources. What do you want, me to link several thousand cases on your blog. That might take up a little too much space. So if you must have another CNN article, here you go. If you want, I can might be able to find the time to link the several hundred others... but I trust you can use Google on your own.

free0352 said...

Here's another example from traditional Republican propagandists... MSNBC.


Here's another.

Nah, no election fraud. Never.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, you replied with...

"Perhaps you're unaware that motive and intent are synonyms."

Sure, they certainly can be, but they're mistakenly used interchangeably and they have two entirely difference meanings -- especially when used in a legal context. I believe my explanation (above) is enough to show this. If not, here's another example:

Heathen and Jefferson are having a somewhat tense conversation over a beer at the local neighborhood pub. Heathen grabs a knife from the bar and tries to plunge it into Jefferson's ribs. The pub regulars overpower him, the police are called, and Heathen is charged with assault with a deadly weapon. That’s intent. No one knows Heathen's motive, but no one needs to know his motive. What he intended was obvious, and it is a crime.

"There are really important issues at stake in the world today."

There certainly are! So explain to me why conservatives continually and purposely attempt to create additional ones, and never work collectively and in a spirit of goodwill to solve them.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

The conservative propagation of widespread voter fraud is a myth. That's been established. "[Conservatives] insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters", although I suppose this wasn't a concern when they used every means necessary to thwart a recount of the ballots in Florida in 2000.

To conservatives, holiness is always in the eyes of the beholder -- theirs.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous whoppered:

"...watch them [Liberals] destroy whats left of our economy and then maybe the people will realize that liberal plans have a zero success rate."

It is astounding how someone can come here and leave an embarrassingly dumb lie like that.

The GOP, under the Bush administration, ran our economy into the ground and the country was hemorrhaging jobs. Anyone who knows how to google, can find data to back that fact.

Anonymous obviously doesn't know how to do that.


"It’s noteworthy that Republican dogma insists that the government cannot produce jobs, and yet they are, to a man and woman, blaming the government, which is to say, the president, for the poor employment numbers.

It’s also worth noting that, despite their claims now, Republicans did not win the House in 2010 by campaigning on reducing the debt and cutting spending. They won by promising that, if elected, they would focus like lasers on nothing but creating “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” Who can forget John Boehner rushing toward every available camera, bellowing “Where are the jobs, Mr. President?”

Boehner promised that the GOP House [THE GOVERNMENT] would create jobs. But the GOP insists government can't create jobs!


In less than four years Mr. Obama has turned that around. The unemployment rate is improving.

Corporations are doing very well under Obama, GM is making profits and has paid back the government loans, with interest, private businesses are sitting on piles of cash, and the stock market has recovered from the slide it underwent during the financial meltdown under Bush.

Corporations and banks and capitalism, in fact, have thrived under "Socialist" Obama.

Obama managed to help this recovery along with the most obstrutionist Congress in modern history.

Some silly "Anonymous" comes here and leaves a stupid lie, easily refuted by facts.

Truth has a Liberal bias.

The Heathen Republican said...

I'm starting to see a pattern here: whenever Free or I make a point, you divert from the point and ignore it. Everyone here needs to learn to debate honestly.

"Affirmative action never denied a citizen’s right to vote."

Of course, no one's saying it did. The point is about motive/intent and unintended consequences. I pointed out affirmative action because I assume even you can acknowledge that despite the wonderful motives of the people behind it, the program has had unintended consequences.

"Yes, the goal is to win. And Republicans use any and all means they can get away with, including disenfranchising voters."

You're being dishonest. Even when someone tells you their motives/intent, you choose to believe they are evil.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, you dishonestly asserted..

"I'm starting to see a pattern here: whenever Free or I make a point, you divert from the point and ignore it. Everyone here needs to learn to debate honestly."

Yes, I see a pattern also. It's called projection.

The Heathen Republican said...

Let's see what an honest discussion would've looked like.

Lefty: Republicans want voter ID laws to suppress minority votes.

Righty: You can't know anyone else's motives. For all you know, Republicans have noble and good motives, and vote suppression might be an unintended consequence.

Lefty: Okay, I can't know their motives, but the possibility of suppressing votes should be enough reason to forget about voter ID laws.

Righty: We can't stop making laws out of a fear of unintended consequences. Especially if the left gets to say what the unintended consequences of the right's laws are. You guys are still convinced we're all racist.

Lefty: Unintended consequences should be considered, at least. You have to admit that adding a step to vote has the potential to suppress voting.

Righty: But you have no reason to believe asking for a voter ID would suppress legal voters. Is there any evidence that it's happened that way before?

Lefty: [Cites evidence from the internet]. As you see, in that state, after adopting voter ID laws, more than 200 legal voters couldn't vote in the last election, and most were minorities.

Righty: Wow Lefty, I didn't know that and will need to reconsider my position.

You see Dave, I can argue your side better than you, and that's what an honest debate looks like. Here's what we had instead.

Lefty: Republicans want voter ID laws to suppress minority votes.

Righty: You can't know anyone else's motives. For all you know, Republicans have noble and good motives, and vote suppression might be an unintended consequence.

Lefty: Let's take a day to define the word "motive" and sideline the discussion.

Lefty: Republicans can't have noble motives. That makes me LOL.

Righty: It's like affirmative action: good motives with bad unintended consequences.

Lefty: Affirmative action had nothing to do with voting. Republicans just want to suppress votes.

Righty: I see. So you're ignoring my point and returning to your original statement about Republican motives, which you cannot know. Good discussion.

okjimm said...

//whenever Free or I make a point, you divert from the point and ignore it. Everyone here needs to learn to debate honestly.//

oh geees, oh my, still my beating heart..... but but but Free just makes things up....to suit himself... break me up!

Just the Facts said...

Heathen Republican,

Your first post on 1/7/12 sums up what trying to debate with liberals is like. Well done!

As an further example look at the response to the Anno post recommending we just let the liberals win elections.
Instead of explaining why liberal polices would work, the response from a liberal is to bring up Bush and to attack Anno.

Same song, different day.

I enjoy your debate on this blog.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Now that’s better. You did some research instead of casting me as supporter of the “Final Solution” for voting against Republicans. That’s a step in the right direction.

Thanks for the Obama campaign promises. I don’t think they qualify as the same kind of lie as a flat out false statement contrary to verifiable evidence. But you did at least contribute something.

And you also contributed some articles intended to illustrate widespread vote fraud. They failed to make the case, buy very good on your part, nonetheless.

Unfortunately you have referenced the usual ACORN registration fraud. This is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about voters, qualified or unqualified, at the poll, not bogus cards listing such names as "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck".

This shows no actual case of fraudulent votes at the polls in an election that would have been prevented by Voter ID requirements.

Did you see this part of the CNN article you linked? “There has been no evidence of voter fraud yet, because voters have yet to go to the polls.”

This also shows no fraudulent votes in an election that would have been prevented by Voter ID requirements.

Last, but not least is your article on the local election where 50 absentee ballots were forged. Very bad. I say prosecute the bastards for that.

However, this also shows no fraudulent votes in an election that would have been prevented by Voter ID requirements.

I wonder how many fake Diebold (R) votes were registered, and not caught, by comparison. We’ll never know, they conveniently leave no paper trail or method of validation. But that’s another issue.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
The difference between you and me is I want every citizen to vote and you don’t. You’ve made that clear. Other Republicans have also made that clear. Republican voter ID laws also make that clear. The fact that Republicans won’t allow a student with a photo ID to vote also makes that clear. A handgun permit is ok, of course. I suppose an NRA membership card would do nicely too.

You want proof in cases where the new laws have not affected an election yet. Obviously we can’t show results there. But it has been studied.

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html?sid=ST2011031002881

An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.

Also from the same article:

New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.

House Speaker William O'Brien addresses a crowd saying students lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings." "There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College.


What is noble and good about denying students their right to vote? It’s ok for ignorant Glenn Beck fans to “vote their feelings”, though. The 26th Amendment to the Constitution allows eighteen year olds the right to vote. Republicans don’t like that and are subverting their rights. Republicans don’t want everyone to vote and they admit to that motive.

Any party interested in promoting something “noble and good” would at least seek bi-partisan efforts to take up the cause. Instead the Republicans unilaterally declared a false crisis and unilaterally imposed their “solution”. Maybe now you can see why I question that “noble and good” motive. Are only Republicans noble and good?

vote suppression might be an unintended consequence.

By all appearances those are intended consequences. If they “might be” unintended, then why don’t Republicans listen to the people warning of those consequences?

Their dismissal of that view further indicates, not noble and good intentions, but deliberate intentions to disenfranchise voters.

Dave Dubya said...

Shaw,
Truth has a Liberal bias.

As does reality, and that is the problem, and an opportunity, for the Right. They want the world to be what they say it is, so it's a full time job for many of them.

Okjimm,
Free just makes things up

Yes, it's what we call entertainment value. You know, just like Rush the "Entertainer". Although Free doesn't claim to be an entertainer, his Rush-style doctrine of "flexible reality" qualifies him as one.

The Heathen Republican said...

@Dave
"The fact that Republicans won’t allow a student with a photo ID to vote also makes that clear."

Is it really so black and white for you? You see no nuance whatsoever? Consider, is an out of state student a resident of the state where her parents live or where her campus is? If she retains residency with her parents, she is ineligible to vote in her university town with a student ID.

What's to prevent a student from casting an absentee ballot from her home state and using her student ID to vote where she's attending college? If she votes Republican, that's two votes against your guy. Is that what you want?

I thought you represented the ideology of nuance and I represented the ideology of black and white. Another myth shattered.


"You want proof in cases where the new laws have not affected an election yet."

No, you misunderstand (again). My point had nothing to do with Voter ID laws. I just want honest debate.


"By all appearances those are intended consequences. If they 'might be' unintended, then why don’t Republicans listen to the people warning of those consequences? Their dismissal of that view further indicates, not noble and good intentions, but deliberate intentions to disenfranchise voters."

Yes, it's clear that you completely missed the point. You don't get to pretend to have an honest debate now that I've pointed out how to do it.

And no matter the evidence you come up with, you can't know another's motives. All you can do is make it up in your own mind, attribute it to others, and rationalize your view that the other is your enemy.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
I had no intentions of playing into your theatrics. I was actually making some points, excellent ones at that.

And you missed or ignored all of them. Is that because only Republicans are noble and good, and see no need to answer uncomfortable questions and well founded accusations about their politics of opposition to democracy?

We already know democray is not noble and good for Republicans because you don't want anyone who disagrees with your party to vote.

And the party is taking steps to see that happen.

You are promoting a hypothetical presumption of vote fraud guilt as the foundation of your opinion of student voting. But that is really the basic MO of the Vote Fraud fraud, isn't it.

Perhaps you should stick with the party line about "foolish" students "voting their feelings". That would appeal more to the emotional lizard brain of the Right Wing FOX(R) viewer.

Just the Facts! said...

Yes, it's clear that you completely missed the point. You don't get to pretend to have an honest debate now that I've pointed out how to do it.

And no matter the evidence you come up with, you can't know another's motives. All you can do is make it up in your own mind, attribute it to others, and rationalize your view that the other is your enemy.

But HR, don't you understand, that's the right of a liberal, to assume to know the motives of others. That the basis of all their feel good deeds The assume to know what others really need and assume to know why someone else should pay for it.

Again, well said!

Dave Dubya said...

Thank you, JG for reasonably pointing out accepted definitions and usages of terms. As proven repeatedly, the radical Rightists refuse to accept mutual and established definitions. As we know, they make up their own definitions all the time.

For those in the peanut gallery who truly believe one "can't know another's motives", that is an incorrect statement. It is false. It is wrong. It is even deceptive, and it is a Lie.

Sometimes the motives are communicated.

The Heathen Republican said...

"Sometimes the motives are communicated."

Exactly right Dave! So show the peanut gallery where Republicans expressed the intent/motive to suppress minority votes using voter ID laws. Not your interpretation; not your presumption of their motives; but where a Republican actually "communicated" such a motive.

Absent someone's explicit statement of their own motives, you can't know them. No lie.

free0352 said...

You sound like one of these idiots who want illegal aliens, and felons to vote. Are you serious? If you're too stupid to find your ID and drive yourself to the polls frankly you're too stupid to vote. That isn't denial of voting rights, it's political Darwin.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen said, and repeated similar refrains time after time...

"I just want honest debate", and "Let's see what an honest discussion would've looked like", and "You guys play unfairly and I'm going to take my toys and go home..." (Well, to be honest, I've paraphrased the last statement. ;-)

Heathen expects every comments forum to follow the strict protocol of his high school debate team. That's apparently the only roundtable he's comfortable with and willing to trade knocks.

Heathen, as you've mentioned yourself, on this very blog if I'm not mistaken, politics is dirty. And it's certainly not orderly and tidy. If formal debating rules are what you desire, and it's the only way you can propagate your nihilistic claims without rejection or retort, why don't you go sit on your blog the rest of the day and we'll all come over and you can moderate the discussion in the way that makes you feel the most comfortable?

Fair enough?

By the way, you're still confusing the use of the words motive and intent. Shall I provide another example for you?

Just the Facts! said...

HR,

Looks like you've got JG on the ropes, he's had to go to his "bull pen" and bring Dave in for relief.

They are the tag team of the liberal blog world.

As a member of the peanut gallery, I think it's a hoot how you are being attacked for your desire to hold a debate using rules, yet neither Dave or JG have any issues with John Myst and his outstanding use of the rules of debate.

Gee, wonder what their intent for this double standard is?

Keep on them HR!

The Heathen Republican said...

Thanks JTF. Odd, I really didn't expect someone to stand up and defend dishonest debate. Obviously I'd forgotten about Jefferson.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just the Falsehoods remarked...

"...yet neither Dave or JG have any issues with John Myst and his outstanding use of the rules of debate."

That's because John Myst doesn't distort the truth and repeat known falsehoods when he makes comments.


The Heathen Republican chided with...

"Obviously I'd forgotten about Jefferson."

Gee, I'm disappointed Heathen. Apparently I'm not doing my job properly if I've neglected to point out your constant inconsistencies. I'm honestly not defending dishonest debate; on the contrary, just pointing out your dishonestly and insincerity in general.

Dave Dubya said...

"Honest debate"? Coming from the radical Right, that's a hoot. This is the final, desperate, and dishonest, tactic from the side losing the argument.

Double standards indeed. We've offered reliable documented evidence supporting our position. They have have offered weak evidence that failed to prove both their claim of a vote fraud crisis and that voter ID laws would remedy it.

The only "rules" are what their side wants. That's no "honest debate".

Neither is unilateral definition of terms. That Right Wing tactic alone is enough to rule out honest debate.

What a joke. But it is a typical tactic of distraction the Rightist usually ends up using.

Just the Facts! said...

"But it is a typical tactic of distraction the Rightist usually ends up using."
Really, like you have NEVER used distraction as a tactic? Please.

Dave Dubya said...

And there's that tactic of projection again.

Dave Dubya said...

Speaking of jokes:

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense,"

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him.

He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room.

Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit."