Will "values voters" finally catch on? - Page 2

Darth Rotor · 11th October 2006, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Not that I want to in any way interfere with "internal" affairs of the US, but perhaps having more than two eligable parties would be a start.

From where I sit, I don't disagree. Getting enough funding to resurrect the Bull Moose party is, sadly, no trivial pursuit. H Ross Perot discovered how jealously the two parties guard their "turf" when he ran in 2002. TRoosevelt (founder of Bull Moose Party) was a disenchanted Republican, a conservationist, and an internationalist, as well as a social progressive. Too bad his new party failed, and too bad the Greens can't take up where the Bull Moose left off. I think the lack of meat in their diet is to blame.

FWIW, JFK disagree with you about multiparty in the American system, from beyond the grave. His preface to "Profiles in Courage" outlines a modest argument in favor of "two parties is sufficient." Perhaps he was finding virtue in necessity, the necessity being a strong front versus the Communist bloc. (Written in 1950's.)

DR

marksman · 11th October 2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Why do you assume that "it can't happen here?"

I assume no such thing. But I see no evidence of it. A rancorous political atmosphere is no evidence of imminent violent insurrection.

Darth Rotor · 11th October 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

I assume no such thing. But I see no evidence of it. A rancorous political atmosphere is no evidence of imminent violent insurrection.

It's not the "rancorous political atmosphere" that bothers me. Invective and name calling go back to the founding government, and the debates in the fledgling House and Senate. Some of the personal abuse heaped on "King Andrew" Jackson seem to me far more venemous than the Bush epithets.

The hollaring and blubbering in Washington is a smokescreen in some respects.

DR

marksman · 11th October 2006, 10:20 AM

No, he understand what many people in Parliamentary systems do not understand about a two-party system.

Parties in a two-party system are not like parties in Parliament. They are broadly defined and encompass many factions. The two-party system actually encourages moderation of political views as people must strive to capture the middle-voters who actually elect politicians.

The radicalization of the Republican party is a function of the fact that since 1996, the Democratic Party has been ineffective in serving as a moderating influence on the GOP. The Democrats have been "energizing" their base when they should be trying to woo the moderate. In reality, the problem is that the Democratic base is too fractured.

Adding a third party will not serve anybody's interest in American politics. Third-parties never survive unless one of the big two fall apart. The loss of the Anti-Federalists led to the Democratic Party (then called the Republican Party). The dissolution of the Federalists shortly thereafter (due to their success in creating a federal government) led to the Whigs. The collapse of the Whigs over slavery and tariffs led to a brief period of Decmocratic hegemony until the Republicans filled the void.

marksman · 11th October 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

It's not the "rancorous political atmosphere" that bothers me.

The why on earth did you hypothesize that there will be armed violence against blue staters?

Darth Rotor · 11th October 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

No, he understand what many people in Parliamentary systems do not understand about a two-party system.

Parties in a two-party system are not like parties in Parliament. They are broadly defined and encompass many factions. The two-party system actually encourages moderation of political views as people must strive to capture the middle-voters who actually elect politicians.

The radicalization of the Republican party is a function of the fact that since 1996, the Democratic Party has been ineffective in serving as a moderating influence on the GOP. The Democrats have been "energizing" their base when they should be trying to woo the moderate. In reality, the problem is that the Democratic base is too fractured.

Adding a third party will not serve anybody's interest in American politics. Third-parties never survive unless one of the big two fall apart. The loss of the Anti-Federalists led to the Democratic Party (then called the Republican Party). The dissolution of the Federalists shortly thereafter (due to their success in creating a federal government) led to the Whigs. The collapse of the Whigs over slavery and tariffs led to a brief period of Decmocratic hegemony until the Republicans filled the void.

*Tips cap.*

Given the polarization of two party bases, isn't it plausible that a moderate party arises? Or, is the problem with moderates that they don't tend to have the energy it takes to pursue political ends?

I've heard that critique, can't remember where, of a proposed "middle party" made up of irritated swing voters who both parties have sufficiently alienated.

DR

Darth Rotor · 11th October 2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

The why on earth did you hypothesize that there will be armed violence against blue staters?

I didn't. I suggested that urban elites (which is irresepctive of state) who choose not to arm themselves will be more nervous than those who do, Once riled, I have no grasp on the limits the Jacksonian sorts would reach once the threshold energy for action is reached. I default to pessimist on these matters. I may be over estimating the potential damage done. This conceptual musing is not completely baked, and is worthy of more consideration.

Ah, I see where I crossed references. Blah. NO wonder this got a bit confusing.

Quote:

If what you predict does happen, I suspect the non gun owning urban elites will start to feel a bit nervous about sectarian violence in the US. The red staters tend to be armed. If the Jacksonian strain of US polity is aroused, it tends to calm down only after exacting a blood debt.

The feedback provided by some in this thread has been useful in chipping away at some of the moss attached to the stone.

Thanks.

DR

marksman · 11th October 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Given the polarization of two party bases, isn't it plausible that a moderate party arises?

It would be a unique event if it were to happen. The only way I could see that is by a dissolution of the less-unified Democratic Party, not the Republican one.

Quote:

Or, is the problem with moderates that they don't tend to have the energy it takes to pursue political ends?

Not at all. But our Constitution works best with a two-party system. If a moderate party were to emerge one or both of the other two parties would lose their base. The "new party" would simply be a better encapsulation of one side, or the new party would gobble up both parties and we'd have a Jacksonian era all over again. (And if you though the current climate is bad, it's nothing compared to what a one-party state would be like).

Quote:

I've heard that critique, can't remember where, of a proposed "middle party" made up of irritated swing voters who both parties have sufficiently alienated.

Yeah, it was Perot.

The only effective third-parties in America are founded around a single personality (Teddy R or Ross Perot) and it never survives him.

Darth Rotor · 11th October 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

It would be a unique event if it were to happen. The only way I could see that is by a dissolution of the less-unified Democratic Party, not the Republican one.

Not at all. But our Constitution works best with a two-party system. If a moderate party were to emerge one or both of the other two parties would lose their base. The "new party" would simply be a better encapsulation of one side, or the new party would gobble up both parties and we'd have a Jacksonian era all over again. (And if you though the current climate is bad, it's nothing compared to what a one-party state would be like).

Yeah, it was Perot.

The only effective third-parties in America are founded around a single personality (Teddy R or Ross Perot) and it never survives him.

That historical summary does not preclude it from happening again, were someone a bit more committed than H Ross involved. However, the kind of true believers necessary to lead this party seem remarkable by their absence.

DR

ponderingturtle · 11th October 2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

*Tips cap.*

Given the polarization of two party bases, isn't it plausible that a moderate party arises? Or, is the problem with moderates that they don't tend to have the energy it takes to pursue political ends?

I would think that unlikely as the nature of the voting process encourages a two party system. So unless we let game theorists rewrite that part of the consitution, it is not easy for a third party to make any serious progress.

And I thought that the democratic republicans became the republicans and not the current democrats. Not that it matters, the parties are constantly redefining themselves, neither party is the party of their respective Roosevelt

marksman · 11th October 2006, 01:57 PM

Nor should they be. Parties that don't evolve go the way of the Whigs.

fuelair · 12th October 2006, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't think it is - sure, that element may occassionally be present, but that's really not at the heart of religious conservative support for Republicans. Which is why the religious right isn't going to abandon the Republican party over Folley, and why your speculation to that effect is really just wishful thinking on your part.

Actually, the problem with the Republican right is they want to be able to go to any movie or watch any tv show, or read any book, newspaper or other periodical without any concern that they will see/hear something that will bother their tiny minds. Democrats just don't bother watching/reading what they don't like - but they don't try to stop others from it. One of the reasons I am a Democrat. I am mildly amused at the current large numbers of RR s who are giving away their economic future to support guys whose major real activity is finding ways to transfer their (the Rep. base) money to the wealthy on the theory they will "keep Amurica clean!!!"

RandFan · 12th October 2006, 11:39 AM

Good thread folks. Thanks.

RandFan · 12th October 2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Actually, the problem with the Republican right is they want to be able to go to any movie or watch any tv show, or read any book, newspaper or other periodical without any concern that they will see/hear something that will bother their tiny minds. Democrats just don't bother watching/reading what they don't like - but they don't try to stop others from it. One of the reasons I am a Democrat.

(emphasis mine) I liked your post until this last sentence. It's Post Hoc. Unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions then you are simply finding that which you agree with and then using that as justification for your ideology. It's just rhetorical.

LawnOven · 12th October 2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Democrats just don't bother watching/reading what they don't like - but they don't try to stop others from it.

Unless you are Tipper Gore

RandFan · 12th October 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by LawnOven

Unless you are Tipper Gore

I miss Frank.

hgc · 12th October 2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

(emphasis mine) I liked your post until this last sentence. It's Post Hoc. Unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions then you are simply finding that which you agree with and then using that as justification for your ideology. It's just rhetorical.

Why do you assume that those are assumptions on his part, rather than reasoned conclusions? Afterall, I've come to similar conclusions myself.

RandFan · 12th October 2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

Why do you assume that those are assumptions on his part, rather than reasoned conclusions? Afterall, I've come to similar conclusions myself.

It wasn't my only conclusion. I said "unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions".

I'm skeptical. I have good reason to be (see Randi's weekly commentary for the past 5 years). Humans are notoriously unreliable for drawing objective conclusions. We have a tendency to see what we want to see even when we think we are being objective which is precisely why science requires rigorous protocols as part of any methodology. What protocols did you use and how did you rigorously come to your conclusions? Were you aware of your biases and how did you control for them?

FWIW, though I don't live in constant doubt as to my own ideology and life choices I do have a healthy skepticism of that ideology. I think questioning our own held assumptions is the best bet to guard against post hoc reasoning.

I always find such confident statements of self analysis to be largely self serving and I believe for good reason.

Tricky · 12th October 2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by LawnOven

Unless you are Tipper Gore

LOL. Yeah, few people remember that, but it never really was a big issue. Not even Al supported her trying to censor Meat Loaf.

But it does raise a point. There are few people who are in favor of total openness. But they draw the lines in different places. Conservatives may point out (rightly, in some cases) that "Political Correctness" is a form of censorship. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a law to outlaw deceptive advertising for homeopathic and woo-woo crap that can potentially harm people. Some black groups want very liberal literature like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird off the shelves of schools. Most of us agree that we don't want bomb-making manuals in schools.

In my opinion, conservatives are the worst about wanting to ban books only because they have ideas that conflict with their own, but I won't deny that they are not the only ones who do so.

fuelair · 12th October 2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

(emphasis mine) I liked your post until this last sentence. It's Post Hoc. Unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions then you are simply finding that which you agree with and then using that as justification for your ideology. It's just rhetorical.

Actually, that is/ always has been part of why I was a Democrat - I loathe censorship and Democrats have generally been less likely to do it. In absolute honesty, though, I am now what is historically referred to as a Yellow Dog Democrat( "Why he'd go vote fer an old yella dog before he'd vote in a Republican!") (add the slime Ralph Nader to that) after the 2000
debacle.

RandFan · 12th October 2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Actually, that is/ always has been part of why I was a Democrat - I loathe censorship and Democrats have generally been less likely to do it.

So because one side is less offensive you stake all of your fortunes on that side. Not a critical POV but I understand it.

For the record I also loathe censorship and have a good record of defending same on this forum. I think there is some truth to your point but I note that Democrats are much better at making their censorship appear heroic. They've learned to brand the speech hate speech and then it can be censored.

Quote:

In absolute honesty, though, I am now what is historically referred to as a Yellow Dog Democrat( "Why he'd go vote fer an old yella dog before he'd vote in a Republican!") (add the slime Ralph Nader to that) after the 2000 debacle.

I don't think there is much more to be said. Not that this affirms my earlier position but that this is clearly antithetical to critical thinking and skepticism. It's emotional and it is far more likely to serve the politicians and not democracy. Politicians prefer that we vote based on our emotions and not our intellect. It's in their best interest because it is their best way of controlling us. You are now immune to logic and reason. Well, you join a great and grand tradition. We muddle through somehow.

Darth Rotor · 12th October 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Politicians prefer that we vote based on our emotions and not our intellect. It's in their best interest because it is their best way of controlling us. You are now immune to logic and reason. Well, you join a great and grand tradition.

That's a keeper.

DR

mamapajamas · 12th October 2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Actually, that is/ always has been part of why I was a Democrat - I loathe censorship and Democrats have generally been less likely to do it. In absolute honesty, though, I am now what is historically referred to as a Yellow Dog Democrat( "Why he'd go vote fer an old yella dog before he'd vote in a Republican!") (add the slime Ralph Nader to that) after the 2000
debacle.

Question... just a matter of curiosity: Why did you become "a yellow dog Democrat because of the "2000 debacle" when all of the contested districts in Florida were controlled by... Democrats? Most of the legal processes were pretty much the Gore campaign against each (Democrat) local Supervisor of Elections. It was a Democrat SoE who designed the infamous "butterfly ballot", and Democrat SoE's who did not see that ancient punch-card machines were eliminated in some of the richest precincts in Florida (two of the contested districts were a part of the "Gold Coast", an area famous for preposterously wealthy residents, so it couldn't have been money stopping them).

So I'm having a bit of a problem following your logic on that. (PS: The SoE in my district is a Democrat, and he's a damned good one... fought to keep our page scanners with 1950s technology, which are the most accurate voting machines there are. The things are just too stupid to do anything but count the dots and note where the dots are, and it spits the ballot back out if the dots are not properly aligned or too many in one section, so you can do it over again, which eliminates over- and under-voting. Very nice machines

. I'll continue to vote for that man for as long as he wants to keep his job.)

11th October 2006, 09:56 AM	#41
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite Not that I want to in any way interfere with "internal" affairs of the US, but perhaps having more than two eligable parties would be a start. From where I sit, I don't disagree. Getting enough funding to resurrect the Bull Moose party is, sadly, no trivial pursuit. H Ross Perot discovered how jealously the two parties guard their "turf" when he ran in 2002. TRoosevelt (founder of Bull Moose Party) was a disenchanted Republican, a conservationist, and an internationalist, as well as a social progressive. Too bad his new party failed, and too bad the Greens can't take up where the Bull Moose left off. I think the lack of meat in their diet is to blame. FWIW, JFK disagree with you about multiparty in the American system, from beyond the grave. His preface to "Profiles in Courage" outlines a modest argument in favor of "two parties is sufficient." Perhaps he was finding virtue in necessity, the necessity being a strong front versus the Communist bloc. (Written in 1950's.) DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 11th October 2006 at 10:00 AM.

11th October 2006, 10:18 AM	#43
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by marksman I assume no such thing. But I see no evidence of it. A rancorous political atmosphere is no evidence of imminent violent insurrection. It's not the "rancorous political atmosphere" that bothers me. Invective and name calling go back to the founding government, and the debates in the fledgling House and Senate. Some of the personal abuse heaped on "King Andrew" Jackson seem to me far more venemous than the Bush epithets. The hollaring and blubbering in Washington is a smokescreen in some respects. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

11th October 2006, 10:26 AM	#46
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by marksman No, he understand what many people in Parliamentary systems do not understand about a two-party system. Parties in a two-party system are not like parties in Parliament. They are broadly defined and encompass many factions. The two-party system actually encourages moderation of political views as people must strive to capture the middle-voters who actually elect politicians. The radicalization of the Republican party is a function of the fact that since 1996, the Democratic Party has been ineffective in serving as a moderating influence on the GOP. The Democrats have been "energizing" their base when they should be trying to woo the moderate. In reality, the problem is that the Democratic base is too fractured. Adding a third party will not serve anybody's interest in American politics. Third-parties never survive unless one of the big two fall apart. The loss of the Anti-Federalists led to the Democratic Party (then called the Republican Party). The dissolution of the Federalists shortly thereafter (due to their success in creating a federal government) led to the Whigs. The collapse of the Whigs over slavery and tariffs led to a brief period of Decmocratic hegemony until the Republicans filled the void. Tips cap. Given the polarization of two party bases, isn't it plausible that a moderate party arises? Or, is the problem with moderates that they don't tend to have the energy it takes to pursue political ends? I've heard that critique, can't remember where, of a proposed "middle party" made up of irritated swing voters who both parties have sufficiently alienated. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

11th October 2006, 10:30 AM	#47
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by marksman The why on earth did you hypothesize that there will be armed violence against blue staters? I didn't. I suggested that urban elites (which is irresepctive of state) who choose not to arm themselves will be more nervous than those who do, Once riled, I have no grasp on the limits the Jacksonian sorts would reach once the threshold energy for action is reached. I default to pessimist on these matters. I may be over estimating the potential damage done. This conceptual musing is not completely baked, and is worthy of more consideration. Ah, I see where I crossed references. Blah. NO wonder this got a bit confusing. Quote: If what you predict does happen, I suspect the non gun owning urban elites will start to feel a bit nervous about sectarian violence in the US. The red staters tend to be armed. If the Jacksonian strain of US polity is aroused, it tends to calm down only after exacting a blood debt. The feedback provided by some in this thread has been useful in chipping away at some of the moss attached to the stone. Thanks. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 11th October 2006 at 10:33 AM.

11th October 2006, 11:12 AM	#49
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by marksman It would be a unique event if it were to happen. The only way I could see that is by a dissolution of the less-unified Democratic Party, not the Republican one. Not at all. But our Constitution works best with a two-party system. If a moderate party were to emerge one or both of the other two parties would lose their base. The "new party" would simply be a better encapsulation of one side, or the new party would gobble up both parties and we'd have a Jacksonian era all over again. (And if you though the current climate is bad, it's nothing compared to what a one-party state would be like). Yeah, it was Perot. The only effective third-parties in America are founded around a single personality (Teddy R or Ross Perot) and it never survives him. That historical summary does not preclude it from happening again, were someone a bit more committed than H Ross involved. However, the kind of true believers necessary to lead this party seem remarkable by their absence. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

11th October 2006, 10:13 AM	#42
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Why do you assume that "it can't happen here?" I assume no such thing. But I see no evidence of it. A rancorous political atmosphere is no evidence of imminent violent insurrection.

11th October 2006, 10:20 AM	#44
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	No, he understand what many people in Parliamentary systems do not understand about a two-party system. Parties in a two-party system are not like parties in Parliament. They are broadly defined and encompass many factions. The two-party system actually encourages moderation of political views as people must strive to capture the middle-voters who actually elect politicians. The radicalization of the Republican party is a function of the fact that since 1996, the Democratic Party has been ineffective in serving as a moderating influence on the GOP. The Democrats have been "energizing" their base when they should be trying to woo the moderate. In reality, the problem is that the Democratic base is too fractured. Adding a third party will not serve anybody's interest in American politics. Third-parties never survive unless one of the big two fall apart. The loss of the Anti-Federalists led to the Democratic Party (then called the Republican Party). The dissolution of the Federalists shortly thereafter (due to their success in creating a federal government) led to the Whigs. The collapse of the Whigs over slavery and tariffs led to a brief period of Decmocratic hegemony until the Republicans filled the void.

11th October 2006, 10:24 AM	#45
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor It's not the "rancorous political atmosphere" that bothers me. The why on earth did you hypothesize that there will be armed violence against blue staters?

11th October 2006, 10:45 AM	#48
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Given the polarization of two party bases, isn't it plausible that a moderate party arises? It would be a unique event if it were to happen. The only way I could see that is by a dissolution of the less-unified Democratic Party, not the Republican one. Quote: Or, is the problem with moderates that they don't tend to have the energy it takes to pursue political ends? Not at all. But our Constitution works best with a two-party system. If a moderate party were to emerge one or both of the other two parties would lose their base. The "new party" would simply be a better encapsulation of one side, or the new party would gobble up both parties and we'd have a Jacksonian era all over again. (And if you though the current climate is bad, it's nothing compared to what a one-party state would be like). Quote: I've heard that critique, can't remember where, of a proposed "middle party" made up of irritated swing voters who both parties have sufficiently alienated. Yeah, it was Perot. The only effective third-parties in America are founded around a single personality (Teddy R or Ross Perot) and it never survives him.

11th October 2006, 01:31 PM	#50
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Tips cap. Given the polarization of two party bases, isn't it plausible that a moderate party arises? Or, is the problem with moderates that they don't tend to have the energy it takes to pursue political ends? I would think that unlikely as the nature of the voting process encourages a two party system. So unless we let game theorists rewrite that part of the consitution, it is not easy for a third party to make any serious progress. And I thought that the democratic republicans became the republicans and not the current democrats. Not that it matters, the parties are constantly redefining themselves, neither party is the party of their respective Roosevelt

11th October 2006, 01:57 PM	#51
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Nor should they be. Parties that don't evolve go the way of the Whigs.

12th October 2006, 11:36 AM	#52
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I don't think it is - sure, that element may occassionally be present, but that's really not at the heart of religious conservative support for Republicans. Which is why the religious right isn't going to abandon the Republican party over Folley, and why your speculation to that effect is really just wishful thinking on your part. Actually, the problem with the Republican right is they want to be able to go to any movie or watch any tv show, or read any book, newspaper or other periodical without any concern that they will see/hear something that will bother their tiny minds. Democrats just don't bother watching/reading what they don't like - but they don't try to stop others from it. One of the reasons I am a Democrat. I am mildly amused at the current large numbers of RR s who are giving away their economic future to support guys whose major real activity is finding ways to transfer their (the Rep. base) money to the wealthy on the theory they will "keep Amurica clean!!!"
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881

12th October 2006, 11:39 AM	#53
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,097	Good thread folks. Thanks.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2006, 11:47 AM	#54
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,097	Originally Posted by fuelair Actually, the problem with the Republican right is they want to be able to go to any movie or watch any tv show, or read any book, newspaper or other periodical without any concern that they will see/hear something that will bother their tiny minds. Democrats just don't bother watching/reading what they don't like - but they don't try to stop others from it. One of the reasons I am a Democrat. (emphasis mine) I liked your post until this last sentence. It's Post Hoc. Unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions then you are simply finding that which you agree with and then using that as justification for your ideology. It's just rhetorical.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2006, 11:55 AM	#55
LawnOven robot Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 1,306	Originally Posted by fuelair Democrats just don't bother watching/reading what they don't like - but they don't try to stop others from it. Unless you are Tipper Gore
	__________________ Principia Discordia

12th October 2006, 12:06 PM	#56
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,097	Originally Posted by LawnOven Unless you are Tipper Gore I miss Frank.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2006, 12:07 PM	#57
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,986	Originally Posted by RandFan (emphasis mine) I liked your post until this last sentence. It's Post Hoc. Unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions then you are simply finding that which you agree with and then using that as justification for your ideology. It's just rhetorical. Why do you assume that those are assumptions on his part, rather than reasoned conclusions? Afterall, I've come to similar conclusions myself.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

12th October 2006, 12:23 PM	#58
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,097	Originally Posted by hgc Why do you assume that those are assumptions on his part, rather than reasoned conclusions? Afterall, I've come to similar conclusions myself. It wasn't my only conclusion. I said "unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions". I'm skeptical. I have good reason to be (see Randi's weekly commentary for the past 5 years). Humans are notoriously unreliable for drawing objective conclusions. We have a tendency to see what we want to see even when we think we are being objective which is precisely why science requires rigorous protocols as part of any methodology. What protocols did you use and how did you rigorously come to your conclusions? Were you aware of your biases and how did you control for them? FWIW, though I don't live in constant doubt as to my own ideology and life choices I do have a healthy skepticism of that ideology. I think questioning our own held assumptions is the best bet to guard against post hoc reasoning. I always find such confident statements of self analysis to be largely self serving and I believe for good reason.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2006, 12:52 PM	#59
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,345	Originally Posted by LawnOven Unless you are Tipper Gore LOL. Yeah, few people remember that, but it never really was a big issue. Not even Al supported her trying to censor Meat Loaf. But it does raise a point. There are few people who are in favor of total openness. But they draw the lines in different places. Conservatives may point out (rightly, in some cases) that "Political Correctness" is a form of censorship. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a law to outlaw deceptive advertising for homeopathic and woo-woo crap that can potentially harm people. Some black groups want very liberal literature like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird off the shelves of schools. Most of us agree that we don't want bomb-making manuals in schools. In my opinion, conservatives are the worst about wanting to ban books only because they have ideas that conflict with their own, but I won't deny that they are not the only ones who do so.

12th October 2006, 02:55 PM	#60
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by RandFan (emphasis mine) I liked your post until this last sentence. It's Post Hoc. Unless you have rigorously questioned all of your assumptions then you are simply finding that which you agree with and then using that as justification for your ideology. It's just rhetorical. Actually, that is/ always has been part of why I was a Democrat - I loathe censorship and Democrats have generally been less likely to do it. In absolute honesty, though, I am now what is historically referred to as a Yellow Dog Democrat( "Why he'd go vote fer an old yella dog before he'd vote in a Republican!") (add the slime Ralph Nader to that) after the 2000 debacle.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881

12th October 2006, 03:07 PM	#61
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,097	Originally Posted by fuelair Actually, that is/ always has been part of why I was a Democrat - I loathe censorship and Democrats have generally been less likely to do it. So because one side is less offensive you stake all of your fortunes on that side. Not a critical POV but I understand it. For the record I also loathe censorship and have a good record of defending same on this forum. I think there is some truth to your point but I note that Democrats are much better at making their censorship appear heroic. They've learned to brand the speech hate speech and then it can be censored. Quote: In absolute honesty, though, I am now what is historically referred to as a Yellow Dog Democrat( "Why he'd go vote fer an old yella dog before he'd vote in a Republican!") (add the slime Ralph Nader to that) after the 2000 debacle. I don't think there is much more to be said. Not that this affirms my earlier position but that this is clearly antithetical to critical thinking and skepticism. It's emotional and it is far more likely to serve the politicians and not democracy. Politicians prefer that we vote based on our emotions and not our intellect. It's in their best interest because it is their best way of controlling us. You are now immune to logic and reason. Well, you join a great and grand tradition. We muddle through somehow.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2006, 03:10 PM	#62
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by RandFan Politicians prefer that we vote based on our emotions and not our intellect. It's in their best interest because it is their best way of controlling us. You are now immune to logic and reason. Well, you join a great and grand tradition. That's a keeper. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

12th October 2006, 08:37 PM	#63
mamapajamas Thinker Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 131	Originally Posted by fuelair Actually, that is/ always has been part of why I was a Democrat - I loathe censorship and Democrats have generally been less likely to do it. In absolute honesty, though, I am now what is historically referred to as a Yellow Dog Democrat( "Why he'd go vote fer an old yella dog before he'd vote in a Republican!") (add the slime Ralph Nader to that) after the 2000 debacle. Question... just a matter of curiosity: Why did you become "a yellow dog Democrat because of the "2000 debacle" when all of the contested districts in Florida were controlled by... Democrats? Most of the legal processes were pretty much the Gore campaign against each (Democrat) local Supervisor of Elections. It was a Democrat SoE who designed the infamous "butterfly ballot", and Democrat SoE's who did not see that ancient punch-card machines were eliminated in some of the richest precincts in Florida (two of the contested districts were a part of the "Gold Coast", an area famous for preposterously wealthy residents, so it couldn't have been money stopping them). So I'm having a bit of a problem following your logic on that. (PS: The SoE in my district is a Democrat, and he's a damned good one... fought to keep our page scanners with 1950s technology, which are the most accurate voting machines there are. The things are just too stupid to do anything but count the dots and note where the dots are, and it spits the ballot back out if the dots are not properly aligned or too many in one section, so you can do it over again, which eliminates over- and under-voting. Very nice machines . I'll continue to vote for that man for as long as he wants to keep his job.)
mamapajamas Thinker Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 131	Last edited by mamapajamas; 12th October 2006 at 08:56 PM.