User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 112

  1. #61
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    How, then, do you explain my disgust with Newt Gingrich? You have no sexism argument to fall back on there.
    I'm not saying you're sexist, and that's why you hate her, or that there isn't any non-sexist reasons to dislike her. I'm talking about a fairly large portion of Republicans, and you're not one, I don't think.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I've never believed she was that far left. I just think she sucks.
    So why do you hate her then? Is she a horrible politician? Not really. She became a powerful Speaker of the House mostly on her own accord.

    Is she evil? Not really. Is she just too liberal in her policy support? You're saying it's not because of that.

    Does she remind you of your mother?

  2. #62
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I'm not saying that Republicans have anything meaningful to contribute, just that she contributes to the divisive environment, which only hurts us in the long run.
    Bipartisanship is overrated. Needing a super majority to get anything passed, gridlock, and filibustering hurts us in the long run.

  3. #63
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That is... they are OK with the politician as long as they don't screw up. Failing to bring home the bacon is a huge screw-up, because in the campaign, the challenger will point out how much money other areas got, and "why did so-and-so vote to send $xxx of your tax dollars to some other place?"

    Notice how no one ever attacks an incumbent for too much pork spent on the home district. That's about as much of a loser argument as you'll ever make.
    This sounds more like the thinking of the campaigners themselves than the voters. Again, my belief as that the voters barely even think about this. When I say a scandal or a contraversy, it's something saying some socially insensitive remark or being gay. People do get away with throwing tax money out of their district all of the time. In Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, I could not help but notice you picked the two most conspicuous, successful state stuffers of all. They are not exactly representative.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The results that are part of the campaign, on the other hand, most certainly are.
    But they are again, I'd say, to obivious to rely on how that works. This is even more the case since a lot of people get quite concerned with wholly federal issues. You can get in such shit for messing with national security and the federal military.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    There's an implicit Marxism in always assuming that hatred toward capitalism must come from Marxism.
    I was expecting you to make this change. That's reallly not comperable to what I said. Let's go over the concept again. If sexism is about treating people differently and their circumstances differently based on gender alone, and you always assume that someone who is female and being attacked is being attacked on the grounds of sexism, then you are in fact carrying out the definition of sexism. You are pre-determining the person's circumstances based on their gender.

    It would be hard to turn that into a statement about Marxism and capitalism, because the definition of those things are not at all functionally comparable.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Do any of them contradict my point?
    Yep.

    If a person does not understand what another person is doing, then we cannot assume that person accepts or likes what the other person is doing.

    Similar problems occur with a person understanding and dislike what the other person is doing, but feeling it is for some reason pointess to attempt doing something about it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #64
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    How so? The filibuster is a very high-profile procedural rule. Only a small portion of the population even knows about it. Your point was that Pelosi may be reviled for changing a lesser-profile procedural rule. By extension, it is likely that an even smaller portion of the population knows about that rule. However, a large percentage of the rank-and-file Republican Party reviles Pelosi, much larger than the percentage that likely knows or cares about the rule change. Consequently, that rule change can't be something she did to warrant the amount of vitriol she receives from them.
    You're talking about the reaction of the public, I was not.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #65
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    This sounds more like the thinking of the campaigners themselves than the voters. Again, my belief as that the voters barely even think about this. When I say a scandal or a contraversy, it's something saying some socially insensitive remark or being gay. People do get away with throwing tax money out of their district all of the time. In Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, I could not help but notice you picked the two most conspicuous, successful state stuffers of all. They are not exactly representative.
    Two of the longest-serving Senators as well.

    Scandals/controversies? Do you really think people resign because they'll lose the next election? Why wouldn't they just serve the rest of their term? Unless that leverage others would have makes it impossible for the politician to do his or her job.

    People absolutely do not get away with failing to bring home the bacon. Even Ron Paul makes sure the pork bills he votes against have a few riders attached to them which allocates revenue to his district.

    But they are again, I'd say, to obivious to rely on how that works. This is even more the case since a lot of people get quite concerned with wholly federal issues. You can get in such shit for messing with national security and the federal military.
    All politics is local. Scott Brown didn't get elected because of Obama or health care, no matter what the RNC tries to spoonfeed us. He got elected because Coakley was a terrible campaigner, and the Massachusetts Democratic Party was split between its pro-labor/progressive wings and its socially liberal but pro-corporate wing.

    I was expecting you to make this change. That's reallly not comperable to what I said. Let's go over the concept again. If sexism is about treating people differently and their circumstances differently based on gender alone, and you always assume that someone who is female and being attacked is being attacked on the grounds of sexism, then you are in fact carrying out the definition of sexism. You are pre-determining the person's circumstances based on their gender.

    It would be hard to turn that into a statement about Marxism and capitalism, because the definition of those things are not at all functionally comparable.
    However, the two clearly follow the same logical pattern. So, if it works for sexism, then it must work for Marxism, since both are simply theoretical concepts. Marxists categorize a differentiation between themselves and capitalists, and level their attacks based on the different status of that class with others. Assuming that someone making an anti-capitalist statement is a Marxist pre-determines that person's political beliefs based solely on the capitalist's status as a capitalist.

    The problem is that this says nothing about the person making that determination. You don't know if they see the world in simply a Marxian/Capitalist dialectic, or just happen to be familiar with Marxism and thus see attacks on capitalism as such.

    You also made the statement too broad by throwing that weasel word "always" in there. So my question then, is what does it say about you that you think that anytime someone points out or theorizes on sexism, that the person acts in a sexist manner? That people are inflexible in their hypotheses on the origin of various things?

    Yep.

    If a person does not understand what another person is doing, then we cannot assume that person accepts or likes what the other person is doing.

    Similar problems occur with a person understanding and dislike what the other person is doing, but feeling it is for some reason pointess to attempt doing something about it.
    That has to do with questions of "liking", as opposed to questions of "wanting". You may not "like" something, but you still may "want" it, if you have limited options, you like the surrounding effects (think alcohol, for example; few people actually like the taste) and you dislike the others more. You may not like the fact that your local pol is a scumbag, but you do like the fact that he brings home pork and pisses the other side off. Likewise, you may not care or know about the other pol, but you don't want to change anything up.

  6. #66
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You're talking about the reaction of the public, I was not.
    So what's the point of discussing Republicans as a class, if we do not count the public?

  7. #67
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    So why do you hate her then? Is she a horrible politician? Not really. She became a powerful Speaker of the House mostly on her own accord.

    Is she evil? Not really. Is she just too liberal in her policy support? You're saying it's not because of that.

    Does she remind you of your mother?
    She first caught my attention with her stance on offshore drilling. Not only does she not support it, she refuses to even allow it to come to a vote, despite the fact that a majority of Americans want the offshore drilling ban lifted. If polls showed that only...say...40% of Americans were in favor of offshore drilling and that if the ban was lifted, it would primarily be because oil companies lobbied congress, then I could understand her reasoning. But that's not what is going on here. She's standing in the way of the democratic process. That's what monarchs and dictators do, not representatives, and she's no monarch.

    I don't even care about the offshore drilling issue that much. I know it wouldn't have an effect on oil prices for years. I simply hate her tactics. I doubt she's the first Speaker to use this strategy, but she's the one doing it right now.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #68
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Bipartisanship is overrated. Needing a super majority to get anything passed, gridlock, and filibustering hurts us in the long run.
    I'm not talking about bipartisanship.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #69
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    So what's the point of discussing Republicans as a class, if we do not count the public?
    I was talking, specifically, about Republicans in Congress. If you want to change the argument, feel free. I just won't participate.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #70
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I was talking, specifically, about Republicans in Congress. If you want to change the argument, feel free. I just won't participate.
    Why should we care what they think? They're there to represent their constituents.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-08-2015, 09:08 PM
  2. The Scientific State of the MBTI
    By funtensity in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-20-2013, 10:32 AM
  3. State of the Union
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 01:16 PM
  4. What are you guys feeling about the state of affairs now?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 02:13 PM
  5. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO