Jophiel wrote:
![Smiley: laugh](//zam.zamimg.com/i/smilies/laugh.gif)
You're making me use that emoticon a lot lately. I
knew you'd find a way to spin that 22% number the moment I showed the percentage of votes against the ED proposal was lower.
Huh? How's that spin? I was showing that the entire percentage of people who identify themselves as the "religious right" is not significantly higher then the percentage of actual elected Democrat politicians who are in favor of taking private citizen's homes from them if there can be shown to be any economic benefit to the state for doing so.
There was an implicit issue of bounds from the beginning Joph. It's not spin. Clearly, if 22% of all Americans associate themselves with the very broad term "religious right", we can expect that not 100% of them will all agree on every single agenda item, right? Therefore, that's an upper bounds of the possible number of people (and by extension percentage of some legistlative body) that might support any specific agenda item.
See how that's different? The 18% figure is *worse* because it's not some hypothetical group who may or may not support a particular action. It's 18% who *did* support a particular action. I'm pretty sure that if 18% of Republicans in the House voted to mandate prayer in public schools, you'd be all over it.
The point was to show the relative degree of "danger" here. How many times have I been questioned about being Republican because of the Religious Right? How many times do Liberals pull out the boogie-man of the Religious Right whenever an election comes up "Don't vote republican, or they'll turn public eduction into sunday school!!!!". We hear this every single time Joph. Constantly.
Where's the concern for the expansion of government power that results from the agenda of the Democratic party Joph? How many years now have I said exactly the same thing every time this subject comes up? I say that the danger in the Republican party is really obvious and easy to block. The danger in the Democratic party is much more difficult though.
No one ever says: "We want to increase the power of the federal government and take away some of your freedoms in the process". They just say "We want to feed the hungry". And that's why it's dangerous Joph. Because while your thinking about all those mouths you're feeding, you're pushing the country one step closer to a police state.
What's really amazing to me is that even when faced with a police-state like law (seizing private property for the "greater good"), you don't like it, and you argue against it, but it never once seems to occur to you that it's because of people like you that this occured in the first place. If you keep giving the government more power, they'll eventually use it in ways you don't like. So don't do it in the first place. Seems pretty obvious to me...
Sigh. And you think *I'm* spinning stuff?
Quote:
When the ban went in on embroytic stem cell research, you were saying some crap about how it was because of Republican desires to curb spending.
First off. It was not a "ban on embryonic stem cell research". That would involve making it illegal to do such research. It was a program for stem cell research, but did not fund embryonic stem cell research. Given that there were no government funded programs for this type of research at all prior to this, I'm not sure what the problem is.
Interesting how "not funding something" is transmorgafied in Liberal-speach to "a ban on something". But you're not spinning at all...
Quote:
When the Congressional Republicans voted against the ban and Bush threatened to veto, it was rah-rah Bush.
You're going to have to be a lot more specific here. I don't even remember this.
Quote:
When Iraqi prison scandals break, you circle the Pubbie wagon and decry the liberals who don't understand but when the Republicans speak of passing a ban on torture and Bush threatens veto, it's Bush who's in the right.
Funny bit of rhetoric there Joph. Um... What can you do but "circle the wagons", when the other side does nothing but continuous media-spin style attacks? It's about manipulating public perception Joph. That's it. I could produce a laundry list of Liberal arguments, every one of which has no legal or rational basis, but exists because it plays really well on TV.
Um... The "ban on torture" is an addendum item dropped into the bill. If it was an issue able to get support and votes on its own, it wouldn't have been dropped into the bill. It would have been introduced on its own.
And yeah. Republicans "speak of passing a ban on torture" because it's about language. How many of them would actuall vote for this in its current language if it were in its own bill? Speaking is about the media and public perception. Every one of them will say he's "opposed to torture", and that'll be interpreted as support for the addendum. It's not the same thing though.
Quote:
When Bush gets blasted on Harriet Meirs from the Right and is forced to withdraw, you claim it wasn't a defeat for Bush but that it was a calculated effort to "soak up media cycles".
Yeah. And it worked. Hear anything in the news about Meirs? Nope? Nearly perfect timing on that one.
Quote:
Even when I say that's a horrible thing you agree on general principle but don't criticise Bush for it, instead just shrugging it off as "one of those things".
Because it *is* just one of those things. Why is it "wrong" for the Republicans to be aware of the affect ations they take have on public perception? It's silly for them not to. That's how they're being attacked right now. You've got a Democrat party that does not have power in either house of Congress, nor hold's the White House. Their primary methodology is "message". That's done via media manipulation. Every single thing that happens has a dozen paid shills for various Liberal lobbying groups standing in front of reporters telling them what this means (from their perspective of course!). Obviously, the other guys have to respond to that. Yeah. I would have preferred for Bush not to have used a SC nominee just as media cover, but I can understand *why* he'd do it. When the other guys make sure that they've got their "message" out there on the airwaves 24/7, you have to do something to deal with that.
Quote:
Here, I'll lob you an easy one: I know you'll just use this as a springboard to whine about liberals but do you feel Bush's appointment of Michael Brown was a mistake? Try to stick with the actually appointment of Brown and his job instead of crying about Democrats.
I honestly don't know. I don't know enough about his past work experience, nor about the specific requirements of the job in question.
I will point out though, that the people who hounded him don't know that either. They just assume that since he was a friend of Bush, he must have been unqualified for his job.
I'll ask you a question in return: Name one specific mistake Brown made that resulted in increased death/suffering during the Katrina disaster.
Quote:
Oh, but that's only because they were being watched. Do you ever look at how many of your little rants rely on conspiracy theories about what people "really" think and "really" believe and "really" want though you can never find evidence of it? But of course you can never find the evidence because they'll never "really" say it...
Except in this case, we have a law passed by Democrats that is a literal conspiracy theory come alive Joph. You've got the government attempting to empower itself to be able to take anyone's property away for the flimsiest of reasons. At what point do you become concerned about this? Sheesh!