Conservatism And The Republican Party

[Gunny]

No Gunny I didn't base my argument on my being there for a few weeks. I pointed to the smear campaign against Ann Richards, all that's needed is a quick Google search and there it is. I can see the attraction in taking a shot at me for only being there for a few weeks. But it's a classic ad hominem (a real one).

I won't bore you with why I was there, who I was there with, whom I met and where I went (except to say I did meet - as he then was - State Senator Jerry Patterson in Pasadena - an interesting man, I liked his F-4 photographs) but they were all Democratic Party people so yes, I got a biased view.
But aside from that, the facts speak for themselves.


On the threats to arrest the Democrat legislators - http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/15/texas/index.html?pn=2

I'll concede your point about Tx politics being relatively cleaner than DC.

You were referring to the State Congressional Dem's running out of the state to hold up a congressional vote? For one thing, IIRC, Rick Perry was already Governor here when that happened. Second, it was a bullshit ploy by the Dems to stall COngressional redistricting. Of little mention is the last tiem the Dems took control of the Texas Congress, they did the same thing (redistricting). The Republicans actually redrew the line as they orignially were for years.

 

[Gunny]

I know you don't do the personal attack thing Gunny, what I meant by ad hominem was referencing something factually irrelevant. I mentioned the context of my thinking but pointed to other sources. I was taught that an ad hom was the sort of situation where, let's say someone's arguing for more ethical treatment of farm animals and the other person asks and confirms that the first person eats meat - it's not relevant to the substance of the argument.

Anyway I never did like that philosophy lecturer so I could have that wrong (he was an arrogant prick).

Back to my visit. I was given a heads up. The discussion didn't go much further than a discussion at dinner one night with a group of political workers (not activists, they had previously worked on Democratic presidential campaigns - I did say up front where they were at politically speaking). I found a lot of things out in the following years for myself.

I don't like a lot of shit that goes on here, and I can't stand that prick Perry. I'd hardly take up for him for no reason.

I'm really not that big a fan of Bush. I think in some things he has handled the situations remarkably well. I think in others he has handled them as remarkably stupid as one can get.

I STILL think he is better than either choice offered in the past two elections by Democrats.

 

[Diuretic]

Fair enough Gunny, fair enough. And on that note and at this stage (always allowing for re-ignition of the issues in the thread) I think I've had my say and I'm happy I did.

And my blood pressure remained stable - which is good of course.

 

[Bern80]

Opinion cant be proven wrong, thats why it is applied so readily now adays.

Where did people get this idea? It such a cop out. I gave this example before but there was a thread on here a while back with two opinions. 9/11 was an inside job or the other is of the opinion that it was caused by terrorists. One opinion is write and one is wrong.

Sorry its off topic but I am so tired of hearing and seeing on this board. Do you know many people that hold opinions that they don't think are true?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

like my driving teachers said. Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one, and they all stink

 

[Superlative]

Sorry its off topic but I am so tired of hearing and seeing on this board. Do you know many people that hold opinions that they don't think are true?

Nope. None.

And you cant prove them wrong, thats the point, it is what they think, and you (by american standards) have no real right to tell them they are wrong, it is just their opinion.

and its being passed off as journalism.

 

[Bern80]

Now on to the topic. Sperating ideologies from political parties is important because the two really don't mix. At some point most politicians are going to compromise their ideology (if they have one). there are few exceptions, but Paul Wellstone was one of them. extra super liberal, but if he believed something was wrong he didn't vote for it. He didn't do the behind the scenes you scratch my back I'll scratch yours that goes on in politics.

As far as this administration is concerned I think you wound find most conservatives are as annoyed with Bush's obstianance as liberals. A real objective conservative would have been able to predict what would happen in Iraq with a little research. the only alternative is that Bush strongly believe that democratic freedom will reign someday in Iraq and apparently he is the only one that thinks the time, men & women are worth it.

 

[Bern80]

Nope. None.

And you cant prove them wrong, thats the point, it is what they think, and you (by american standards) have no real right to tell them they are wrong, it is just their opinion.

and its being passed off as journalism.

I think it is more appropriate to say they can't be proven wrong...yet. Opinion is a believe in something w/o knowledge of truth. Another example. Some people believe global warming is caused predominantly by humans, others believe it is predominantly a cyclical event that we have little control over. One day one of those groups will be proven write, meaning there opinion will become incorrect.

The important thing is recognizing an opinion and simply asking yourself, is what was just stated true? Can it be proven. If it can't it's an opinion and then the logical thing to do would be found out if it's accurate. The truth is already there as far as my Global warming scenario is concerned and any other for that matter we just don't have the knowledge and info to find it yet

 

[Superlative]

I think it is more appropriate to say they can't be proven wrong...yet. Opinion is a believe in something w/o knowledge of truth. Another example. Some people believe global warming is caused predominantly by humans, others believe it is predominantly a cyclical event that we have little control over. One day one of those groups will be proven write, meaning there opinion will become incorrect.

The important thing is recognizing an opinion and simply asking yourself, is what was just stated true? Can it be proven. If it can't it's an opinion and then the logical thing to do would be found out if it's accurate. The truth is already there as far as my Global warming scenario is concerned and any other for that matter we just don't have the knowledge and info to find it yet

What about the Partisan Spin?

It is the opinion of the Conservatives that the Liberals want to Cut and Run, that by pulling out of Iraq, they are Supporting Terrorism, and harming the troops, emboldening the terrorists.

They are stand points, there are more, and they are varied, but, they are opinions that are prevasive, and people adopt them as their own, and they cannot be proven wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

Now on to the topic. Sperating ideologies from political parties is important because the two really don't mix. At some point most politicians are going to compromise their ideology (if they have one). there are few exceptions, but Paul Wellstone was one of them. extra super liberal, but if he believed something was wrong he didn't vote for it. He didn't do the behind the scenes you scratch my back I'll scratch yours that goes on in politics.

.....................(snipped some)

That's interesting, I was beginning to think I was the only person seeing a disconnect between politicians and political parties and their ideologies in US politics. Why don't ideology and political party mix though?

Yes many US politicians - comparatively - compromise their ideology. The joint sponsorship of bills is to someone not in the US system quite amazing. Same with the chameleon-like ability of some politicians like Zell Miller for example who can stand in one Party and yet champion the other.

So pragatism has finally defeated ideology in US politics?

Small wonder you have so much corruption in politics. Pragmatism simply means no ideology which makes it easier to sell out.

 

[Bern80]

What about the Partisan Spin?

It is the opinion of the Conservatives that the Liberals want to Cut and Run, that by pulling out of Iraq, they are Supporting Terrorism, and harming the troops, emboldening the terrorists.

They are stand points, there are more, and they are varied, but, they are opinions that are prevasive, and people adopt them as their own, and they cannot be proven wrong.

Sure it can. What Republican's accuse Democrats of doing is either what the Democrats truly believe or it isn't.

 

[Superlative]

Sure it can. What Republican's accuse Democrats of doing is either what the Democrats truly believe or it isn't.

Sorry, Im lost, I dont quite follow.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

what r we talking about?

 

[Bern80]

Sorry, Im lost, I dont quite follow.

I realize this is degenerating into a semantics debate but try to follow. Your original quote below: All of the below statements are either true or false. We probably don't know which thus all we have right now is opinion, but someone's opinion will be right and some wont.

It is the opinion of the Conservatives that the Liberals want to Cut and Run

That is a true or false statement. Either that's what liberals want or it isn't.

that by pulling out of Iraq, they are Supporting Terrorism, and harming the troops, emboldening the terrorists.

Also either true or false. U.S. troops leaving Iraq will either help terrorists or it wont.

Again I get that all we have right now are opinions, because we don't know the truth. That doesn't change the fact that right now as we speak the above opinions are either right or they are not. That we can't definatively say right now makes no difference.

They are stand points, there are more, and they are varied, but, they are opinions that are prevasive, and people adopt them as their own, and they cannot be proven wrong.

See above

Now I have a question: Why is it so important to you that there be no truth where opinions are concerned?

 

[Superlative]

Now I have a question: Why is it so important to you that there be no truth where opinions are concerned?

Its not important to me other than it seems very intentional that Political officials use circular statements that only serve to counter another.

And can not be proven incorrect, the majority of Americans dont realize that these arent necessarily true, and when they hear and see them repeatedly they are embedded into the minds of alot of people.

The only purpose they seem to serve is to split the issue down the middle, and draw attention away from the actual problem, forcing people to choose a side instead of caring to find an answer.

Its quite disconcerting to see a large amount of the population (excluding most people on this board) so easily and completely in support of government policies, when they honestly have no understanding of the ramifications of the current foreign policy.

All based on ambigious talking points.

Kind of like propaganda.

 

[Gunny]

I realize this is degenerating into a semantics debate but try to follow. Your original quote below: All of the below statements are either true or false. We probably don't know which thus all we have right now is opinion, but someone's opinion will be right and some wont.



That is a true or false statement. Either that's what liberals want or it isn't.



Also either true or false. U.S. troops leaving Iraq will either help terrorists or it wont.

Again I get that all we have right now are opinions, because we don't know the truth. That doesn't change the fact that right now as we speak the above opinions are either right or they are not. That we can't definatively say right now makes no difference.



See above

Now I have a question: Why is it so important to you that there be no truth where opinions are concerned?

'Tis the MO of the relativist argument. Claim you have no basis to your stance because everything is relative. I had one go so far out there trying to justofy his relativism he was giving me the "you can't prove we really exist," argument.

 

[Superlative]

I find it quite convienient that Murdoch is starting to sidle up to Hillary, he knows what he is doing, I guess it isnt obvious to anyone else though.

Stick with the winner and you cant lose.

its old news, but its interesting none the less.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-df...age=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/murd-m10.shtml

 

[Adam's Apple]

Say what you want about liberals, but they generally acknowledge the faults of their party ...

Must be to each other within the confines of privacy. This is definitely news to me. It was a shocker recently when the WaPo took on Pelosi and her shadow government. Other than that one example, please post other examples that have been written for public consumption wherein the libs point out the faults of their own party. These I will await breathlessly to read!!!!