The dishonest, manipulitive myth of the ineffective centrist.

[jj]

Just today, I've had both the right and the left tell me that centrists are people who accept the status quo, not people who conclude that moderation in all thing, including moderation, is the way to go.

This myth is, I contend, deliberately designed to destructively polarize and destroy concensus so that the lunatic fringe can have its day.

I call on all centrists to rise up and smite all extremes. EXTREMELY.

Moderate does not mean asleep. Neither does centrist.

Both should, and do, find the excesses of the "left" and "right", whatever they may be at the minute, appalling. Some do, I have to admit, assume that 'it will all swing around'. History does not suggest that, it shows that extremism of some sort has been the death of nearly every, if not every society in history. Sometimes (communism, nazis) the extremism is built into the system. Sometimes (fall of Moorish civilizations for instance, or the dark ages) it's due to extremist religion. Sometimes (Uganda) it's due to extremist bullies.

Extremistism has a very bad record for destroying society after society, and it must be resisted, in all forms, left, right, up, down and sideways alike.

This does not imply stasis. Moderation is in all things, including moderation.

So get with it, centrists, speak up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jj
Moderate does not mean asleep. Neither does centrist. I agree very much with this statement, but I'm curious how you defining the difference between "moderate" and "centrist".

[Dancing David]

Yeak! Rararrrrrr.


Sorry JJ, I am still trying how to figure out the MLK quote. There is a difference between being moderate and tolerating evil. I feel that the MLK quote denies the power of an individual to do good without being outspkoen.

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I agree very much with this statement, but I'm curious how you defining the difference between "moderate" and "centrist".

Moderation is the way one creates change.

Centrism relates to the policies one asserts.

It is possible to be an outspoken, moderate centrist. It is unusual. We need more.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Yeak! Rararrrrrr.


Sorry JJ, I am still trying how to figure out the MLK quote. There is a difference between being moderate and tolerating evil. I feel that the MLK quote denies the power of an individual to do good without being outspkoen.

If the quote is in context, it uses a faulty premise, specifically that a moderate can not be outspoken.

A moderate generally won't tolerate what they regard as evil any more than a leftist or rightist would tolerate what they regard as evil. A moderate is just as free to reject evil.

Now, for years we've been taught that "moderates don't care" and a whole other load of organic fertilizer, and I think some people believe it. That's why we have the "silent, nonvoting majority", but by (*&( they need to start caring that we remain moderate and centrist and get off their duffs.

[corplinx]

What I love is how jj has started two threads about "centrism" or being moderate, yet he is not one. Is this roleplaying?

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
What I love is how jj has started two threads about "centrism" or being moderate, yet he is not one. Is this roleplaying?

Prove your statement or retract it.

Since I am a moderate centrist, albiet one with a big mouth, you'll have some trouble with that.

It's only your own agenda that prevents you from coping with the reality of the situation.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by jj


Prove your statement or retract it.

Since I am a moderate centrist, albiet one with a big mouth, you'll have some trouble with that.

It's only your own agenda that prevents you from coping with the reality of the situation.

If being a moderate means being a big anti-bush socialist, then I guess I misunderstood that whole centrism thing. My bad slick. Time to put you back on ignore where you belong.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx


If being a moderate means being a big anti-bush socialist, then I guess I misunderstood that whole centrism thing. My bad slick. Time to put you back on ignore where you belong.
If you think Bush is anywhere near the center, then you certainly do have some misunderstandings.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


If being a moderate means being a big anti-bush socialist, then I guess I misunderstood that whole centrism thing. My bad slick. Time to put you back on ignore where you belong.

I'm a "socialist"??? You, sir, are delusional. You are fantastically, ridiculously, ravingly delusional.

Either you don't know what the word means, or you haven't read what I've written.

You're a total, raging crackpot and a disgrace to the corps.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If you think Bush is anywhere near the center, then you certainly do have some misunderstandings.

You won't find that claim anywhere in what I said strangely enough. However, a centrist usually defers from outright opposition and tries to form compromise positions.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by corplinx

However, a centrist usually defers from outright opposition and tries to form compromise positions. I'm still fuzzy on the moderate/centralist distinction, but being a moderate does not mean that person doesn't (or shouldn't) actively disagree with certain positions, for example those of GWB. Outright opposition to the right no more necessarily means that one is on the left than outright opposition to the left necessarily means that one is on the right. You need to realize that the political spectrum has more than two values.

Further, I think that's jj's point that moderates should break with steriotype and actively stand up to the extremists on both the left and the right.

[arcticpenguin]

If being a moderate means being a big anti-bush socialist, then I guess I misunderstood that whole centrism thing.


If you think Bush is anywhere near the center, then you certainly do have some misunderstandings.

Originally posted by corplinx

You won't find that claim anywhere in what I said strangely enough. However, a centrist usually defers from outright opposition and tries to form compromise positions.
I fail to understand the distinction you seem to be making.

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Further, I think that's jj's point that moderates should break with steriotype and actively stand up to the extremists on both the left and the right.

Yep, yep, yep.

Just because I don't like 'W' does not mean I'm a socialist.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


You won't find that claim anywhere in what I said strangely enough. However, a centrist usually defers from outright opposition and tries to form compromise positions.

Thank you for repeating the offensive stereotype that was created in order to disenfranchise the moderate and centrist.

A very simple examination shows that should a centrist disagree with an extremist, YOUR PREJUDICIAL STEREOTYPE would none the less require him or her to GO ALONG WITH THE EXTREMIST.

Such a position is ridiculous, destructive, and the myth that has been propagated here about moderates and centrists is deliberately designed to take the power from the center.

It's time that we all reject that.

[c0rbin]

Corplinx, you have fallen into the trap of labelling.

Being anti-bush does not make one a communist nor an enemy of the US.

There is always more than two options, opinions, view-points.

One is free to find the third option.

[Keneke]

All hail militant centrism!

[T'ai Chi]

Being in the center is great. It is the Taoist principle of avoiding the extremes. Being a center is also one of the best positions in basketball. I want to be like Wilt Chamberlin, ya know what I mean?? A while ago I had a Centris. That was a damn good computer for its time, and is only 1 letter away from centrist. And how could anybody be anti-bush, ya know what I mean??

I think any extreme is silly. "Dull the edges!"

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think any extreme is silly. "Dull the edges!"

As they say, T'ai, maybe you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer. :p

[Dancing David]

Corplinx, is trolling, getting ready for the elections. Down boy, have a cigar , nice doggie.

There is a great misunderstanding of the way consensous government works in the USA, people ofetn but the rhetoric about the ineffectual natute of consensual politics. So in the uSA people ofetn forget that centrists often weild a greater deal of power than extremeists.

Take for example Truman, Eisenhower and Clinton, and maybe FDR for very good examples, these were presidents who weilded alot of power by occasionaly playing the ends off the middle. The weilded tremendous power behind the scenes by making deals and keeping them. This despite the fact that they were ofetn viewed as being is opposition to the powqers that be.

There is great power in centrist politics, which extremists don't understand.

PS> JJ I think it would be great if there were more socialists like you! :)

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David

There is great power in centrist politics, which extremists don't understand.

PS> JJ I think it would be great if there were more socialists like you! :)

Yeah, right. Sorry, I find socialism completely disfunctional, if I had to choose a place, I'd say I'm mostly a free marketer but with some exceptions for commons issues. (I find it hard to joke about such things given that we have the equal of Joe McCarthy as attourney general right now.)

My arguments are mostly mathematical, with premises based on the demonstrated social and economic outcomes demonstrated through history.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
(I find it hard to joke about such things given that we have the equal of Joe McCarthy as attourney general right now.)

My arguments are mostly mathematical, with premises based on the demonstrated social and economic outcomes demonstrated through history. Well, then you won't have any trouble demonstrably proving that John Ashcroft is the equal of Joe McCarthy. I look forward to the demonstration. Thanks in advance.

I would guess that there are "centerists" who lean to the left and the right. If you are indeed a centerist then I would say that you certainly lean to the left.

You have a right to call yourself a centrist jj but I'm curious, why do you think that you are a centerist?

[RandFan]

For the record I see myself as both a moderate and a centrist. I might be wrong though and just confusing libertarianism with centrism. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I dislike the extremes of both parties.

I would be happy to hear anyones thought on the subject.

[c0rbin]

A moderate (or centerist) might be one who doesn't necessarily tow the party line down the list of issues, but is able to hold rightward leanings for one issue and leftist leanings for the next.

Just an opinion.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well, then you won't have any trouble demonstrably proving that John Ashcroft is the equal of Joe McCarthy. I look forward to the demonstration. Thanks in advance.

That is a purely dishonest request on your part, based wholly on taking my comments out of context. Is there a reason that you guys who seem to be RandFans do this all the time? You and Shanek are two of the worst offenders on this site.

So, why did you do that? That was dishonest and unethical of you. Explain yourself.

I would guess that there are "centerists" who lean to the left and the right. If you are indeed a centerist then I would say that you certainly lean to the left.

I lean to the left? Really? Because I oppose the extremist right that we have today? Because I say that some of the basic commons require regulation in order to function safely and efficiently?

How do I lean to the left?

I am reminded of someone I went to college with, who accused anyone, any time, anywhere who asserted any kind of regulation was "socialist". He was a capital 'L' "Libertarian", wore a silver dollar sign as jewelry every day, and professed to want to solve the problem of human aging and sell it only to the rich.

Is that the game here?

I propose that commons require regulation (not necessarily communial or government ownership, note), and that other than that, I'm pretty much a free marketeer.

That is so far from ANY economic position the left espouses that you must be thinking of some other "left", eh?

Or do I lean to the left because I argue for individual liberties and against regulating behavior of consenting, competant adults? Is that my "leftist" leanings? Again, that's only a "left' leaning for some other left than we all know and love, since there's no "except for their own good" included here.


You have a right to call yourself a centrist jj but I'm curious, why do you think that you are a centerist?

Because I am. What are you?

[EvilYeti]

I used to straddle the fence, but my urologist said it was bad for my prostate! :roll:

But seriously folks, as my late uncle was fond of saying, "The enemy isn't liberalism, the enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy is ********." Truer words have never been spoken.

The good news is the public seems to like centrists like Clinton more than extremists like the Bush family, so hopefully we will see Dubya out on his behind come next election. The bad news is we will likely never see a centrist Republican candidate like John McCain (which I would vote for) as the party is absolutely rife with fundies and extremists. It's amazing how many Republicans critize our current adminstration for being too liberal!!!

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I used to straddle the fence, but my urologist said it was bad for my prostate! :roll:

Budda bump - Crash! Thank you, thank you, ladies and germs, and now showing at the Pocono Grand von Haupsfelt we have ...

It's amazing how many Republicans critize our current adminstration for being too liberal!!!

We had a hint when the Arizona 'pubs threw Barry Goldwater out of the party, I think, eh?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


We had a hint when the Arizona 'pubs threw Barry Goldwater out of the party, I think, eh?

Before my time, but if its anything like what happened to McCain, absolutely disgusting.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Before my time, but if its anything like what happened to McCain, absolutely disgusting.

And like what they're doing to Arnie S now. They'll cut their own throats before they let a social liberal, economic conservative win in California.

Pathetic. There is a litmus test for republigun candidates at the present. You must be anti-abortion, anti-human-rights, anti-civil-rights, anti-womens-rights, pro-military (got one right, I guess), and unconditionally support the RNC and 'W'.

Arnie does not, unless he's been greviously misrepresented, pass about 2/3 of those, and just watch, they'll arrange for a good smearing.

Maybe as a result Flynt will win. That would be beyond the pale, eh?

(My own candidate would be Don Novello, aka "Father Guido Sarducci" or "Lazlo J. Toth"...)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj

Arnie does not, unless he's been greviously misrepresented, pass about 2/3 of those, and just watch, they'll arrange for a good smearing.


Its really a riot, "The Smoking Gun" just published an interview with a 29 year old Arnold talking about doing drugs and participating in sex orgies. Not to mention the relationship between body builders and their penis. I wonder what the Repubbie response to that is going to be.

An Arnold victory in California would likely redefine the phrase "to hoist with his own petard" with regards to the Republican party. Who knows, maybe a AS victory will pave the way for more liberal Republicans and lead to the destructions of the current right-wing power structure. I might live to see president McCain after all!

Myself, I'm voting for Gary Coleman. If I can hear "Whachoo be talkin' bout, Mr. Secretary of Commerce?" just once on CSPAN, I will die I a happy man!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Corplinx, is trolling, getting ready for the elections. Down boy, have a cigar , nice doggie.


I'm not trolling. I have never seen a post by JJ that couldnt have been posted by Malachi and not been out of flavor.

Can anyone find one thread where JJ ever acted like a centrist? (whatever the hell that means).

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


I'm not trolling. I have never seen a post by JJ that couldnt have been posted by Malachi and not been out of flavor.

Can anyone find one thread where JJ ever acted like a centrist? (whatever the hell that means).

Stop lying.

You've seen the posts where I've whacked Malachi upside the head, they've been in the same threads I've been whacking your sorry behind.

So stop lying.

[RandFan]

jj,

I think you took my post too much as an attack. We don't need to end up enemies. I have a feeling we are closer in ideology than most. Please accept my apology if you have been offended.

RandFan
Well, then you won't have any trouble demonstrably proving that John Ashcroft is the equal of Joe McCarthy. I look forward to the demonstration. Thanks in advance.

jj
That is a purely dishonest request on your part, based wholly on taking my comments out of context. If I truly did take your statement out of context then I apologize. I am honestly confused though how I did that.

I find it hard to joke about such things given that we have the equal of Joe McCarthy as attorney general right now. Would you please explain how I took the above out of context? Were you just engaging in hyperbole? It looked like a claim to me.

So, why did you do that? That was dishonest and unethical of you. Explain yourself. Well, I have offered an apology but I really did not intentionally try to do anything dishonest or unethical. I think it incumbent on you to explain how I was both unethical and dishonest. I of course welcome any comments from Tricky, Sub, Kcin or others. If I am wrong shown to be wrong I will admit it. I honestly don't see it right now though.

I lean to the left? Really? Because I oppose the extremist right that we have today? Because I say that some of the basic commons require regulation in order to function safely and efficiently? No, it's because the only criticism I can remember you making is towards the left. In addition your criticism of the right is seems to me to be extreme. The centrists that I have known or thought were centrists never made voiced such extreme views of a republican president.

In any event let me moderate my post to say, you "seem" to me to lean to the left. I apologize for making the statement without a qualifier. I hope that I am entitled to an opinion.

Is that the game here? I am making an honest observation. I am sorry if I did it poorly and offended you. I can honestly say that I would never describe you as a centrist based on what I have heard and seen. Of course I could have missed your "moderate" posts. In which case my opinion is wrong isn't it. Since I have only seen you criticize the right, and criticized it with what seems to me to be little regard for any information except that which comes from the left then it seems unlikely to me that you would be a centrist. There are a number of Democrats who have come to the defense of Bush to some degree including Tricky on this forum when they thought the attacks were wrong or unfair. It does not seem to me that you have any interest in any such thing. I would think a centrist to be more likely to see both sides of the coin. You seem to only see one side.

Or do I lean to the left because I argue for individual liberties and against regulating behavior of consenting, competent adults? Is that my "leftist" leanings? Well since I have argued at length that the idiotic war on drugs should end immediately, since I am for a woman's right to choose, since I am firmly for the legalization of prostitution it would hardly seem so.

Because I am. What are you? I don't know. I honestly thought I was one until I met you. Now I wonder. I don't hate Bush. I'm not angry at the current administration. I see the arguments of both the Democrats and the Republicans. I see the importance of security especially after 911. I can see how the administration is acting in a sincere attempt to solve many of the problems that caused 911. Steve Brill a Democrat agrees and documented that fact. Why? Why would a respected journalist and editor do such a thing if Bush is as you portray him. Is it because Brill is objectively looking at the facts? I am honestly concerned about Bush's judicial appointments and the patriot act. I don't however think that these things are part of some conspiracy on the part of evil republicans. I'm not saying you do think that but your remarks certainly point somewhere in that direction.

jj, the reason I'm not inclined to think that you are a centrist is that centrists in my mind are typically more objective basing their conclusions on reason and capable of seeing both sides of an argument. I belive that centrists are less likely to see politics in an emotional manner but are even handed in their approach to politics. Now to tell the truth I am often passionate and lash out. But when questioned on that passion I am willing to reign it in and look at things objectively.

This is just my opinion. I cannot demonstrably prove that you are not a centrist. Hell, I'm not even sure what one is anymore. If my ideas about centrists are wrong then I would like a new word for what I do believe. If you say you are one then I will accept that and move on. I won't bring it up again.

RandFan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The good news is the public seems to like centrists like Clinton more than extremists like the Bush family, Odd since many if not most conservatives think Bush is anything but conservative and are disappointed with many of his policies.

And I would never accuse Clinton of being a centrist and I am quite confident that none of his closest allies including Stephanopolus would see him as that. Clinton was not as far to the left as many accused him but he certainly did not start his presidency on a centrist route. His health care plans were about as far from the right as one could get. His move to the left after the 1994 take over of congress would certainly indicate that his right leaning ideas were politically motivated.

The bad news is we will likely never see a centrist Republican candidate like John McCain I would also.

(which I would vote for) as the party is absolutely rife with fundies and extremists. Don't forget that it was the left-wing extremists (voting green) that cost Gore the election.

It's amazing how many Republicans critisize our current administration for being too liberal!!! Thank you for proving my point.

And wasn't amazing how many Liberals criticized Gore for being to Conservative!!!! ("Not a dimes bit of difference") How many times did we hear that one?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
Just today, I've had both the right and the left tell me that centrists are people who accept the status quo, not people who conclude that moderation in all thing, including moderation, is the way to go.

This myth is, I contend, deliberately designed to destructively polarize and destroy concensus so that the lunatic fringe can have its day.

I call on all centrists to rise up and smite all extremes. EXTREMELY.

Moderate does not mean asleep. Neither does centrist.

Both should, and do, find the excesses of the "left" and "right", whatever they may be at the minute, appalling. Some do, I have to admit, assume that 'it will all swing around'. History does not suggest that, it shows that extremism of some sort has been the death of nearly every, if not every society in history. Sometimes (communism, nazis) the extremism is built into the system. Sometimes (fall of Moorish civilizations for instance, or the dark ages) it's due to extremist religion. Sometimes (Uganda) it's due to extremist bullies.

Extremistism has a very bad record for destroying society after society, and it must be resisted, in all forms, left, right, up, down and sideways alike.

This does not imply stasis. Moderation is in all things, including moderation.

So get with it, centrists, speak up.

False dilemma.

Sorry, but one can loathe fence-sitting, finger-in-the-wind, holier-than-thou moderates and still not be an extremist. It isn't as simple as either/or.

[Dancing David]

Perhaps the issue is how you define the term centrist or moderate.

Unbeknowst to many in the Republican party it has taken a hard right turn, I say this without meaning to be trolling. Most telling to me was who stood next to Ahnold when he made his announcement, George Schultz and Jim Edgar. George did not seem a centrist at the time but he was often a moderate in the Regan cabinet, Jim Edgar is definitly a centris who through enough bones to us left leaners to get elected over right wing democrats like Neil Hartigan.

I feel that part of the issue is the extreme political rhetoric which is spewed about.

Clinton was a centrist, he partook of many of the 'right' values, he cut deals down the middle.

JJ, I percieve you as an old fashioned GOP member who has been stranded by this hard turn to the right.

Randfan, the reason John Ashcroft looks so scary to some of us is that he is overturning civil liberties whole sale and acting very odd.

[c0rbin]

I feel that part of the issue is the extreme political rhetoric which is spewed about.

That is the tack of this current administration..."You are either with us or against us."

This forces the dichotomy and stifles dialogue.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I feel that part of the issue is the extreme political rhetoric which is spewed about. Always has been always will be.

Clinton was a centrist, he partook of many of the 'right' values, he cut deals down the middle. I disagree. Clinton is a great politician who is able to determine the direction of political winds. I'm sure some of his "values" are centrist but I don't see him as one. I don't see Bush as a centrist either but he his as moderate (disliked by those on the far right) as Clinton was moderate (disliked by those on the far left).

JJ, I percieve you as an old fashioned GOP member who has been stranded by this hard turn to the right. Rhetoric. Sounds good on paper but that just makes it specious.

Randfan, the reason John Ashcroft looks so scary to some of us is that he is overturning civil liberties whole sale and acting very odd. *"Wholesale?" Stalin and Mao overturned civil liberties wholesale? Pol Pot overturned civil liberties wholesale. I think that such a claim is demonstrably false. The last time I questioned the same type of claim by jj he got upset with me. I guess I'm not supposed to question these types of claims but I'm going to anyway.

Do you have evidence that John Ashcroft is overturning civil liberties extensively and indiscriminately? Or is Ashcroft acting in a way that is to be expected following an event like 911. This of course does not excuse such behavior but it does explain it.

*whole·sale
advExtensively; indiscriminately.

[corplinx]

I define a centrist or moderate as someone who has core beliefs but in then end thinks more practical than ideological.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


That is a purely dishonest request on your part, based wholly on taking my comments out of context.

I read your comments in context, and I too would like to know why you equate McCarthy with Ashcroft.

Also, you are a lefty-lib extremist to a true moderate like myself. That's because you equate this small bunch of vocal left leaning extremists with reality. :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by corplinx
I define a centrist or moderate as someone who has core beliefs but in then end thinks more practical than ideological.

Wouldn't that be a pragmatist?

[RandFan]

corplinx
I define a centrist or moderate as someone who has core beliefs but in then end thinks more practical than ideological.


Dancing David
Wouldn't that be a pragmatist? Of course but then isn't the very mark of a moderate or centrist pragmatism?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


False dilemma.

Sorry, but one can loathe fence-sitting, finger-in-the-wind, holier-than-thou moderates and still not be an extremist. It isn't as simple as either/or.

There is no dilemma expressed, and you've just repeated the very stereotype of moderates that I'm objecting to.

I'm sure some exist, but it's wrong (and people do this) to extend the stereotype to all moderates.

That stereotype was, in fact, taught to me in history and civics classes, and it's nonsense.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David


JJ, I percieve you as an old fashioned GOP member who has been stranded by this hard turn to the right.



That's it in one sentence.

More than stranded though, according to 'W's daddy I'm "neither a good american or a patriot, this is one nation under god"...

According to Bush the father, I'm not even american.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj


There is no dilemma expressed, and you've just repeated the very stereotype of moderates that I'm objecting to.

I'm sure some exist, but it's wrong (and people do this) to extend the stereotype to all moderates.

That stereotype was, in fact, taught to me in history and civics classes, and it's nonsense.

I wasn't stereotyping all moderates, just qualifying the type I loathe.

For the record, I do not loathe all moderates, just the type I described.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
This is just my opinion. I cannot demonstrably prove that you are not a centrist. Hell, I'm not even sure what one is anymore. If my ideas about centrists are wrong then I would like a new word for what I do believe. If you say you are one then I will accept that and move on. I won't bring it up again.

RandFan

No idea what to call you, seriously, one of the problems with any single word is that it oversimplifies nearly anyone's positions.

Now, I think you've been led down the garden path as far as "national security". My own take is that we are not a bit safer now than we were on Sept. 10, we just have a lot less freedom, and frankly less civilian ability to deal with terrorists.

Yes, national security is a problem, but no, the way to do it is not to remove the liberty of the people you're protecting.

Another way not to do it is to allow and encourage concentration of weath at the same time that unemployment is high (in recent terms, not overall).

And a splendid example of how not to have a secure nation is demonstrated by the deregulation of commons like power, telephone, and the like. You notice that cell towers do not have much backup power? In the regulated days that would have not been true, so now with deregulation we have both a more unstable grid AND a phone system that depends in great part on immediate power availablility.

There are a host of examples in the cable, telecom, broadcast, and power industries...

It's not just the reaction to 9/11 I'm questioning here, it's the attacks on basic liberties, the dismissal of obviously necessary regulation (and the LACK of dismissal of many obviously unnecessary regulations too, be sure), the abuse of things like the USGS, the National Park Service, etc, to political ends, well, the list is more or less endless.

It's not just this Bush, in other words. The "Contract on America" wasn't even the beginning, but it was the implimentation of many things that enabled the divergence in weath and pulled the pins out from under a lot of scientific operations as well.

No, I am not a fan of "endless welfare" at all, but replacing things in one swoop with deliberate meanness is no improvement.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


I read your comments in context, and I too would like to know why you equate McCarthy with Ashcroft.

Let's see... Keeping lists of judges. Allowing Ridge to get away with that stunt using the "Homeland Security" forces for obvious political purposes. ... The list goes on, and you know it.

Also, you are a lefty-lib extremist to a true moderate like myself. That's because you equate this small bunch of vocal left leaning extremists with reality. :D
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're still the same old mean grump. You're not related to the Newt, are you?

A moderate like you, yeah, sure. I'm sure you're trying to equate that with my position, but your assertion just doesn't stand up to scruitiny.

Yeah I saw the smiley face, but from you I quite frankly have no idea how to take it....

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Now, I think you've been led down the garden path as far as "national security". My own take is that we are not a bit safer now than we were on Sept. 10, we just have a lot less freedom, and frankly less civilian ability to deal with terrorists. Since I see the world in a pragmatic light it is unlikely that I have been led anywhere. I understand the potential for harm from doing too little and doing too much. You simply ignored my point about Steven Brill so I think I have a better picture of your take on current events. It seems to me that you view the events and the Bush administration from a left leaning perspective.

Please note: This is not an attack. It is just an observation and my opinion. I can't prove it. It is how I see the situation.

Yes, national security is a problem, but no, the way to do it is not to remove the liberty of the people you're protecting. It's nice to sit on the sidelines handing out criticism. Those who's job it is to protect the nation don't enjoy that luxury.

Another way not to do it is to allow and encourage concentration of weath at the same time that unemployment is high (in recent terms, not overall). Sorry, I don't have a clue what it is you are trying to say here or what it has to do with protecting Americans from foreign operatives who are right now planning to kill large numbers of citizens by any means possible.

And a splendid example of how not to have a secure nation is demonstrated by the deregulation of commons like power, telephone, and the like. You notice that cell towers do not have much backup power? In the regulated days that would have not been true, so now with deregulation we have both a more unstable grid AND a phone system that depends in great part on immediate power availability. There are a host of examples in the cable, telecom, broadcast, and power industries...

It's not just the reaction to 9/11 I'm questioning here, it's the attacks on basic liberties, the dismissal of obviously necessary regulation (and the LACK of dismissal of many obviously unnecessary regulations too, be sure), the abuse of things like the USGS, the National Park Service, etc, to political ends, well, the list is more or less endless. No argument but you are talking about a tiny fraction of the over all picture. We live in a nation that has two large borders that are relatively easily penetrated. Every day many thousands fly into this country from abroad. The opportunities to inflict harm are many. Your proposals while reasonable hardly deal with the many, many problems facing those in the justice department.

It's not just this Bush, in other words. The "Contract on America" wasn't even the beginning...?????

Rhetorical, Why the spin? It shows an unwillingness to consider points made by Republicans. Again, your rhetoric shows a sharp lean to the left.

Let's look at that "Contract ON America (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html)" as you derisively characterize it.

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. [/b]

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. [/b] I can see how individuals on the right and left could argue why or why not any of the preceding should be enacted.

What I fail to see is how the above could be called "the contract ON America". This name change was distributed by fax and memo by the Democratic leadership as part of their strategy to defeat the Republicans. Every democrat pundit in America used the term. It was just rhetorical though and was in now way an objective view of the proposal.

No, I am not a fan of "endless welfare" at all, but replacing things in one swoop with deliberate meanness is no improvement. Rhetorical and a straw man, no one suggests that welfare should be replaced with "deliberate meanness".

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. Could you please explain how this proposal is "meanness" and what would you propose in its place?

Let me point out that I don't necassarily agree with everything in the "contract with America". I do however look at it in an objective fashion and am willing to consider the good and the bad.

Ideologues from the left hate it and ideologues on the right will love it. Most moderates in the middle will look at each item point by point and will consider each based on the relative merits and not dismiss it out of hand.

At least that is my opinion.

Is there anything of any value that you can find in the proposals or is it all hogwash to you?

My definition of a centerist is an individual who can objectively view both sides of the political spectrum and find the good and bad inherent in all shades of ideology.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Since I see the world in a pragmatic light it is unlikely that I have been led anywhere. I understand the potential for harm from doing too little and doing too much. You simply ignored my point about Steven Brill so I think I have a better picture of your take on current events. It seems to me that you view the events and the Bush administration from a left leaning perspective.

" jj - You don't agree, so you're on the left."

That's not an argument, that's mere controversion. :mad:

It's nice to sit on the sidelines handing out criticism. Those who's job it is to protect the nation don't enjoy that luxury.

Ad hom. What's more, you have very little idea exactly what kinds of experience I do have (besides my obvious CV), and you simply shouldn't presume.

No argument but you are talking about a tiny fraction of the over all picture. We live in a nation that has two large borders that are relatively easily penetrated. Every day many thousands fly into this country from abroad. The opportunities to inflict harm are many. Your proposals while reasonable hardly deal with the many, many problems facing those in the justice department.

You are quite arrogant to presume that I don't understand the logistics. Perhaps I should suggest that you consider the logistics, and consider how effective, or not, the present measures are, and how they affect those willing to disobey the law vs. those who are law-abiding.

My conclusion is that most of the effort only affects the law-abiding, and I'm not worried about them in the first place. It's the lunatics I'm worried about, and they don't much care if they obey the law.

Rhetorical, Why the spin? It shows an unwillingness to consider points made by Republicans. Again, your rhetoric shows a sharp lean to the left.

Now your agenda is leaking out. "unwillingness"? That's dishonest. I've considered what various points made by various people have suggested again and again. The fact that I reject a great number of the "points" does not mean I am unwilling to consider them. If you'd bother to review what I say,you'd know, just like some of the other right-wing apologists (yes, I now consider you as such) that I've laid into both sides here.
I can see how individuals on the right and left could argue why or why not any of the preceding should be enacted.

My issue is mostly not "why" but rather "how", in great part.

What I fail to see is how the above could be called "the contract ON America". This name change was distributed by fax and memo by the Democratic leadership as part of their strategy to defeat the Republicans. Every democrat pundit in America used the term. It was just rhetorical though and was in now way an objective view of the proposal.

I see, and the fact that Democrats used this obvious slogan in what way makes it invalid? While I find the democratic party most often ridiculous, you can't blame them for getting this one right.

The Contract on America had some sensible provisions, but contained within the sensible parts was an attack on many parts of the scientific bureaus supported by the federal government, both in terms of funding and in terms of the intrusion of purely religious issues into funding rules and decisions. There was a lot of added "amendments" involved that were, as is typical of the present congressional rules (nonpartisan attack there, please), totally unrelated to the basic "issue" addressed.

Are you aware of this or not?

Rhetorical and a straw man, no one suggests that welfare should be replaced with "deliberate meanness".

Straw man, extraction from context.

Let me point out that I don't necessarily agree with everything in the "contract with America". I do however look at it in an objective fashion and am willing to consider the good and the bad.

And the reason I refer to it as the "Contract on America" is that it contained a great deal of destructive law, in the guise of doing good. It used a "political groundswell" to drastically change much more than the systems that it proposed to undertake.

Ideologues from the left hate it and ideologues on the right will love it. Most moderates in the middle will look at each item point by point and will consider each based on the relative merits and not dismiss it out of hand.

It is dishonest of you to suggest that:

1) I am dismissing it out of hand.

2) I have not examined it point by point, INCLUDING the various amendments and provisions that were not necessarily included in the name of the bill. It is, in fact, true that the REAL "contract on america" is deep in the details, in my view.

Why do you take this malicious rhetorical tack? At this time, I must regard you as a considerably unethical opponent. Again, you show the same kind of rhetorical misbehaviors, misstatements, and excesses that Shanek shows, and I call on you to cease and desist.

It appears that your entire argument strategy is to accuse those you disagree with of various kinds of ignorance or political incorrectness (i.e. your repeated smearing of me with the word "left"). Your offerings of "substance" all contain as a presumption my ignorance, which is an act both insulting and unethical on your part, as your presumption is quite obviously "if you only knew something, you'd agree with me".
Is there anything of any value that you can find in the proposals or is it all hogwash to you?

Asked and answered, ergo your question suggests a position for me that I do not hold and is thus further rhetorical misbehavior. The answer is obvious in my first set of comments on the Contract on America, and demonstrates fully and completely that I am not in complete opposition to all parts of it. Why did you ask this question when I've already answered it?

Again, your behavior is shown to be malicious.

My definition of a centerist is an individual who can objectively view both sides of the political spectrum and find the good and bad inherent in all shades of ideology.
Precisely. This is why I have now concluded that you are a covert apologist for the extremist right.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Precisely. This is why I have now concluded that you are a covert apologist for the extremist right. That is actually pretty funny. I hope we can work this all out. I still think we share many similar values.

" jj - You don't agree, so you're on the left." jj, I used the word "seems"? This shows that I have made an opinion based on an observation. I'm really just trying to understand. Nothing nefarious in this.

That's not an argument, that's mere controversion. No, it's expressing an opinion. Why not deal with the issue? Take on the fact that you ignored Steve Brill or explain why Steve is irrelevant?

Simply no need to get mad. I'm only having a discussion with you. I'm not trying to attack you.

Ad hom. What's more, you have very little idea exactly what kinds of experience I do have (besides my obvious CV), and you simply shouldn't presume. My point has nothing to do with experience, especialy yours. I'm making a point that it is easier to critisize something than do that self same thing.

You are quite arrogant to presume that I don't understand the logistics. I never presumed any such thing. Nor did I imply any such thing.

Read my post again. I did not say you didn't understand logistics. You may very well be an expert in logistics, in fact for the sake of argument I will presume that you are, but that is not germaine to my point which is that your "proposal" does little to solve the many problems of security.

Perhaps I should suggest that you consider the logistics, and consider how effective, or not, the present measures are, and how they affect those willing to disobey the law vs. those who are law-abiding. This would be a good subject for another thread. Whether or not I understand the logistics does not prove that your "recomendation" will significantly reduce terrorism.

I have just started to read Steven Brill's book After and to tell you the truth I think they (homeland) security is doing a pretty damn good job.

Why don't we start a thread on the logistics and merits of homeland security?

What I think you are missing here is a coherent argument why Aschroft is not doing such a good job. Simply stating that he is taking away civil rights is not a good argument because it assumes that which you are trying to prove. Why do you think he is taking away civil rights.

My conclusion is that most of the effort only affects the law-abiding, and I'm not worried about them in the first place. It's the lunatics I'm worried about, and they don't much care if they obey the law. Ok, here you are stating a conclusion. Could you state the premise and the inference that helped you arrive at that conclusion?

Now your agenda is leaking out. "unwillingness"? That's dishonest. No, it is my honest opinion. I could be wrong and honest. Are you saying that it is not possible to be honestly wrong? If I am wrong I appologize. I have only stated my opinion and I am not trying to attack you.

I've considered what various points made by various people have suggested again and again. The fact that I reject a great number of the "points" does not mean I am unwilling to consider them. I am stating an opinion based upon my own observations. I stated quite plainly that it is an opinion and how I arived at that opinion. I have even stated that that opinion could be wrong.

If you'd bother to review what I say,you'd know, just like some of the other right-wing apologists (yes, I now consider you as such) that I've laid into both sides here. I accept that and stated that that was a posibility. I have not stated categoricaly what your ideology is. I am saying that based on blanket statements towrd the Bush administration and his policies that you SEEM to me to be left of center.

My issue is mostly not "why" but rather "how", in great part. Well I would love to see you enumerate your issues.

I see, and the fact that Democrats used this obvious slogan in what way makes it invalid? It's rhetorical. It's political. It does not address the issues but is a sound bite used for political purposes.

Is it valid? What is the point of the sound bite? A "contract on someone" indicates harm, right? Mobsters put contracts on people they want to harm. Do you believe that the only purpose of the contract was to harm the American people?

The sound bite is hyperbolic and inceniary. I don't think it is in keeping at all with moderate principles. That is just my opinion.

While I find the democratic party most often ridiculous, you can't blame them for getting this one right. Get what right? That Newt Geingrich set down with other Republicans and created a program that intentionaly tried to harm Americans? You are free to believe that but that they got it right but in the end it is just propaganda.

The Contract on America had some sensible provisions, but contained within the sensible parts was an attack on many parts of the scientific bureaus supported by the federal government, both in terms of funding and in terms of the intrusion of purely religious issues into funding rules and decisions. There was a lot of added "amendments" involved that were, as is typical of the present congressional rules (nonpartisan attack there, please), totally unrelated to the basic "issue" addressed.

Are you aware of this or not? I don't see them in the link I posted. This doesn't mean you are wrong. Can you substantiate these claims?

I think another thread should be started. I think it unfair though to make claims without backing them up.

Rhetorical and a straw man, no one suggests that welfare should be replaced with "deliberate meanness".

Straw man, extraction from context. How did I take it out of context?

Look jj, if you are going to say I took you out of context can you show me how?

No, I am not a fan of "endless welfare" at all, but replacing things in one swoop with deliberate meanness is no improvement. This sentence is alone. It is not part of a paragraph and there is nothing in the previous that I can see that are realated.

You are making a clear straw man. No one is suggesting that welfare should be replaced with deliberate meanness.

If I am taking you out of context you should explain how I am taking you out of context. It is you who made the claim.

And the reason I refer to it as the "Contract on America" is that it contained a great deal of destructive law, in the guise of doing good. It used a "political groundswell" to drastically change much more than the systems that it proposed to undertake. Proof please.

I'm out of time. I will get to the rest later.

[jj]

I'm tired of doing your homework.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
My point has nothing to do with experience, especialy yours. I'm making a point that it is easier to critisize something than do that self same thing.

And in doing so, assume a position on my part. That is unethical.

No, it is my honest opinion. I could be wrong and honest. Are you saying that it is not possible to be honestly wrong? If I am wrong I appologize. I have only stated my opinion and I am not trying to attack you.

Hypocritical to the max, man. YOU have this "opinion", you ACT on it, you argue from your OPINION without any EVIDENCE, but you relentlessly hound ME for evidence.

That is such a clear breach of equity and ethics that I'm rather disturbed you can't see it clearly yourself.

(about proof of what the Contract on America also did)


As I said previously, if you don't know, you haven't done your homework. Are you speaking in support of something you haven't yet examined?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
I'm tired of doing your homework. It's not my job to prove or disprove your claims.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
My point has nothing to do with experience, especially yours. I'm making a point that it is easier to criticize something than do that self same thing.

And in doing so, assume a position on my part. That is unethical. [/b] I'm just trying to have a discussion. I have offered to apologize, hell I have apologized. Why are you being so obstinate? Is there no room for any compromise in our discussion? I have extended a hand of friendship yet you won't budge an inch.

You have made some claims that I disagree with and refuse to provide proof. And when I ask for proof you act as if it is my fault.

Look jj, this is a skeptics site. It is based on the idea that claims require proof. I don't think it is appropriate for you to call me unethical when you make claims and I ask you to support those claims.

RandFan
No, it is my honest opinion. I could be wrong and honest. Are you saying that it is not possible to be honestly wrong? If I am wrong I apologize. I have only stated my opinion and I am not trying to attack you.

[quote][b]Hypocritical to the max, man. YOU have this "opinion", you ACT on it... Hypocritical? ??? I am genuinely confused. I apologize and admit that I could be wrong and that makes me a hypocrite?

...you argue from your OPINION... I was discussing my opinion. I have said over and over that it is my opinion and I might be wrong. There is no reason for you to act like this. I don't understand what is so wrong with discussing opinion. If I stated categorically that you were not a moderate then I could perhaps understand.

...without any EVIDENCE, but you relentlessly hound ME for evidence. You really are being silly. I have asked you to substantiate your claims. I have asked you to clarify your position. For the last time this is a SKEPTICS forum. If I CLAIMED that you were NOT a moderate or a centrist then you would be perfectly correct to DEMAND that I support my claim.

What is so wrong with my wanting to discuss this issue and state my opinion? I have not stated it as fact.

That is such a clear breach of equity and ethics that I'm rather disturbed you can't see it clearly yourself. I really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

jj, if I am wrong I am quite willing to admit that fact and apologize. But I honestly have not a clue what the hell you are talking about.

If anyone out there could help I would very much appreciate it. Help me understand what in blazes has jj so upset. I just don't get it.

As I said previously, if you don't know, you haven't done your homework. Are you speaking in support of something you haven't yet examined? YOU are the one that made claims about the contract. Claims that are not in any of the text that I can find. I posted the contract and the link. Why do I just have to take your word for it? Am I not entitled to be skeptical? I can't prove a negative! You made the claim.

It is NOT wrong, dishonest or unethical to expect people who make claims to support those claims.

It is wrong to put the onus on another to disprove a claim the way you are doing to me.

If you won't accept my offer of reconciliation then that is fine. Perhaps we can move on.

For the last time I apologize for anything that I have said to upset you. I say this knowing that it is unlikely that you will accept my apology but I would really like to move on. I never intended to get this far with this. I don't have any malice toward you.

For the record. I withdraw any stated "opinions" as to your ideological standing. I publicly hold no opinion as to your political ideology. I accept for all intents and purposes that you are a moderate and a centrist. I will not at any time dispute that you are a moderate or a centrist. Any other opinions that I have expressed concerning you I now disavow and publicly hold no other opinions of you. Ok?

I won't concede to your claims because I honestly disagree. If the fact that I disagree and don't just accept your word is upsetting to you then there is little I can do about it. I am sorry that you are upset but I won't pretend to agree just to placate you.

I guess we won't be having a drink with you at TAM. That is unfortunate. Oh well, life is too short.

Please enjoy the vitriol that you are sure to send my way. I would hate to think that it is wasted.

RandFan.

[peptoabysmal]

I think most people view themselves at the center and everyone else lying to the right or left of that. It is completely a relative and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" argument to claim to be a moderate. In my view it is the equivalent of saying "My view is the rational, centered view and every one else's view is skewed. That's why I trust more in someone who identifies more with the right or the left, than someone who claims to be "moderate". Just my $0.02.

[jj]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I think most people view themselves at the center and everyone else lying to the right or left of that. It is completely a relative and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" argument to claim to be a moderate. In my view it is the equivalent of saying "My view is the rational, centered view and every one else's view is skewed. That's why I trust more in someone who identifies more with the right or the left, than someone who claims to be "moderate". Just my $0.02.

In other words, you only accept people's descriptions of themselves if they admit to extremism, and you prevent yourself from dealing with the middle.

Absurd, and another example of a hurtful prejudice against the middle.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
.

YOU are the one that made claims about the contract. Claims that are not in any of the text that I can find. I posted the contract and the link. Why do I just have to take your word for it? Am I not entitled to be skeptical? I can't prove a negative! You made the claim.

It

And your argument about my opinions made claims about how I arrived at my opinions. I don't see any evidence to support your claims, in fact you've conceded a lack of knowledge, so how come you get to make THOSE claims with having knowledge but I have to support mine with evidence?


Sheesh!

Don't get me wrong, evidence is a good thing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
And your argument about my opinions made claims about how I arrived at my opinions. I don't see any evidence to support your claims, in fact you've conceded a lack of knowledge, so how come you get to make THOSE claims with having knowledge but I have to support mine with evidence? Sorry jj but that just won't wash.

1.) I was merely expressing an opinion for purposes of discussion and I stated quite clearly that I could be wrong.

2.) I have withdrawn any and all opinions.

That being said, what are we to make of your claims?

[RandFan]

RandFan
For the last time I apologize for anything that I have said to upset you. I say this knowing that it is unlikely that you will accept my apology but I would really like to move on. Thank you for not disappointing me.

[Kodiak]

jj, would you please stop obfuscating and present any of the reasoning for the claims you've made?

Myself and others are genuinely interested, and it would greatly assist further discussions in this thread.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I think most people view themselves at the center and everyone else lying to the right or left of that. It is completely a relative and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" argument to claim to be a moderate. In my view it is the equivalent of saying "My view is the rational, centered view and every one else's view is skewed. That's why I trust more in someone who identifies more with the right or the left, than someone who claims to be "moderate". Just my $0.02.

Thank You PeptoA!

This itrue true, however, couldn't there be a way of finding the center in some fashion.

I will use BillY Clinton the Slicker for example. If you apply a litmus test he will fall to far right to be a leftist and too far left to be a rightist. So therefore he would be in the center. I realize that this is all evry subjective, but I feel that defining 'moderate' and 'centrist' can be meaning full.

I have areas where I am very left, but in most area I feel I am 'moderate' for a left leaner. So I find it useful because I don't want to be labeled as a 'take it from the rich' leftist.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sorry jj but that just won't wash.

1.) I was merely expressing an opinion for purposes of discussion and I stated quite clearly that I could be wrong.

2.) I have withdrawn any and all opinions.

That being said, what are we to make of your claims?

So it's simple, your argument is that you get to make claims without evidence, and I don't.

Buzz off, Troll.

Until you can show your evidence that demonstrates factually that you can tell me how I arrive at my conclusions (since you've felt free to speculate very insultingly on them), you're offline as far as I'm concerned until you explain how you read my mind and prove that you can do it in a repeatable fashion.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
jj, would you please stop obfuscating and present any of the reasoning for the claims you've made?

Myself and others are genuinely interested, and it would greatly assist further discussions in this thread.

Would you like to pick a claim? And make sure it's a claim to fact, not an opinon... Although we could of course discuss why I hold an opinion, I'm not sure anyone cares...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
So it's simple, your argument is that you get to make claims without evidence, and I don't. NO! I have stated explicitly that I have NO evidence. Based upon that fact I have withdraw any and all "claims" as to your ideology. I have formally announced that I hold no such "opinion".

Buzz off, Troll. Non responsive.

Until you can show your evidence that demonstrates factually that you can tell me how I arrive at my conclusions (since you've felt free to speculate very insultingly on them), you're offline as far as I'm concerned until you explain how you read my mind and prove that you can do it in a repeatable fashion. This is obfuscation. I have withdrawn any and all claims. I have stated plainly that I have no evidence. I will state publicly now for all to see, I can't read your mind. I ACCEPT that you are a moderate and a centrist. I simply have NO claims.

Now, are you going to respond to YOUR claims?

Buzz off, Troll.

1.) I have stated that I am unable to support my claims with any empirical or demonstrable evidence.

2.) I have formally withdrawn any and all claims or opinions that are germane to our conversation.

3.) I have apologized for what ever it was that I said that upset you.

4.) I have attempted to reconcile our differences and asked for some kind of compromise.

On the other hand,

1.) You have refused to provide any evidence that would support your claims or withdraw them.

2.) You have been obstinate and unwilling to engage in discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

Now, you tell me who is the troll?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj


Would you like to pick a claim? And make sure it's a claim to fact, not an opinon... Although we could of course discuss why I hold an opinion, I'm not sure anyone cares...

The Ashcroft/McCarthy crack was an Ad Hominem so I guess we can disregard that...

How about this from page 1 of this thread?

Originally posted by jj
There is a litmus test for republigun candidates at the present. You must be anti-abortion, anti-human-rights, anti-civil-rights, anti-womens-rights, pro-military (got one right, I guess), and unconditionally support the RNC and 'W'.

Is that just an opinion, or a reasoned conclusion supported by premises?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The Ashcroft/McCarthy crack was an Ad Hominem so I guess we can disregard that...

Ashcroft has made it clear that he has issues with people who aren't religious, and so has Rumsfeld. Now this isn't about communism (as McCarthy) but it is the same sort of treatment, and asks for the same sort of conformity in the country. Ashcroft's "list" of judicial decisions that he doesn't like (never mind their legal content) is another example of an attempt at blacklisting. Ashcroft's failure to prosecute Ridge for the use of the Homeland Security force to track down the Texas Democrats is a clear "winking" at an obviously illegal, unconstitutional use of government funds. This list, of course, is only partial.

He's not IDENTICAL to McCarthy, but simply put, he has the same behaviors, he is willing to justify the means by the end, and he is appears to put his own ends above those in the constitution and law.

How about this from page 1 of this thread?



Is that just an opinion, or a reasoned conclusion supported by premises?

It is an opinion reached by observing by GOP treatment of candidates.

If you bother to look, as far back, say, as the GOP treatment of Millicent Fenwick, how Christie Whitman has been treated, the stuff coming out about Arnie S, the treatment of Arlen Spector, the debacle that led to the Vt. Senator jumping ship, and so on, it is clear that there is a very strong litmus test for GOP candidates, a test that affects how hard the far right goes to be rid of them, a test that affects how much campaign money and support they get, and so on.

So call it an opinion that I have after watching moderates and extreme rightists run for election on the GOP slate.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
NO! I have stated explicitly that I have NO evidence. Based upon that fact I have withdraw any and all "claims" as to your ideology. I have formally announced that I hold no such "opinion".



Yet you went on to speculate, insultingly and offensively, about the logic, science, and emotional content of my opinions and positions, lacking any such opinion.

It's too late to "retract" that, Sir. You published it here, and any effect it's going to have has come and gone, so your grudging retraction after the fact is simply non-responsive and meaningless from any practical point of view regarding this discourse.



Simply put, once you've let the cat out of the bag, it's hardly sufficient to say "oh, I retract that". You're playing an obvious and wholly unethical political game here, one that's already "done" in a very real sense, and it's simply worthless of you to argue that once you've played the emotional manipulation card, you can simply apologize. That doesn't undo the effect. In fact, you have no control over the effect you have in others at this point in a very real sense.

You want to play by one set of rules when I state an opinion (i.e. "prove it") and another when you speculate on how I arrived at it ( "I don't have to prove it").

That, sir, is STILL your position, and you STILL won't take responsibility for it.

[jj]

Originally posted by jj


Yet you went on to speculate, insultingly and offensively, about the logic, science, and emotional content of my opinions and positions, lacking any such evidence.

It's too late to "retract" that, Sir. You published it here, and any effect it's going to have has come and gone, so your grudging retraction after the fact is simply non-responsive and meaningless from any practical point of view regarding this discourse.



Simply put, once you've let the cat out of the bag, it's hardly sufficient to say "oh, I retract that". You're playing an obvious and wholly unethical political game here, one that's already "done" in a very real sense, and it's simply worthless of you to argue that once you've played the emotional manipulation card, you can simply apologize. That doesn't undo the effect. In fact, you have no control over the effect you have in others at this point in a very real sense.

You want to play by one set of rules when I state an opinion (i.e. "prove it") and another when you speculate on how I arrived at it ( "I don't have to prove it").

That, sir, is STILL your position, and you STILL won't take responsibility for it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Yet you went on to speculate, insultingly and offensively, about the logic, science, and emotional content of my opinions and positions, lacking any such opinion. You protest too much. I suspect this is about something else.

It's too late to "retract" that, Sir. Even if the preceding were true (it's not, poof please) it is never too late for humans to act like humans and have the decency to forgive and move on. Perhaps one of the greatest attributes of the human condition is the ability to forgive. A quality you seem to lack.

You published it here, and any effect it's going to have has come and gone, so your grudging retraction after the fact is simply non-responsive and meaningless from any practical point of view regarding this discourse. You are the one with the grudge. I have attempted to work with you from the start. You have been rude and insulting and I have resisted responding in kind. This is yet one more claim that is false. You seem to make lots of them.

Simply put, once you've let the cat out of the bag, it's hardly sufficient to say "oh, I retract that". You're playing an obvious and wholly unethical political game here, one that's already "done" in a very real sense, and it's simply worthless of you to argue that once you've played the emotional manipulation card, you can simply apologize. This is so silly considering you would never explain what it was that I did that was so offensive. I reject your characterization. My curiosity was sincere and I simply wanted to understand. I will not say that I was entirely without provocation. A number of things I said were rhetorical and meant to get a reaction. Nothing was hardly as severe as you claim and I have done nothing as injurious as you have by calling me unethical and dishonest.

In fact, you have no control over the effect you have in others at this point in a very real sense. None of can gurantee that our behavior wont have an effect on others. We do have the ability to apologize and the ability to forgive.

I can control these abilities. Apparently you have no such control. You are neither willing to apologize for your actions or forgive me for mine.

You want to play by one set of rules when I state an opinion (i.e. "prove it") and another when you speculate on how I arrived at it ( "I don't have to prove it"). Demonstrably untrue. Having been unable to "prove" my so called "claims" I have withdrawn them. In other words I am willing to do what you will not. Either prove my claims or withdraw them.

That, sir, is STILL your position, and you STILL won't take responsibility for it. Again, entirely false. I have stated plainly that I don't have any evidence to prove my opinion. Laking said evidence I withdrew my claim and publicly stated that I held no such opinion. Furthermore I apologized.

The above in my book IS taking responsibility. If I could only get certain other posters to take such responsibility.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
It is an opinion reached by observing by GOP treatment of candidates.

If you bother to look, as far back, say, as the GOP treatment of Millicent Fenwick, how Christie Whitman has been treated, the stuff coming out about Arnie S, the treatment of Arlen Spector, the debacle that led to the Vt. Senator jumping ship, and so on, it is clear that there is a very strong litmus test for GOP candidates, a test that affects how hard the far right goes to be rid of them, a test that affects how much campaign money and support they get, and so on.

So call it an opinion that I have after watching moderates and extreme rightists run for election on the GOP slate. What you are describing is politics. Democrats leave and join republcians, independants move to the right or left, people leave the green party or the nazi party or what ever. This isn't proof of anything. Do you have any real evidence?

He's not IDENTICAL to McCarthy, but simply put, he has the same behaviors, he is willing to justify the means by the end, and he is appears to put his own ends above those in the constitution and law. And the magician appeared to cut the woman in half. This is your idea of proof?

jj, things aren't always as they appear. And would you please tell me where he "put his own ends above those in the constitution and law". John Ashcroft swore to uphold the law. Many people believed that since he was pro-life he would not go after the individuals who killed Doctors who provided abortion services to women. The truth is he went after them with a vengence and has caught, I believe, all outstanding murderers.

Personally I think Aschroft acts like an idiot at times and I disagree with a number of his ideas but I can find no evidence to support your charachter assasination of him.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan

You are the one with the grudge. I have attempted to work with you from the start. You have been rude and insulting and I have resisted responding in kind. This is yet one more claim that is false. You seem to make lots of them.


oooh, poor me, you spread the stereotypes, but I'm the one with the grudge.

YEAH RIGHT


The next time you get into a debate with someone, don't question their motivations, their competence, etc, either directly or by inference. The term for such argument methods is "ad-hominem" (unlike my comment on Ashcroft, which would have been ad-hominem if I was arguing with him, which I wasn't, just for somebody else's benefit), and all you do with someone who recognizes the method is to annoy them and draw the fire to yourself.

Ciao.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I wasn't stereotyping all moderates, just qualifying the type I loathe.

For the record, I do not loathe all moderates, just the type I described.

(sorry, just noticed this)

I don't think of them as moderates as much as I think of them as indifferent...

But people who are indifferent do bother me, you've probably noticed by now. :)

[RandFan]

You are the one crying that you have been hurt beyond your ability to get over it. Don't try and push that horse sh*t here.

Originally posted by jj
The next time you get into a debate with someone, don't question their motivations, their competence, etc, either directly or by inference. I questioned whether you were truly a centrist. It was not a personal attack nor was it ad-hominem. I was honestly currious and asked you a question. The question might have been somewhat provocative but it was not an attack.

The term for such argument methods is "ad-hominem" (unlike my comment on Ashcroft which would have been ad-hominem if I was arguing with him... Ad-hominem means to attack the man. It doesn't make one bit of difference if you are arguing with him or not. Where did you learn logic?

Ciao. Yes, by all means, run away.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
What you are describing is politics. Democrats leave and join republcians, independants move to the right or left, people leave the green party or the nazi party or what ever. This isn't proof of anything. Do you have any real evidence?

After dismissing the evidence, you ask for evidence.

Your behavior is entirely ridiculous.

jj, things aren't always as they appear.

The would-be superior lecturer says to somebody with 30 years of experience in psychometrics and psychophysics. Really?
#include "max_sarcasm.h"
OH ME OH MY I NEVER EVER KNEW
#include "norm.h"

You're telling me that there are things I'm not seeing, YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE FOR THESE THINGS, but you continue to hound ME for evidence to back up my opinions, after dismissing the evidence I hand you.

Goodness, could you be any less fair? Well, given your performance, you'll probably find a way, I suppose, but you're caught out in contradiction and hypocracy after contradiction and hypocracy, you want to use special pleadings for all of your positions, you reserve the right to dismiss any evidence you don't personally like, and you have the right to demand evidence from everyone else.

Uh huh. Sure.

Apologist.

And would you please tell me where he "put his own ends above those in the constitution and law". John Ashcroft swore to uphold the law. Many people believed that since he was pro-life he would not go after the individuals who killed Doctors who provided abortion services to women. The truth is he went after them with a vengence and has caught, I believe, all outstanding murderers.

One example of his GOOD performance does not prove the nonexistance of bad performance. I agree he did a job on the nuts who were shooting up abortion clinics. I also think enough people were watching he had to. Does that mean he doesn't get credit? No. Does it mean he gets full credit? Maybe. Does it prove his performance? No.

Again you use an elementary rhetorical fallacy as though it constitutes a proof.

You, sir, are a waste of time. What this discussion has devolved into is the process of teaching you debate one line at a time, and I don't think I care to continue teaching.

[RandFan]

jj
After dismissing the evidence, you ask for evidence. What evidence? You haven't provided any.


by jj
One example of his GOOD performance does not prove the nonexistance of bad performance. I didn't say it did. Please don't put words in my mouth

I agree he did a job on the nuts who were shooting up abortion clinics. I also think enough people were watching he had to. Does that mean he doesn't get credit? No. Does it mean he gets full credit? Maybe. Does it prove his performance? No.

Again you use an elementary rhetorical fallacy as though it constitutes a proof. It proves that at least in one instance he did not put his own desires ahead of the law. You have yet to provide proof of the opposite.

You, sir, are a waste of time. What this discussion has devolved into is the process of teaching you debate one line at a time, and I don't think I care to continue teaching. Like I said run away. This of course was entirely unnesaccary. I happen to agree with the proposition of this thread. I have said over and over that I wanted to work this out but you would not make any effort to act to avoid this whole thing. You were offended and decided that your offences was not worth accepting an appology and moving on. I just wanted a discussion about the relative merits of centrism and what I thought was some inconsistency on your part. So I upset you. I can accept that. What I don't get is why you are so unwilling to resolve this issue like an adult and move on.

[jj]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RandFan
What evidence? You haven't provided any.

You, more specifically, have provided no evidence for all of those speculative ideas about why I might think this or that.

So, you have no high ground to stand on, and in fact by the use of repeated ad-hominem attacks in the form of dismissive presumptions for my opinions, you've abandoned any ethical ground you might have.

When you consider providing evidence that you can read my mind, perhaps we can talk. Well, either that, or stop trying, like you do farther down this article, and we might be able to have a civil conversation.,


I didn't say it did. Please don't put words in my mouth

You offered it as justification for Ashcroft's performance. It's exactly one example.

It proves that at least in one instance he did not put his own desires ahead of the law. You have yet to provide proof of the opposite.

I have specifically cited the fiasco with the Homeland Security misuse. What's your problem, bud? Blind or deliberately ignorant?

Like I said run away.

Please show me the evidence that I'm running away.

Please show how you can prove that the term "run away" is justified, in particular, showing your evidence for my internal mental state.

I have said over and over that I wanted to work this out but you would not make any effort to act to avoid this whole thing.

Lay off the rhetorical cheating then.
[QUOTE]

Once again, I offer you some advice from someone who appears to be older and wiser.

Son, when you start a debate with them, don't insult them in the first paragraph, take notable rhetorical advantage of your own hypothetical reasonings for why somebody else might think or say what they do, and then expect the effects to just vanish with a wave and an apology.

In other words, lay off the ad hominem attacks, and you might get farther.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
You, more specifically, have provided no evidence for all of those speculative ideas about why I might think this or that. Hellllooooooo. Is anyone home? Hello. I WITHDREW THE CLAIM.

So, you have no high ground to stand on, and in fact by the use of repeated ad-hominem attacks in the form of dismissive presumptions for my opinions, you've abandoned any ethical ground you might have. What the hell is the matter with you? I have withdrawn any claims and opinion in regards to your ideology. You are the one that continues to argue a moot point. You are the one who concludes that I am unethical. YOU are the one making ad-hominem attacks.

When you consider providing evidence that you can read my mind Is this thing on? I have stated categoricaly that I CAN'T read your mind and that I have withdrawn any claims and I accept that you are a centrist. To continue to argue as though I have not done these things is both truly dishonest and ad nauseam argument.

You are such a hypocrite. You make disparaging remarks about Ashcroft based on opinion but I am not allowed to state my opinion.

jj
...and he is appears to put his own ends above those in the constitution and law (emphasis mine) "Appears"? In other words you are stating an opinion based on observation.

So you get to make such "claims" but I am not allowed to. Not only am I not allowed to state such opinion but when I discover that it has offended you then I am not allowed to do anything about it.

It's too late to "retract" that, Sir. You published it here, and any effect it's going to have has come and gone... "Too late?" My six year old has more maturity.

1.) I stated an honest opinion.

2.) I stated that it was an opinion.

3.) I stated that I had no evidence.

4.) I withdrew the claim.

5.) I apologized.

...perhaps we can talk. Well, either that, or stop trying, like you do farther down this article, and we might be able to have a civil conversation.,
How can we possibly have a civil conversation when you turn an honest expression of my opinion into an ad-hominem attack, turn my motives into something nefarious and refuse to accept my sincere apology. YOU are the one who is mind reading.

You offered it as justification for Ashcroft's performance. Proof please?

I have specifically cited the fiasco with the Homeland Security misuse. What's your problem, bud? Blind or deliberately ignorant? That is your opinion and is NOT proof. Stating something is NOT proof.

Lay off the rhetorical cheating then. I have NO idea what you are talking about. You are the one who has made rhetorical argument as if it was fact and when I call you on it you get offended. Please note for me where I did this "rhetorical" cheating?

Once again, I offer you some advice from someone who appears to be older and wiser. You might be older but you lack maturity. Let me give you some advice. When someone apologizes have the decency to accept that apology. When someone tries to find a compromise be grown up enough to try and work out the compromise.

This is the very hallmark of being a moderate.

Son, when you start a debate with them, don't insult them in the first paragraph, take notable rhetorical advantage of your own hypothetical reasonings for why somebody else might think or say what they do, and then expect the effects to just vanish with a wave and an apology. Dad, It's a tough world out there populated with human beings. From time to time someone is going to hurt your feelings. It is ok to get upset but when someone says that they are sorry then the grown-up thing to do is accept the apology and work out what ever differences you have. My children all learned that by the second grade.

In other words, lay off the ad hominem attacks, and you might get farther. Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. In fact I think it is worse than that. You have made ad-hominem attacks on me and I have not made them against you. Would you please list examples of my ad-hominem attacks.

Look, when you grow up and act like an adult then I will be willing to take advice from you. Until then don't patronize me.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hellllooooooo. Is anyone home? Hello. I WITHDREW THE CLAIM.

Irrelevant since it already had its rheteorical effect.

What the hell is the matter with you? I have withdrawn any claims and opinion in regards to your ideology. You are the one that continues to argue a moot point. You are the one who concludes that I am unethical. YOU are the one making ad-hominem attacks.


Irrelevant since your claims already had their desired rhetorical effect. You used a classical propaganda method, now you're done with it, and you want to avoid the responsibliity for using it.

The problem is with you, you won't take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your own behavior.


(ble blah ble blah ble blah)

Look, when you grow up and act like an adult then I will be willing to take advice from you. Until then don't patronize me.
When you start to take responsibility for your own actions get back to me, until then, son, you're just going to have to stay in your room. I've dealt with your type that wants to have it both ways, one way when you do it, and the other when somebody else does, for years.

You seem to think I can't see clearly what you're doing, apparently, and it's just another example of you getting it wrong.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Irrelevant since it already had its rheteorical effect. By this logic all apologies would be irrelevant since they all happen after the reason for the apology has had its effect.

Irrelevant since your claims already had their desired rhetorical effect. Redundant and fallacious. The purpose of discussion and argument is to find the truth. Sometimes in the course of those discussions peoples feelings rightly or wrongly are hurt. Adults (like me) who realize that the other person has been offended take efforts to correct the situations. "Adults" who have been offended accept the apology and move on.

Children or people who lack emotional maturity (you) cry and throw tantrums and refuse any and all apologies.

You used a classical propaganda method, now you're done with it, and you want to avoid the responsibliity for using it. Well thank you Mr. Uri Geller. Now you can read my mind?

The only "effect" being achieved is you looking like a child.

The problem is with you, you won't take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your own behavior. Having been on this forum for some time now I know how difficult it is to get someone to take personal responsibility for their actions. I have admitted that you were for whatever reason offended by my claim that you were not a centrist. I think you are a bit think skin but regardless of that fact I withdrew my claim and apologized.

That IS taking responsibility.

(ble blah ble blah ble blah) Funny, this is the same sound my child made before he could talk.

When you start to take responsibility for your own actions get back to me, until then, son, you're just going to have to stay in your room. I've dealt with your type that wants to have it both ways, one way when you do it, and the other when somebody else does, for years. This claim of yours is demonstrably wrong. I have withdrawn my claims but you refuse to do the same. You are the one who wants it both ways.

You seem to think I can't see clearly what you're doing, apparently, and it's just another example of you getting it wrong. A bit paranoid aren't you? *I have been on this forum for over a year. My record precedes me. I have good relationships with many of the posters on this forum from all shades of the political spectrum precisely because I am capable of apologizing and working out differences. I'm proud of that fact. The only reason I extended a hand of friendship is that I truly would rather have friends than enemies.

What ever it is you THINK I'm trying to do you are wrong! But like Mr. Geller I'm sure that you KNOW the truth and it is unlikely that anything will convince you that you can't really read my mind.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Though I'm not sure I'm a centrist in the sense of taking the middle ground on most issues ( I am more in the sense of taking a mix of conservative and liberal issues, some that I am often times strongly on the side of liberals, and others where I'm strongly on the side of conservatives.)

I'm more of a progressive, "tough minded", liberal then anything.

I am however definately a moderate. I think whenever possible slow gradual change is better then radical or extreme change. The latter just tends to be so risky and cost so much that it is rarely ever worth it, especially when gradual change is possible.

Though I am of course not absolute on this, as sometimes more drastic change, provided they are progressive and would cause little suffering/disruption is preferable.

I don't see this as fence sitting but being realistic. Politics are simply too complex to be reduced to simple "leftist./right wing" formulas. Human behavior by itself is complicated enough let alone the behavior of millions of humans.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
By this logic all apologies would be irrelevant since they all happen after the reason for the apology has had its effect.

Entirely false, you're guilty of overgeneralization. Yet another rhetorical manouever to the fore. I think this may be the first one that you've been so overt in this particular falalcy.

What ever it is you THINK I'm trying to do you are wrong! But like Mr. Geller I'm sure that you KNOW the truth and it is unlikely that anything will convince you that you can't really read my mind.
I have no idea what you THINK you're doing. I don't care.

Your EFFECT, your testable, verifiable, practical EFFECT is one of offense and illicit taking of rhetorical advantage.

I have no idea what you think. It is dishonest of you to suggest that I have a clue in that regard. All I can do is look at the output you emit.

[RandFan]

jj
I have no idea what you THINK you're doing. I don't care. Hmmmm. Interesting concept. Since the vast majority of thousands of years of philosophy, law, morality and ethics are based entirely on intent then what I THINK I'm doing is completely salient to the discussion at hand.

If I have innocently done something wrong then can you truly be angry with me? Hey, it's just a mistake and I apologized for it.

Your EFFECT, your testable, verifiable, practical EFFECT Could you then verify this for me.

...is one of offense and illicit taking of rhetorical advantage.Now you have gone south on me. What is "illicit taking of rhetorical advantage"?

I have no idea what you think. It is dishonest of you to suggest that I have a clue in that regard. You continue to make demonstrably untrue remarks.

1.) I have never suggested that you had "a clue in that regard" (proof please).

2.) I have stated plainly that you DON'T have a clue.

3.) You HAVE made statements that can only be true if you can read my mind.

EXAMPLE: You seem to think I can't see clearly what you're doing, apparently, and it's just another example of you getting it wrong. Let's think about that sentence for a minute...hmmmm. "I (Randfan) seem to think..." You are stating what [aperantly] is in my mind. Ok, so far so good you use the word "apparently". Then you state "it's just another example of you getting it wrong." To be wrong you must know what I'm thinking, right. How else could you possibly know that I got "it wrong?"

All I can do is look at the output you emit. What output are you talking about? You mean what I said or the effect that it had on you? Oh and by the way, WHAT AM I DOING?

Entirely false, you're guilty of overgeneralization. Yet another rhetorical manouever to the fore. I think this may be the first one that you've been so overt in this particular falalcy. Entirely false? Arguably an over generalization but "entirely false?" Now that is an over generalization.

Let's try a little logic.

You said my apology was irrelevant because it was after the "effect".

According to your logic: Apologies that happen after they cause an "effect" are irrelevant:

Conclusion: If I say something that causes my wife to cry it is "too late" to apologize to her because the effect has already happened.

Question: Don't the vast majority of apologies happen after an effect? Many people (including myself in this instance) don't realize that they have offended anyone until they see the effect.

So by your logic many if not most apologies are irrelevant because they happen "after" the effect.

jj,

I believe that it is never to late to bury the ax and resolve a dispute. I am here. I am willing to work out a compromise so that we could be freinds. Bear in mind that like you I am a human being. As such we both would like to save face. Why don't we try and find a way out of this and settle our differences? It's really not that hard. Of course you are going to want to respond to the points made in this post. All you have to do is say what ever makes you feel good in response to this post and then let me know that you are willing to move on and we can settle it once and for all. I would be willing to let you have the last word. My appology still stands regardless of your decision. I am honestly sorry that you took offense.

I really don't want an enemy in you. Let's work this out.

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
I really don't want an enemy in you. Let's work this out.


You're not an enemy, you're annoying.

Happy?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
You're not an enemy, you're annoying. Trust me, not half as anoying as you.

Happy? Yeah, actually I am. I know what to expect from you...and it isn't much. Your a real good candidate for the ignore list.

Good bye and good riddance.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, actually I am. I know what to expect from you...and it isn't much. Your a real good candidate for the ignore list.

Good bye and good riddance.

Be my guest. Anyone who suggests that objecting to the Bush government is immoderate or uncentrist certainly needs a vacation.

Ciao.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Be my guest. Anyone who suggests that objecting to the Bush government is immoderate or uncentrist certainly needs a vacation.

Ciao. All of this time and you still don't get it.

I "questioned" your being a moderate or centrist based on the extreme positions and seemingly unwilling to take any middle ground when it came to the Bush administration. I saw a number of Democrats including Steven Brill who were able to look at the Bush administration in an objective light.

I wondered out loud (a sin in your eyes) if one could truly be a moderate and or a centrist if one only took an extreme position against the Bush administration.

You could have taken the time to simply explain why or how I was wrong. Instead you took offence and focused your efforts on attacking me rather than enlightening me. Sadly the question still remains because no one was willing to address it in a non-emotional or objective manner.

Still it remains that I have withdrawn any claims to you specifically. You claim that you are a centrist and for purposes of this "discussion" I have accepted that.

It's unfortunate that you couldn't have just dealt with the issue instead of resorting to ad hom. Oh well.

As for me, no vacation. There are many posters on this board from all shades of the spectrum who are quite willing to discuss these types of issues in a calm and rational way. I will simply focus my attention on them.

I simply asked a question. I may have asked it provocatively I will admit that but there was nothing in my question that required you to respond the way you did. THAT is why you will go on my ignore list. As I have said "you have nothing to say."

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
All of this time and you still don't get it.

Here's what I get.

You use speculation (unfettered by evidence) to build a straw-man propagandistic picture of your opponent. You use that picture to attempt (at least) to take rhetorical advantage. You use this tactic repeatedly, in fact, after being called on it time after time. In fact, you do it again, here, by saying "All of this time and you still don't get it.", using the false premise that if I don't agree to your particularly slanted, prejudicial position, then "I don't get it". Not only can't you accept your form of argument, you're addicted to it.

Then the opponent calls you on form.

You think that apologizing for that particularly egregious behavior fully solves the problem of your use of speculation for character assassination.

When your opponent refuses to further discuss substance until you own up to your tactics, you become abusive and insulting. You repeat the same tacits, over and over, with insistance on your claim to inerrency that until the other person agrees with you, "they don't get it".

I think I get it very well. Plain as day, in fact. In fact, I know I get it, and I know I get your form of argument, it's designed to CREATE an argument, just to avoid the issue at hand.

Why you are afraid to discuss the issue of centrists, and are instead obsessed with need to call right-leaning centrists "leftists" is beyond me, I certainly don't read minds, despite your attempt to disingeniously twist what I've said into such a claim. You have repeated your unethical tactics over and over, rather than admit that you may not be the sole and final judge of who is a centrist.

But since you want to have the last word, please proceed, although I doubt very much that you will have anything constructive to say:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Here's what I get.

You use speculation (unfettered by evidence) to build a straw-man propagandistic picture of your opponent. You use that picture to attempt (at least) to take rhetorical advantage. You use this tactic repeatedly, in fact, after being called on it time after time. In fact, you do it again, here, by saying "All of this time and you still don't get it.", using the false premise that if I don't agree to your particularly slanted, prejudicial position, then "I don't get it". Not only can't you accept your form of argument, you're addicted to it. I asked a question. I don't know what the hell a "propagandistic picture" is. I wanted a discussion. How is that taking rhetorical advantage? What the hell is rhetorical advantage?

What you fail to get is that I justed wanted to discuss the posibility of taking an extreme position and being a moderate.

Then the opponent calls you on form. No, you threw a trantum like a 3 year old.

You think that apologizing for that particularly egregious behavior fully solves the problem of your use of speculation for character assassination. Charachter assasination? I asked a question. What charachter assasination?

I appologized in good faith. Hoping to move beyond the silly debate and get to the heart of the matter.

When your opponent refuses to further discuss substance until you own up to your tactics, you become abusive and insulting. Hold on there, tell the truth. You were the one who insulted me. You were the one acting like a child and refusing to accept an appology.

You repeat the same tacits, over and over, with insistance on our claim to inerrency that until the other person agrees with you, "they don't get it". It is you who has kept this rediculous idiotic thing going. I have tried over and over to find compromise. You have refused any and all gestures of good will on my part and have not made a single move to solving the issue.

I think I get it very well. Plain as day, in fact. In fact, I know I get it, and I know I get your form of argument, it's designed to CREATE an argument, just to avoid the issue at hand. I have tried to discuss it. This is simply wrong. The whole reason for my appology was to move beyond the stupid irelevant debate as to whether you were a centrist.

Why you are afraid to discuss the issue of centrists, and are instead obsessed with need to call right-leaning centrists "leftists" is beyond me, I certainly don't read minds, despite your attempt to disingeniously twist what I've said into such a claim. You have repeated your unethical tactics over and over, rather than admit that you may not be the sole and final judge of who is a centrist. Demonstrably false. I have over an over quoted you making statements that could only be made by reading my mind.

But since you want to have the last word, please proceed, although I doubt very much that you will have anything constructive to say: What? Are you kidding. Two posts up I said you could have the last word. RandFan
All you have to do is say what ever makes you feel good in response to this post and then let me know that you are willing to move on and we can settle it once and for all. I was willing TO MOVE ON WITHOUT saying anything more. All you had to do was respond and say that you were willing to move on.

BUT YOU DID NOT HAVE THE MATURITY TO DO EVEN THAT!

And now you say that I can have the last word. Fine, I will take it. My last word is that you lack the honesty and maturity to resolve something so rediculously stupid.

I have said over and over and over that I wanted to resolve this.

I appologized.

I withdrew my claim.

I acted as a grown up.

You have behaved as a child.

And yes, you still fail to get that I only wanted a discussion about the merits of being a centrist while taking an exteme view toward the Bush administration. Sheesh.

[RandFan]

This is such a load of BS that it deserves a second response.

Originally posted by jj
You use speculation (unfettered by evidence) to build a straw-man propagandistic picture of your opponent. I googled "propagandistic picture" and got 14 hits. I'm

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

It appears that you are using big words in an attempt to obfuscate. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ********".

Is it possible for you to explain yourself in a simple manner? I really don't know what you are talking about and I suspect no one else does either.

You use that picture...What picture? I'm confused, what are you talking about? I questioned whether it was possible for someone with so extreme of views about the Bush administration to be a centrist.

Why must you make everything so oblique? Can't you clearly state what it is that you think that I have done?

...to attempt (at least) to take rhetorical advantage. I dispute this. Could you explain how I have done this? Could you give some examples?

It should be noted that time and time again jj you have refused to answer questions or provide proof of your claims.

I find such activity dishonest. If you are unable to support a claim with evidence then it is incumbent upon you to formally withdraw such claims or you lose credibility.

I have told you before that stating something does not make it true.

You use this tactic repeatedly, in fact, after being called on it time after time. Again, I dispute your allegation and I request that you either support your accusation with evidence or withdraw the claim

In fact, you do it again, here, by saying "All of this time and you still don't get it.", using the false premise that if I don't agree to your particularly slanted, prejudicial position, then "I don't get it". Not only can't you accept your form of argument, you're addicted to it. This is flat out dishonest.

It is clear that the subject of my statement "you don't get it" has nothing to do with my previous position but with your inability to understand that I only wanted a conversation on the merits of being a centrist while holding so extreme of view toward the Bush administration.

Since my own (admittedly) anecdotal experience had shown that only partisans held such views, I wanted to discuss it with you. One of the best ways to correct bad assumptions is to debate with someone who disagrees with those assumptions. They (the individual who disagrees with those assumptions) are usually motivated to find any problems with the logic of those assumptions.

Let me just say that you failed miserably to do that.

Then the opponent calls you on form. This is what really pisses me off. Few people on this forum have the maturity and the honesty to apologize. Fewer still when they believe that they are in essence correct but apologize in good faith to remove any ill will on the part of another.

THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF MY APOLOGY! IT WAS IN GOOD FAITH!

You think that apologizing for that particularly egregious behavior fully solves the problem of your use of speculation for character assassination. I find this entirely dishonest. On the Internet our character is comprised of words. I do not fear the words you are saying because I have ample evidence of my honesty and willingness to work with those who disagree with me. I have earned the respect of many with whom I have debated because I was willing to apologize and acknowledge when I was wrong. I have done that many times.

What "egregious behavior". I'm so sick of your vague accusations. You never quote me. You only accuse. I on the other hand post the evidence of your words. I have quoted you a number of times.

You are debating by accusation without providing the proof. When asked for the evidence you simply ignore the request. Why? Are your arguments so untenable, are you just lazy or is it something else?

When your opponent refuses to further discuss substance until you own up to your tactics... Would you please show by example these "tactics" and show how they are different than any tactics by any other poster including yourself.

I dispute your assertion. My methods do not stand apart from anyone else. If you are going to make such claims then you MUST be willing to support them with evidence.

...it's designed to CREATE an argument, just to avoid the issue at hand. This is so dishonest it is pathetic. I have wanted nothing more than to get beyond this silly stupid debate about whether you are a centrist or not. To accomplish this I was willing to apologize and withdraw my "claim".

Why you are afraid to discuss the issue of centrists...I'M NOT! I AGREE WITH YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSITION!

...and are instead obsessedI'M NOT OBSESSED. I WANTED TO DROP IT.

...with need to call right-leaning centrists "leftists" is beyond me... I SIMPLY WANTED TO KNOW WHY A "RIGHT-LEANING centrist" held such extreme views?

...I certainly don't read minds, despite your attempt to disingeniously twist what I've said into such a claim. I have posted the proof that you make claims that suggest that you know what is in my mind.

You have repeated your unethical tactics over and over, rather than admit that you may not be the sole and final judge of who is a centrist. BALD FACE LIE. I withdrew my claim. I apologized. I said that I don't know whether or not you are a centrist and said that "I ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE A CENTRIST".

This is a DEMONSTRABLE LIE!

But since you want to have the last word, please proceed, although I doubt very much that you will have anything constructive to say: Right, I offer my apology in good faith. I offer to work things out. I ask if we can make a compromise. I have been very conciliatory. You have been nothing but abusive.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
(blah blah)

Ok, you've had the last word. Satisfied?:D