Well, *that* was productive...Follow

The adversarial nature of debate means that I get to argue my side and you get to laugh and wonder how it is I haven't killed myself by using a tool too complicated for my intellect to comprehend, like scissors.

I have always enjoyed that part.

I am.



Without any other conditions or connections? Then why ask it in this thread? Why didn't you ask me this a couple weeks ago? Or a month ago. Heck. If all you really care about is your own edification, why not send me a PM? Why insist that the question and answer occur within this specific thread?



Since when is that a requirement? We've debated issues involving President Bush for 8 years. How many times did Red say something nice about Bush, or Paulsol? Or Smash? Strange that no one has ever insisted that they do so *ever* let alone in the midst of a thread where Bush was being discussed.

Why do you only find it odd that you can't recall me having said something nice about Obama?




I already said I can. I could list a whole bunch of things. The point isn't that I don't find things about him that I like, but why you're insisting that I do so right here and right now.



Because I fundamentally disagree with the core assumptions of most things we label "Liberal". I'm not going to say something nice about something I disagree with and believe is massively damaging the aspects of the country I live in.

There are many nice things about the people though. There's a difference though. I have many times stated that I believe that as a group liberals mean well. The people are good (except for the screaming hate monger types, but you get those on all sides). There are many people I like who's politics I simply can't stand. I'm a big fan of Janeane Garafolo. I think she's hilarious as a comic. I've enjoyed every role she's ever played in a film I've seen with her in it. I absolutely despise pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth when she speaks about politics though.

The people and the positions are not the same thing for me. Similarly, I attack Obama's policies. I point out what I believe are massive flaws with his political agendas. I point to his inexperience and the mistakes he's making. That doesn't mean that I hate the guy. I know this is difficult to understand because we've lived through 8 years of political opposition being defined as "hate" for George Bush. We're used to the equivalence. But don't assume that when I say the things I say about Obama and his policies that this means I hate the man, or I think he's a horrible person, and can't think of a single "good" thing about him.

That assumption is your own. Don't stick it on me please.



Really? I find that astoundingly unlikely. Are you saying there wasn't even a hint of "Gee. Let me get gbaji to say something that lessens the criticism he's leveling at the Obama administration"? Really? Cause I'd assume that was *exactly* why you asked that particular question at that particular time.

Maybe you're just really unaware of why you did it? That's possible I suppose...



/shrug

Doesn't change the nature of the question though.

Lol! Good one. Did anyone ever ask you to say something nice about Bush in a thread in which people were attacking Bush's policies? Ever?

Has anyone *ever* in the history of this forum been asked to do that?

Probably. I also imagine that if I was posting on a mostly Republican forum and always criticising Bush during the last 8 years, someone, at some point, would've asked me if there was anything I did think he did right. Even you should understand that you're constant criticising of anything remotely "liberal" can make you appear blindingly partisan at best. It kinda negates any presumption that you might look at individuals or policies in an objective manner. And finally, it's not even a tenable position. It's amazingly unlikely that someone would take the worst possible decision all the time. Statistically, it's just incredibly unlikely.

Because the thought crossed my mind at that moment in time. Why didn't you answer the question a month ago, before I even thought of it? See how ridiculous this is?


I guess I never asked Smash or Red because they're rarely arguing as an army of one and usually at least one points out a positive at some point. Well, Red anyway. As for Paul, I've questioned him a few times and his answer--he's neither Liberal or Conservative in an "American way".


I'll state this one last time. There was no devious motive to my question. I simply wanted to know. You can believe me or not (as you obviously will), that's your choice. Listen, if there's anything posters on this board know about me, it's being blunt. If you'd caught me in some mischievous plot to undermine you, I'd admit it.

Neither does your misunderstanding of it.

Unpopular is not the same as "untenable" Red.

I think you did hit on something though. It's not that my positions are irrational, or blindly partisan, but that they are in the minority.

Which I would hope would make some of you question yourselves just a tiny bit. I'm not going to hold my breath though.


And for the record (although there are only a couple posters here who remember). I defended Clinton when I felt that he was being treated unfairly by the majority of posters back then. I tend to take the "voice of reason" position on most issues. If it looks like a position is held pretty much just because that's what most of the people are saying, I'll take the other side.

Same deal with the AIG bonus thread. There are a lot of Conservatives pissed off about it as well, right? Should be bi-partisan outrage, right? I take the other side because I think that the popular position is based on an irrational argument. You'll find that most of my positions derive from that sort of thought process. I'm probably one of the least partisan posters on this board (certainly of any who actually post on political threads). I just appear partisan because the majority position is itself overwhelmingly aligned on a partisan basis.


I respond to positions I view as irrational. I rarely start threads. I usually wait to see what others think and then step in to question ideas that I believe are based on poor reasoning or that generate results which I believe are not what those holding the starting position actually want. But that's just how I roll...

Blindly partisan, irrational opinions are, thankfully, usually in the minority. So it can be both

I get called "partisan" because I take the minority position and the majority position is defined along partisan lines. If my positions are partisan, it's a reflection of the posters I'm responding to.

Nope, nothing even vaguely resembling this is occurring. You're called partisan because one can unnervingly predict what rhetoric you'll use to argue a given point prior to your doing so by watching Fox News the day before.

Yes. Because the folks at Fox News were so into questioning the criticism of the AIG bonuses early last week like I was...

Lol. So the tail end of a massively partisan argument from you makes me partisan?

Let's go back to the starting point, shall we? Republicans oppose the stimulus bill, saying it's wasteful spending. The Liberal talking point (which you repeated) was that it was hypocritical for the GOP to say this, yet look at all the Republican governors taking the money. Then, when Republican governors began to refuse the money, they got bashed (by you as well) for it being only a small amount.

The SC situation was the tail end of a long chain of attacks, all coming from the left against the GOP Joph. Attacks you gleefully participated in. The whole "OMG! Red states get more money than Blue" was just one more bit of the partisan argument Joph.

You picked a side. You pushed your side's talking points. What's funny is that Smash accuses me of simply repeating what Fox News is saying, yet you're probably the single worst repeater of a partisan position on this forum. I'll hear something going on some blog somewhere, and magically the very next day (or often the same day) there you are posting the *exact* thing.


I don't have a problem with that Joph. I think it's useful. It gives us topics to talk about. But how about we not accuse the guy who takes the other side of being partisan? I just think that's incredibly silly. If no one takes the other side, we don't have much discussion, do we? If I'm responding to something you posted, my response can *only* be as partisan as the position I'm disagreeing with, can't it?

If I'm always disagreeing with you on stuff, what does that say?

Republicans oppose the stimulus bill, saying it's wasteful spending. The Liberal talking point (which you repeated) was that it was hypocritical for the GOP to say this, yet look at all the Republican governors taking the money.

Incorrect. The talking point was that the only reason anyone was in opposition to the Stimulus was that it was associated with the opposing Party. There was no alternative offered. Even doing nothing wasn't considered a reasonable alternative.

The talking point was that the Yankees were standing outside of a burning maternity ward saying "The Red Sox idea to put this out with water is a terrible one, the children might drown." Really, THIS was the public discourse:

GOP: This is wasteful spending.
World: What are the alternatives?
GOP: Well, not this. This is bad.
World: Why is it bad?
GOP: It's just wasteful spending.
World: You don't think a stimulus is necessary?
GOP: Of course it is, just not this one.
World: What then?
GOP: Flag pin factories?
World: What?
GOP: Tax cuts?
World: I'm going to play with my balls now, you keep carrying on, though...
GOP: $100,000 for cutting grass in grassy areas!! Outrageous!!!

No, you reflexively insisting that it's all the Democrat's fault without knowing what the fuck you're talking about makes you blindly partisan. Which you again showed when you heard that the SC budget was a mess and started saying "It's all the Democrats' fault! They did it! The Republicans only got power recently!" Which was factually and provably false.

We don't need to go back to any starting point and you can say whatever makes you feel better to justify it. The simple fact is that you, as usual, were confronted with something negative about a Republican and started spouting out Cliff Clavin factoids to cover for them, truth be damned. Hell, in your mind, you probably assumed they were true and didn't deserve ten seconds of research before spouting them.

Edited, Mar 24th 2009 10:02pm by Jophiel