|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tea Party Questions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Here's a link to a wiki page explaining who "Katie Couric" is Here's a link a page explaining what a "wiki page" is Here's a link explaining what a link is Excellent. Then I have made my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Except for the fact that Palin turned out to be substantially correct in her Revere story, Really? Really?? Her original quote.
quote: Her later defense.
quote: Please show me any historical source or writing that says Paul Revere was intended to warn the British. The ride by Revere, Dawes and Prescott was not a loud raucous affair of ringing bells. A lot of the people in the area were very loyal to the crown and there were numerous British patrols(as shown by Revere being detained by one). Please show me in what way was Palin substantially correct? 1) He wasn't warning the British, he was avoiding them.2) He wasn't ringing any bells or firing warning shot. Did Revere give warning to the British soldiers that captured him? Yes. He told them they were in for a fight at Lexington. Lets look back at Palin's defense of her comment.
quote:No. Wrong. Incorrect. Her defense shows she is clueless. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Please show me in what way was Palin substantially correct? Palin In Boston quote: The rest of the interview gives answers to your other questions. I do not know Prof. Allison's political stance but I would think the chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston would know the real history and would be qualified to make such a judgement. I defer to the Professor's view. But, please, it was not my intent to defend Sarah Palin. My point was that, when asked, as you did, for sources, they should be given ... regardless of how "well known" someone might think they are. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I do not know Prof. Allison's political stance but I would think the chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston would know the real history and would be qualified to make such a judgement. I defer to the Professor's view. So, your view is that Paul Revere rang bells and fired shots to warn the British that they couldn't take the guns of the colonists in violation of a Second Amendment that wouldn't exist for twelve years? The British who were only just arriving in secret? Those British? That Second Amendment? Only with a charity of reading that extends greatly into the absurd can the mish-mash Sarah Palin spewed possibly be reconciled with historical fact. If that's the kind of curve Robert Allison grades on in his classes, I wish I'd had him for American History I. I mean, look at the logic-chopping he's doing here:
quote: The colonists were British, therefore Palin was correct to say that Paul Revere rode to warn the British? Come the fuck on. Nobody thinks that's what she meant. She wasn't talking about the colonists when she said "British", she was talking about the redcoats. To conclude that Palin accurately represented history is deeply stupid, no matter how many grade-inflating sophists you can marshal to your side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: So, no argument? Just an Appeal to Authority?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
So, no argument? Just an Appeal to Authority? Yeah, that's all I got. I'm not an historian and I haven't the time nor the motivation to go find anything else. If you, frog, Theo, Nuggin and others have other better authorities to share then fine, I can accept those. I'm not here to shill for Palin. I'm thinking this whole effort is getting lost in the emotional tangents. I knew I was starting out on the wrong side of a highly charged political lightning rod. See my Message 95. We all know Palin is not the sharpest tack in the box. And we all know her politics are heavy to the right and her intellect is heavy to the south. But what I have seen is the kind of needless demonization of an enemy we say we all deplore in American politics. I guess calling it to attention without being stained by the demon myself was too much to hope for. Edited by AZPaul3, : Proper syntax, please Paul.Yes, Mom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But what I have seen is the kind of needless demonization of an enemy we say we all deplore in American politics. I don't deplore partisanship; quite the opposite. The purpose of elections is for voters to express their choice as to the future agenda of the government. If both parties converge on the mushy middle, what choice are voters given? Kang vs. Kodos? The best bipartisanship is bipartisanship by alternation - the winning party gets to enact their agenda, and if the voters don't like it, next election they can vote the bums out and vote in new bums to reverse that agenda. People fault our politics on the basis of parties or personalities, but it's the system which is flawed. Political polarization can work in the United States - it works better when polarized parties are able to present voters with a meaningful choice between two competing agendas. The problem is the system which requires the permission of the minority to govern combined with elections that reward the minority for obstructionism, and therefore, in practice favors conservativism. (The degree to which the United States' major population centers are drastically underrepresented in Congress is a major problem as well; if you live in a city, your vote just doesn't count as much.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Just an Appeal to Authority? An appeal to a relevant expert can be perfectly appropriate in debate. As long as a person isn't saying that because an authority said so, it is therefore necessarily true, it is not logically fallacious. Thus, I could appeal to an esteemed biologist's views to support my own notions about biology. On the other hand, appealing to a priest to support my biological notions would be fallacious (unless they are also authorities on biology, of course). An appeal to a historian in settling an argument about history can be acceptable. Unless there are other historians saying the opposite, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi crashfrog,
The purpose of elections is for voters to express their choice as to the future agenda of the government. If both parties ... You do realize that there are more than two parties in the elections AND that there are independents in both house and senate, yes? You do realize that the reason that there are two party in dominant positions is because of flaws in the election process. Flaws that show up whenever there are more than two candidates representing sufficient numbers of people that the choice of which one is more difficult. You do know that mathematical analysis shows that one bad choice against to moderate choices can get elected when the votes for the moderate candidates are split, yes? If you need (or anyone else needs) edification on this look at the Governor of California election when Arnold was elected: the sheer number of democratic etc candidates made the single block of voters for the single GOP candidate a shoe in before the votes were counted -- not because he was a better candidate but because the rest of the vote was watered away. In elections like this, if we MUST stick to a single vote system, it would be better to be able to vote against the worst pick so that you get either a good enough or a better candidate. Personally I think the PRIMARIES should be run on a "vote them off the island" reality show basis, winnowing out the worst party pick at each one, to end up with the best two or three top choices, and the final vote be a single vote against the worst choice. It would also be interesting if any party with more than 30% of the nation membership would be required to put forward two candidates for each position. In the last election I could have voted for Obama and my wife could have voted for Hillary. Think what that would do for second term elections. But to make an election WORK when there are more than two viable candidates we would have to have at least a [first pick vote] AND a [second pick vote] or a [best candidate vote] and a [worst candidate 'veto'].(1)
. The purpose of elections is for voters to express their choice as to the future agenda of the government. If both parties converge ... If they converge in PRACTICE - once in congress - on the construction and passage of legislation then we have compromises that, while not perfect to either party, DO accomplish the goals of legislation. The process of compromise was embraced by the founding fathers as a way to accomplish BETTER legislation than any one person alone could provide. This of course, was before parties arose and became fixed into a system where two parties dominate the elections.
People fault our politics on the basis of parties or personalities, but it's the system which is flawed. Political polarization can work in the United States - it works better when polarized parties are able to present voters with a meaningful choice between two competing agendas. And when the polarization reaches the point where neither party is able to pass any legislation because they are held hostage by the other for amendments that are not acceptable to the party in power -- when nothing gets done year after year, president after president -- does THAT serve the people's interest? Do you think that if the GOP was reduced to 40% in the house and senate that they would stop their obstructionist at all cost behavior or would they become even more hostile and entrenched? Cognitive dissonance theory says they will become increasingly hostile and entrenched.
The best bipartisanship is bipartisanship by alternation - the winning party gets to enact their agenda, and if the voters don't like it, next election they can vote the bums out and vote in new bums to reverse that agenda. And if both parties are full of obstructionist bums and the SYSTEM prevents good candidates from getting elected what do you do? Not vote and hope? Protest? Revolt? Vote for Pat Paulsen? (that would be a trick eh?) Or actively work within the system for positive change to a better system rather than just ACCEPT the system we have with all it's flaws?
Enjoy Notes: (1) -there are several mathematically tested ways of voting for multiple candidates that will result in the best candidate for all voters being selected -- we do not have such a system. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You do realize that there are more than two parties in the elections Not in any meaningful sense. Even in democracies with significant third-party activity, they break down into two opposing coalitions on nearly every issue. Now, sometimes the coalitions change based on what issue it is, but voters, per issue, are presented with two options. Two is better than one, in my opinion. When "centrism" rules the day, what use are elections when you get a "centrist" either way?
In elections like this, if we MUST stick to a single vote system, it would be better to be able to vote against the worst pick so that you get either a good enough or a better candidate. Alternate voting systems have much to recommend them, I don't disagree. I'm not terribly interested in election reform because, for the most part, it only really matters at the margins. And regardless of how you reform elections, you still have the enormous problem of a federal government that is burdened by an incredible status quo bias due to the antimajoritarian rules of the Senate. It's not just the filibuster; it's Dennis Hastert's "majority of the majority" requirement for the House, it's single-senator anonymous holds on all Senate business, it's the constitution of the Senate itself which substantially overrepresents rural conservatives, and so on.
The process of compromise was embraced by the founding fathers as a way to accomplish BETTER legislation than any one person alone could provide. But clearly it doesn't have that result. Compromise isn't always possible. What compromise is possible, for instance, between people who recognize the enormous danger of global warming and people whose personal fortunes depend greatly on enormous continued subsidies of fossil fuels? There really is a problem here where it's like a wolf and a sheep trying to "compromise" on what's for dinner. It really is the case that the American body politic is trying to negotiate competing and mutually exclusive interests of different segments of the United States. Compromise doesn't work and we don't need it to work. We can have "compromise by alternation" where voters can select an agenda and if it works, great - we keep going like that. If it doesn't, throw the bums out and try a new agenda. That's how democracy works in every other country. No other democratic nation has survived under our system, where the minority party can obstruct the majority, block the agenda, and then reap electoral victory on a platform of "reforming the Washington gridlock."
And when the polarization reaches the point where neither party is able to pass any legislation because they are held hostage by the other for amendments that are not acceptable to the party in power -- when nothing gets done year after year, president after president -- does THAT serve the people's interest? No, absolutely not. That's why the system needs to be reformed such that the minority party can't hold the agenda hostage. I mean, it's all very well and good to wish that the minority party would weaken itself by not using every legal means of politics at its disposal, but why would they do that? 1) From a cynical standpoint, they reap no electoral gains from compromise and great gains from obstruction. 2) From an ideological standpoint, the politics of the majority are fundamentally destructive to America and they must be opposed by any legal means. 3) It's not like, if they play nice, the majority party is going to remember and play nice when the tables are turned. They'll have the first two reasons not to, after all. This isn't the iterative prisoners dilemma because congressional seats change hands - it's different prisoners every election.
Do you think that if the GOP was reduced to 40% in the house and senate that they would stop their obstructionist at all cost behavior or would they become even more hostile and entrenched? If the GOP was reduced to 40% of the House and Senate, and the rules of those two bodies were reformed to be majoritarian, it wouldn't matter if they tried to be obstructionist or not - they would have no power to obstruct. That's what I'm advocating - reforms to the system so that elections matter and the minority party can't obstruct a democratically enacted agenda.
Or actively work within the system for positive change to a better system rather than just ACCEPT the system we have with all it's flaws? I'm asking you not to accept the system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Would a catholic conservative be seen taking up Britain's corruption of the Balfour, which happens to be the worst Post-W.W.II crime today? This is of course absent in the Tea Party's radar, which says Britain enjoys an immunity of the gravest of crimes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
IAJ writes: Would a catholic conservative be seen taking up Britain's corruption of the Balfour, which happens to be the worst Post-W.W.II crime today? Are you talking about the Balfour Declaration? Are you saying that the Balfour Declaration was corrupt or that the Balfour Declaration was corrupted by Britain and that is somehow a crime? Do you have any idea what the Balfour Declaration really is? Are you familiar with the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence? Do you know when WWII happened?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
Lincoln getting assassinated is the worst post-millennium crime today! Do you know when WWII happened?Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Washington Examiner Article The House Republicans have already tried to repeal Obamacare, and only now are they trying to put forward a plan to replace it. Even worse, their plan is to give tax payer money to insurance companies. They don't want to fix the problem. They want to feed the problem. It is the complicit relationship between insurance companies and hospitals that is causing the drastic rise in health costs. As a for profit system it is in their interest to out-price the bottom 15% of Americans. There is no profit in lowering prices to make health care affordable to the bottom 15%. None. What is the Repulican plan? They want to encourage this behavior. Why? Because they cater to the rich. What percentage of TPers is made up of those who make more than $250,000 a year? Probably big minority. Ironic, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Rahvin writes: It was either a quote-mine, or an example of incapacity for reading comprehension. I've seen your ability to comprehend what you read, ergo I can only conclude the remaining option. There you go again, "thinking" peremptorily again. Such limited thinking Rhavin.
Rahvin writes:
Yes, I comprehended that part the first time you wrote it, thank you. And here again is my UNRELATED, simple, honest question:
Since you apparently need it spelled out directly:YES, I would have a problem with for-profit fire, police, education, and other socially necessary services in which a for-profit business model would result in denial of insured services carrying larger profits. Drone writes: If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too? Rahvin writes: a grade-school child could easily establish that the very next sentence after your quote was an indictment against any for-profit social service, like fire, police, healthcare, or education. No, no, and no. Because you included the qualifier "denying coverage" in your subsequent sentence, it would not NECESSARILY follow that it was an indictment against ANY potentially-for-profit social service, like fire, police, and libraries. Thus my simple and honest clarifying question didn't include "denying coverage". Now, I have read that you want to tell me what I "really" meant by my single, simple question, but I can assure you I know what I meant. I am well aquainted with . . . me. It's kinda the part I was born to play. You're behaving like Crashfrog insisting you can mind read my "real" thoughts. Per the forum's rules, argue the argument that was written. Pretty simple advise. Rhavin, knowing your liberal bias history (except for murdering woman and children with atom bombS as a FIRST resort based on a best-hoped-for outcome), I concede it was plausible for ME to GUESS what you meant in your original post. But I also thought your post was clumsy enough to need clarification for the benefit of tea-party and republican voting lurkers, hence my one simple and HONEST question. Now that I know you'll ONLY peremptorily jump to angry accusations when faced with simple and honest questions, I will be more clear in the future, mea culpa. Having conceded that, your original post WAS clumsy and your followup proves it. That you had to STRAIN so hard in your "parallel" examples below shows that your original post was shaky, at best. Rhavin writes these contrived and BS examples (get this):
Rahvin writes: Denying police protection while soaking up tax/private payment/whatever = higher profit. Denying a fire truck for an emergency fire call while taking revenue from "fire insurance" = higher profit. Fewer books at a library while accepting payment = higher profit. Just comical. "Denying police protection while soaking up tax/private payment/WHATEVER = higher profit". Yeah, its always a sign you were abundantly clear when you desperately use the example "WHATEVER" in your followup. How in the world does "soaking up tax" translates/parallels to private business profiting? Just who is doing the soaking? Be specific. Just how widespread is private payment in police protection for profit? This is simply silly. "Denying a fire truck for an emergency fire call while taking revenue from "fire insurance" = higher profit." What? I tried reading this three times for maximum/ANY comprehension. Are you stating in the real world that a fire department has actually made a profit on FIRE-INSURANCE? Really? When has that EVER happened? Actually your argument seems to be counter productive, wouldn't a fire insurance company want to limit the damages paid out by having as many fire trucks called as possible to limit the damage? Cite an actual example or concede this is a ridiculously contrived and non-sensical BS example. "Fewer books at a library while accepting payment = higher profit." LOL, what? Please specify who in this example is profiting. Be specific. Seems to be the book publisher, not the library. And are you confusing PROFIT with outright THEFT. There's a difference Rhavin. Perhaps this is the reason for your on-going confusion. Thusly, Rhavin, for your ongoing arguments to hold ANY weight, the real/actual world health insurance profit example would have to be juxtaposed/paralleled with REAL/ACTUAL real world fire department, police department and library profit examples, not silly contrived "whatever"s.
Drone writes:
We already have death panels, they're called insurance companiesRahvin writes: Agreed completely. Great, I wish more "liberal" readers would view Obamacare in this light. Since this is the ONLY issue I wanted lurkers to glean from your original and potentially erroneous post, you can dispatch with the above silly examples and posts. A pity that we waisted time and effort to get to this simple and honest declaration.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024