You can’t make this stuff up. New RNC chair Michael Steele went on Stephanopoulos this weekend and made a complete ass of himself. Apparently, in his world, private sector jobs never disappear, they just hibernate for a while and then reawaken. What a maroon.
See for yourself. And then tell me if this guy is the one to lead the GOP out of the wilderness.
Please share widely!
Steele bizarrely asserts that government jobs like road construction aren’t “jobs” because they are short-term contracts that end at a certain point. Has he never heard of contract work in the private sector? What planet does this guy live on?
The Bush Administration?
… He and many other GOP talking heads are throwing around talking points to see what sticks. It’s opposition as policy, not opposition in service toward a good end for the country. If they really thought that their ideas were better for the country, they’d argue them and let them stand on their merits, not flail around bobbing for soundbite apples.
Is that in the RNC platform.
Noonan quote: The party in power is smug and arrogant; the party out of power is insane.
Crucify me if you will, but I have just watched the tape with George Stephanopoulos and I thought that it was George who was totally baffled and unable to understand job creation. Here again, I guess one’s underlying philosophy determines the reality that one hears. How are make-work jobs going to improve things? One man’s maroon is another’s oreo.
well, I suppose the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has numbers that show that for every $1 of spending on construction jobs, $1.73 (off the top of my head) in new economic growth is created, making it one of the most effective forms of stimulus. What does that mean? These jobs create new jobs, which create new jobs, which create new jobs. The exact opposite happens when jobs are cut – as we’ve seen in this economy.
<
p>Plus, this spending will take place over several years – a 2-3 year long job isn’t exactly very short term work. That’s the kind of good job that can save a house and provide health insurance in a time that’s spiraling very close to a full-scale depression, giving people enough time to survive this recession until more jobs are available later (perhaps when credit is flowing again and private companies are doing more construction). Getting America through the next few years is of the utmost priority; times will get better, but only if we can make it to better days intact. Otherwise, the recession spirals and we’re looking at the abyss.
<
p>Moreover, the spending and work done, if done well, doesn’t go away: fix a road, build a bridge or extend a subway and there’s tons of permanent jobs that are created through new economic growth in the area and improvement to the infrastructure. That’s probably the best part of infrastructure spending; when you improve the infrastructure, that allows for new businesses to move in and existing businesses to become more successful. There’s plenty of examples of that even locally – just look at Davis Square in Somerville, which is very different now than it was before it got a t stop. Not everyone is a fan of gentrification, but you can’t deny the permanent economic growth of adding convenient infrastructure. So the idea that there’s anything temporary about this economic growth is false, as is the idea that people will magically get jobs 2-3 years from now when the economy improves, or that they’ll survive until then without going bankrupt and losing everything. Steele apparently thinks we should be happy to be bankrupt as we wait for magical days ahead that may not come for decades should we not act now and do so decisively.
I hope that you are right, but I am really concerned that we are just throwing money down a rat hole.
because if you don’t, you never get to tomorrow.
<
p>Rest assured, we could be paying people to dig holes, then fill them in, then do it all over again the next day. That would be “economic stimulus” and get us by these next few years, if we paid enough people to do it.
<
p>The fact that we’re spending the money on infrastructure, health care, education and renewable energy should all make you feel very confident in how this money is being spent – because not only do these things create jobs, but they do so in a way that is far more constructive and long-lasting than digging holes over and over again. The money we spend now will make a difference, creating permanent jobs for years to come, as well as a smarter, more talented workforce. It’s money well spent when we’re standing on the ledge of an economic cliff.
I think it’s rotten to personally insult anyone, no matter how much you disagree with their ideology. This post would have been much better without the name-calling (ass, moroon). This is exactly the type of immature language that I and others have been arguing against in the thread about comments on the Globe website.
Part of political debate is defining what lies outside the bounds of reasonable or intelligent opinion. Saying that Steele is spouting idiocy (or even that he is an idiot) usefully moves us away from unproductive considerations.
<
p>My favorite example: the civil rights movement successfully moved certain kinds of thinking outside those bounds so that people are now rightfully dismissive of the racist theories that used to be allowed in “on the one hand/on the other hand” discussions. William F. Buckley even recanted!
Name calling and personal attacks only distract from the argument under consideration, serves to discredit the name-caller, and alienates people who are looking for thoughtful discourse. That’s totally counter-productive.
<
p>Does your example involve name-calling and personal attacks?
<
p>I like to examine things under the lens of the golden rule: so would you want someone who disagreed with you to call you names? I doubt it.
“Shock” is not an argument.
I agree with you that “shock” is not an argument. It is also not my argument. But if you’d kindly read past the title of my comment, you would see what my argument is.
Okay. Okay. I can break it down.
<
p>1. Name calling and personal attacks only distract from the argument under consideration, serves to discredit the name-caller, and alienates people who are looking for thoughtful discourse.
<
p>First, it is not the case that name calling always “discredits the name-caller”. To say that Mr. Steele’s clearly illogical comments are idiotic is to name them what they are. That might enhance the credit of the name caller. The political goal is to get Republicans either to address policy issues seriously and thoughtful or to be silent. Mr. Steele is doing neither and he increases the danger of economic misery by doing so. Discrediting Mr. Steele’s illogical talking point serves an immense value.
<
p>2. That’s totally counter-productive.
<
p>You know this.
<
p>How do you know this?
<
p>Answer: you don’t know this, because it clearly isn’t true. The historical record shows it isn’t true.
<
p>I suspect you just find harsh rhetoric distasteful. That’s fine. We all have preferences. Nothing wrong with that. I don’t like Maurice Ravel’s or Richard Strauss’ music, but that doesn’t mean their music is wrong or should be discouraged or banned.
<
p>3. Does your example involve name-calling and personal attacks?
<
p>Why yes, it does! After the success of the civil rights movement, one could call someone a bigot and that became a charged term and a personal attack. That was part of racism becoming less acceptable. No small part of the success of the women’s movement was getting people to think about what it means to be sexist. Nothing focuses the mind better on that question than being accused of it. So, absolutely and demonstrably, personal attacks and name-calling have an important role.
<
p>4. I like to examine things under the lens of the golden rule: so would you want someone who disagreed with you to call you names? I doubt it.
<
p>Political discussion is essentially moral discussion. It’s a clash of ethics. My ethics are more utilitarian than deontological. So no, I do not examine things under the lens of the golden rule. I want to figure out what results in the most good.
<
p>Warning: if you are going to be harsh and absolutist about your ethics, this will not be a fun place for you. Your ethics are not everyone’s ethics.
<
p>You ask about my preferences about being called names. As a matter of fact on Red Mass Group, where I don’t post, someone used to call me names all the time. And no, that’s not always an “issue” for me. My opinions for many conservatives are on the other side of acceptable and so of course they will call me names. That’s just the nature of political discussion particularly with those with whom one has sharp disagreements.
very often to aid the greater good, one has to do things that may be objectively wrong.
There is alas no such thing. Otherwise we derive ethics from physics.
… the starting point for a much larger conversation about moral relativism vs. moral objectivism. Suffice to say that there is a school of though that says that objectivism and universality is implied in the very metaphysical concept of morality. Most people think in terms of objectivism even if they don’t realize it (this is why the shoe-on-the-other-foot seems to be a valid moral test for most people).
What seems to have been bubbling to the surface in the last few decades has been an account of morality that leans more heavily on evolution, cognitive psychology, and the science of the brain.
<
p>By that account, we arrive preprogrammed with a bunch of moral preferences. That would explain the widespread intuition that morality is objective.
… recent stuff on the biology of morality and ethics. (There was a recent Nova on simians that even touched on the subject) However, if we acknowledge that concepts can be defined independent of biology, then it should be also acknowledged that a non-biological concept of morality can imply universality or subjectivity independently of biology. My own take (short form – the long form requires co-location in a pub) is that the concept itself does indeed imply universality, but that any attempt to understand the universal principals (or even to assess if they exist at all) is hopelessly subjective. So conceptually, morals are universal, but we can’t really understand them. The things we call morals that we operate with every day just don’t happen to actually fit the concept we associate with our use of the term, but are rather a subjective understanding the concept in question. Moral precepts that seem to have universality only seem so by illusion for reasons of biology (as has been recently talked about) or for reasons of reduction.
I think you lost barbq somewhere back at 8th and Vine.
Basically, KBusch is saying that insults are morally justified because they are the means to achieving a good and desirable political outcome. I just think that strategy is doomed because it turns people off and they will stop listening to her as a result. Plus, it’s an easy counter-punch to attack one’s arguments by pointing out the use of incivility. Why give your opponent that opportunity? There’s nothing to be gained.
… were far from merely advocating a strategy, you were expressing offense. Personally, I find ridicule to be a reasonable tool for some applications. Knowing that the target might be turned off might be an ancillary consideration once one comes to the conclusion that conversion is unlikely anyway. At this point what can be gained isn’t conversion of the original target, but the dissuasion of others from a similar position. I wish I could find it but I had a much longer comment on another post somewhere on the legitimacy, appropriateness or effectiveness of shame as a rhetorical tactic. Ridicule is a part of that.
styles of communication have a purpose. Even gossip, something most claim to abhor, has an evolutionary etiology. You seem to approach the dialogue here as a having an expressed purpose: to convince your opponent that your POV is correct. That’s misguided, in my view. There is no agreed upon “outcome” for the communication on this site; it’s merely a watercooler for people of similar (and some dissimilar) political views to share, vent, discuss, explore, etc.
<
p>Consequently, if Ryan wishes to deem Mr. Steele an idiot, there is nothing wrong with that. Were Mr. Ryan to call Mr. Steele an idiot in a setting, however, in which the purpose of the dialogue is to reach consensus, then “idiot” might not be the best term to use. My personal favorite is “dolt,” but that’s just me.
<
p>As one who is especially fond of the snarky, terse put-down, I don’t really care if I’ve offended anyone’s sensibilities on this site. Indeed, most of the people hanging out here don’t care about offending anyone, either. So if you’re the type to take offense at someone else’s tone or diction, you may find this place not to your liking. Don’t think, for a second, however, that your scolding is going to improve or change the discourse. It won’t.
with the BMG Rules of the Road policy:
Your application of the “Rules of the Road” to Ryan’s comment about Mr. Steele’s idiocy suggests the following:
<
p>1. Words of a non-vulgar nature that are insulting or negative are in violation of the RotR.
2. Negative opinions expressed with such words are in violation of the RotR.
<
p>Neither of those notions is remotely consistent with past practice on this site. Moreover, Ryan did not call a fellow poster an idiot–that’s something I would do. He merely characterized a public figure as such, so you can decelerate the RotR adherence a bit. As I read and understand the rules both textually and operationally, they are designed to moderate abusive encounters between actual posters, not restrain opinion about policy or statements by public officials. Indeed, the owners of this site have similarly characterized public figures in negative terms–some, I believe, in even more colorful language than that.
<
p>BTW, flogging dead horses is worthless, so I’m done with my own .02, but I will say this. Your prissy and punctilious cleavage to decorum is really odd. Have a glass of wine and chill out.
See my further comments on the RotR here.
My main target was David’s post, not Ryan’s comment. I think you are splitting hairs by interpreting the RotR as applying only to discussions between blog participants, that’s not how I read it. However, I am sure you are correct that this is how the policy has been applied in the past. That’s unfortunate in my opinion, but I see how the way the rules have been enforced can alter our perceptions of their meaning.
He held her and gazed longingly at her prissy and punctilious cleavage. She gasped, but she didn’t pull away. Her breasts extended outwards, and she felt an electric thrill course through her body as she longed for him to dunk his crumpet into her marmalade….
<
p>Sorry, long day.
… to worry about barbq at the left turn at Albuquerque. This was purely for Kbush and JoeTS’s benefit (or not).
Do you rationalize something that may be wrong as actually being good because it wouldn’t be wrong if it had a good outcome?
<
p>The nitty gritty is causing me to positively have teleological goosebumps!
I generally think that a utilitarian calculation is best. Certainly in politics.
<
p>However, there are things about that that I’m not so sure of. For example, we tend to weigh the happiness of those near us more than those far away, and I’m not willing to give up that distortion in the utility function. I guess the closer to home, the more deontological I get.
<
p>Perhaps, Mr. Lynne, who appears to be more versed in such matters, will offer a wiser opinion.
… he’s more one than the other he implies that he isn’t totally one or the other. As such, I take it to mean that he hasn’t fully explored the potential conflict of the two ways of thinking. In this way he is like the vast majority of people (you too I suspect) in that they follow their ethical instincts but have not delved into the technical (philosophical) underpinnings of their moral precepts enough to codify them completely. Like most of us, he ‘sticks to what works’, and for him it (I assume) usually conforms to some kind of utilitarian model.
<
p>Also, he may have been intending to refer to the assertion of objectivity rather than objectivity itself. Asserting ‘objective’ anything is tantamount to asserting ‘knowing the truth’. The interjection of the Physics comment could be taken as an inference that, since any moral precept can’t be measured for ‘right and wrong’, assertions about anyone’s ability to know right from wrong ‘objectively’ should be treated as suspect.
<
p>All of the above stated under the assumption that I’m not actually speaking for him, nor know enough details to claim actually knowing anything about it. But for pubspeak, It’ll do.
<
p>It’d be interesting if more of us, in general, had taken a moral philosophy course or two. But all that being said, I’d rather there be a mandatory course in Logic (symbolic or otherwise) first.
<
p>I know. Very ‘ivory tower’, but there it is.
<
p>We must continue hurling insults and try to humiliate them until they start getting serious and thoughtful. What?! This reminds me of the saying “the whippings will continue until morale improves”.
<
p>
<
p>… we hold these truths to be self-evident …
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, I’m just turned off by insults and demeaning characterizations. Does that make me weird? I hope not.
<
p>
<
p>According to Wikipedia, the term “bigot” dates back to at least 1598.
<
p>
<
p>Sounds like “what goes around comes around”. Why not be the better person and stop slinging the mud.
<
p>My premise here is that there are many people who are not in either camp (far left or far right)who are being turned off by the harsh rhetoric. I’m not talking about Republican leadership, but rather everyday people who are worried about their jobs and are looking for thoughtful discussion on how to fix the mess this country is in. Can we agree on that?
I don’t think you understood what I wrote.
<
p>Oh well.
<
p>Let’s not torture the right margin with this any further.
that there are liberals who still think there are national republicans “looking for thoughtful discourse.”
<
p>These are not people who disagree with us. These are people who don’t give a living shit about us and believe all politics is a game where the winners get to reap all the rewards and spoils of government. Have you been sleeping for the past 8 years, Barbq? What exactly is it that you put in your secret sauce? If so, can I have some of that, too?
First, who do you mean by “national republicans”?
<
p>I was just saying that there are people out there who are looking for thoughtful discourse. Their opinions matter to politics and to the future of this country. Do you disagree?
<
p>Unfortunately, I can’t share the recipe of my secret sauce, because, well, it’s a secret 🙂
national republicans… its leadership, primarily.
<
p>They are not interested in compromise. Obama starts out with huge tax cuts in the stimulus and takes out nearly every funding initiative that the House GOP had a problem with – and yet he gets 0 votes in the House, 3 votes in the Senate. You call this a party we can have thoughtful discourse with?
<
p>Even with the case of Specter, Collins and Snowe, the only one who I remotely trust is Snowe – and I don’t trust her any further than I can throw her. Collins will do whatever she pleases as she just won reelection – she’s made the stimulus much, much worse, killing very effective spending. Specter’s been put in his place by his party before (immigration bill, SCOTUS picks) and he will again. If he shows any real backbone in future bills, he’ll be primaried… and quite likely lose. Hopefully he’ll lose anyway, no matter what.
<
p>But make no mistake, this is not a party we can have healthy discourse will. They’ll eat our babies if they think it will help them derail our agenda. Some of them may be very, very polite, but they’re not good people. We don’t need to be their friends, we need to thoroughly beat them and humiliate them. Maybe after that, they’ll be able to reform from their ashes into a party that isn’t run by the greedy, absurd and ethno-homophobic.
It sure is a mystery why those evil, greedy, absurd and ethno-homophobic, yet extremely polite, Republicans aren’t interested in having a healthy discourse with us, angry, name-calling Democrats who only want to beat them and humiliate them. After all, unlike them, we are open to compromise, unless, of course, the other side disagrees with us, because then we’ll just call them evil baby-eaters. Can someone help me out here??
That’s a straw man.
<
p>No one is arguing for beating and humiliating Republicans — or even that beating and humiliating is a means to the ultimate end. Nor is that the suggested tactic.
<
p>I think you just don’t understand what Ryan and I are advocating.
<
p>You may not even want to understand.
what Ryan meant when he said
Then when you ask again for a response they will complain it’s a “gotcha” question or that you have created a strawman. Don’t look for satisfaction from them but again be ready for the Ad Hom attacks.
When you create strawmen and/or ask gotcha questions we call you on it. Deal.
<
p>barbq – please go read a sampling of JohnD’s interactions, then ponder whether you want to be on the same side of the discussion.
<
p>He’s mostly here to fight. In fact, he’s one of the people I had in mind in our discussion of folks whose main intent is to disrupt.
<
p>And you are hear for constructive dialogue with those who agree and disagree? HA! barbq made a few suggestions about being civil while still disagreeing and you guys attacked like vultures!
Be careful… barbq might judge you harshly for ‘vulture’ calling.
Sorry to all and to vultures everywhere.
In this thread, I am being just as hard on a liberal as I’ve ever been on you, JohnD.
You have been beyond “engaged” in this tussle. I have to say that barbq has done a great job of holding their own and I was impressed with the tenacity, eloquence and thoughtful rebukes. KBusch did a great job coming back but I think the reason was the bar was raised. I certainly couldn’t argue on this level (darn I wish I could). Great job to both of you and many of us on the sidelines learned a few things.
They’re scavengers, so mostly eat dead animals. Their M.O. is to circle and wait for you to die.
<
p>Hopefully that will happen to this thread, soon.
Where?
…for discredit them politically. If you really believe that they are unwilling to have discourse, then your only strategic option is to make them a non-factor. I think this was his point.
Who was that guy from Texas who used to be President? You know, the one who didn’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shia before invading Iraq?
<
p>That one.
<
p>A number of books have been written about that guy — if you can think of his name — that showed that his administration lacked a policy apparatus but had a very strong political arm.
<
p>That’s what Ryan very accurately describes as “these are people who don’t give a living shit about us and believe all politics is a game where the winners get to reap all the rewards and spoils of government.”
<
p>The friends of those folks in Congress, of whom you seem not to have heard, seem to be basing lots of positions on all sorts of made-up economics.
<
p>Let me warn you: they can make up stuff faster than Ryan, you, and I can refute it.
<
p>Discrediting them is much more efficient.
<
p>Bring on the name-calling!
For some reason, people get this idea in their heads that just because one is an economist, one is somehow unbiased in their analysis and completely objective in their suggestions or all uniform in their economic philosophy.
<
p>I typically view an economist giving suggestions on government in the same way I would regard a philosopher going on CNN saying “well we really should integrate more Stoic Comspolitanism for X, Y, and Z reasons.” Economists are just philosophers who dabble in numbers rather than moral objectivism.
Isn’t it ironic, that KBusch and Ryan continue to defend the use of name-calling and personal attacks as an effective political device, yet they have not attempted to insult me in this thread to win their argument. Makes you wonder why they don’t practice what they preach.
what I preach and thus are in position to evaluate whether I practice it.
You don’t understand what I preach and thus are in no position to evaluate whether I practice it or not.
Look, I like new folks coming by (only one comment before 2/7/09). I’m glad you’ve decide to hang out and contribute.
<
p>I also think that F-bombs should be avoided.
<
p>But could you take a chill pill? The culture around here is pretty solid, the dialogue and language better than most, the editors outstanding. Additionally, the “what a maroon” line is a longstanding Internet joke (google gets 68k hits with quotes).
<
p>So please. Ease in to things. Focus on contributing by making strong comments yourself, not criticizing an editor for using “maroon” or a longstanding BMG poster for posting an image of a pretty famous web comic which spot on nails it.
I did think of you when I saw
this.
<
p>Enjoy.
Fixed, I hope here
I mean, 3 minutes, sure, haha funny I get it. But over 20 minutes? Who has time to splice all of that together?
I am 17:39 into it in another tab when I read your comment. No joke.
<
p>Ha!
Sorry, but I get pretty riled up when I see progressives tarnishing our image by speaking disrespectfully.
<
p>Maroon is a term of derision, a way of calling someone an ignoramous. It’s an insult, not just a joke.
<
p>I find it quite condescending to suggest that there should be a threshold of experience before which a BMG member can lodge criticism against a poster or editor.
you could have been around as long as me and it would still be OH THE HUMANITY if you dare challenge people to have civil discourse regarding the evil, greedy, bigoted, hateful republicans.
I think we’re only criticizing the Republican leadership. We like some individual Republicans just fine.
for a new participant to show up and worry not about the content of the discussion but the form.
<
p>kthx
I’m sorry, but I’m not afraid to call someone an idiot when they seek to keep my friends and family unemployed and in the poor house. Lots of very evil people are very polite.
remember, “evil” like “beauty” is in the eye of the beholder.
Steele having different opinions regarding stimulus or you having this delusion that he is “seeking” to keep anyone in the poor house?
And when you sling dung, dung sticks to yourself.
<
p>So, what makes you think Mr. Steele wants to keep your friends and family unemployed and in the poor house?
<
p>And just who are the “lots of very evil people” you are talking about? They can’t be too bad if they are polite at least.
The fact that he doesn’t support the stimulus.
<
p>
<
p>As I said, lots of very evil people can be very polite. I’m not saying Steele is “evil” but he’s not a particularly good person, given that the policies he pursues hurts a lot of people. I don’t care how “polite” he is, at least on camera, his policies are idiotic, plain and simple. I’m sorry, but the same economic agenda that has ruined this country cannot be tolerated as part of the debate. KBusch is right: there’s a time and a place for words like “idiot.” This isn’t the second grade anymore – there are actually such things as bad, stupid and idiotic ideas. The Republican economic agenda, for about 98% of America, is one of them.
<
p>If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Does name-calling help win the argument or persuade minds? I actually think it is a distraction and counter-productive.
<
p>I don’t think being against the stimulus package makes a person bad. Some people are against it because they think it’s not big enough, or that tax cuts would be more effective, or it’s pouring money into a broken system, or it spends on the wrong priorities, etc. Those are all valid reasons why a person might be against the stimulus bill, and it doesn’t make you a bad person for believing that.
<
p>If you start demonizing everyone who doesn’t always agree with you, you’ll end up having no friends. Did you ever think that maybe Mr. Steele might agree with you on other issues besides this one? It’s possible.
I don’t want rational discussion with national Republicans. They view that as a weakness. Again, you haven’t been paying attention for the past 8 years.
<
p>
<
p>Being against the stimulus = wants this country to fail. Again, you aren’t paying attention. They aren’t even trying to hide the fact they want Obama to fail. They’re taking Rush Limbaugh’s lead, who called upon Republicans to block Obama’s agenda – because if Obama succeeds, the Republicans are done for 2010.
<
p>They don’t want America to succeed. They want to win elections. Pure and simple. They have an agenda; the middle and working classes aren’t a part of it. CEOs? Sure. Union workers? I don’t think so. One Republican House member took umbrage to what Limbaugh said, publicly, and what happened? He was called by thousands of people telling how awful he was — Rush’s minions. What’s he do? Get on Rush’s show and beg forgiveness, for essentially saying that maybe Rush’s idea wasn’t a good idea.
<
p>I do not “demonize” people who disagree with me. I don’t even demonize anyone: I just refuse to rationalize with those who think I’m going to hell for being gay, who think America should fail, who send our troops to war based on lies, who kill countless Iraqis based on lies, who torture our prisoners and deny them their constitutional rights or ship them off to foreign countries where they’ll have their finger nails removed from their bodies. THESE are the people we’re dealing with — and you want to have a tea party with them. I will not deal with them in any way that doesn’t involve defeating them. They’re insane. You don’t rationalize with those who are insane — you make sure they aren’t a danger to themselves and others. After they’re no longer a danger, then maybe they can get treatment and become a party that again retains rational people and contributes occasionally rational ideas.
Sounds like some Bushistic absolutism, right there. So tell me, now that you’re the one playing these “I’m right or you’re unpatriotic” games, isn’t it just so much fun!
Republicans who vote for the bill and Obama’s agenda are going to be punished. One House Republican stood up to that nonsense and was begging for forgiveness around 24 hours later. Limbaugh is now your party’s leader. Eek.
<
p>Your party may not necessary want the country to fail, per say, they just want Democrats to – because they believe that will result in Republican victory come two years from now. This comes down to a matter of semantics, but I would suggest that anyone who wants the stimulus and President’s agenda to fail purely for political reasons does, indeed, seek to allow the country to fail – at least for two years.
<
p>If you have a problem with any of this, I have two suggestions: 1) change parties or 2) try to change the Republican Party from the inside. Good luck if you pick option 2. LOL.
Just for one minute imagine that both parties want the nation to thrive. Could it be possible that we disagree on what is the best method to get there. Could it be possible that those who are against the stimulus actually believe it will do more harm than good. You may disagree with their arguments, but to imply that because they don’t agree with your methods to achieve the same goal is the equivalent to wanting the country to fail.
I’ve heard the same trash from the far right when discussing liberal programs and philosophies. That the libs don’t care about the nation, they simply seek power and authority.
<
p>I dismiss both arguments as irrelevant due to extreme partisanship.
is following Limbaugh’s lead and Limbaugh has already said he wants this President to fail. that’s on the record. Only one Republican elected leader took offense to that – and he was lambasted by his base for it, begging for forgiveness the next day. Zero House Republicans voted for a stimulus bill that went far and wide to attract Republican support. You need to look objectively at the situation; your party cares more about electoral results than how government helps the rank and file person.
He’s not elected to any position, he has no leadership in the party. Should I assume House and Senate Democrats agree with the spewing of Keith Olbermann when he says something stupid, and Democrats fail to condemn him?
<
p>I dismiss both blowhards as irrelevant due to extreme partisanship.
When he said make Obama fail, the Republicans in the House listened – every single one of them. I’m sorry, but the facts are the facts – he is the defacto leader of your party and far from irrelevant in the GOP. When Keith blows hard, he doesn’t control votes on the floor. The same can’t be said of Limbaugh.
They like to complain about everything, specially when you aren’t from the tribe. You’ll also notice some inconsistencies in their stances. You are rightfully suggested we don’t get into name calling. They are defensive and are defending it. I do a fair amount of name calling here and get slammed for it. You’ll also note this post is about Michael Steel and yet the majority of the comments are attacking you. They also complain about comments being “off point” and they discourage “Ad Hom” comments, both of which they are doing in their comments to you.
<
p>My advice is to keep to your guns and don’t waver from their critiques. Write the way you want and make suggestions as you see them. Just be careful since they don’t take criticism well and will turn on you quickly. They will also use the “overwhelming” response to try to beat you down. There will be some who agree with you but they will likely be silent.
<
p>Welcome and watch-out!
You realize that your comment mostly consists of whining.
<
p>Don’t worry. I’m not discouraged, though!
And I’m happy that you aren’t discouraged KBusch nor should you. The Dems control everything and are well on their way to fixing everything thus insuring their continued stay in power. I just wish they would pass “some” Stimulus bill so I can figure out a way to make money off it.
<
p>PS Is my award virtual or do I get a trophy…
Your first post here was about how much smarter you were than everybody else and you’ve been insulting the contributors to this blog ever since.
<
p>You may consider insults “criticism” — most people don’t.
<
p>
I have to agree.
Obama went to Elkhart, IN and told them the stimulus is going to get them that downtown overpass that local businesses supposedly want.
<
p>I doubt that lack of an overpass led to the vacant shops along Elkhart’s main street. I doubt a overpass is going to bring them back.
<
p>Jobs will be created to build it. But once it’s done, unless the overpass magically brings RV customers back, those jobs are gone.
<
p>Yes, Steele is clumsy in his explanation. Not nearly as clumsy as Pelosi’s claim of losing 500 million jobs a month.
<
p>But the concept he’s getting at isn’t without merit.
<
p>I can recall only one time that I thought “Wow, I wish there was a road here.” What is with this nonsense of building roads?
<
p>States ignored their own infrastructure in order to spend elsewhere on things that were more politically popular. It’s not that states cannot afford these project on their own. It’s that it might mean they have to make reforms elsewhere — or cut services — to pay for it.
<
p>If we’re going to invest in building, I would rather see more emphasis on newer “roads” — specifically upgrading and securing the electrical grid, modernizing information architecture so that high speed internet is available throughout the country. I’d rather see the water supply shored up and investment in nuclear power.
<
p>Roads and bridges? No thanks.
<
p>Oh, and pretty schools? They don’t make kids learn better. Again, the fact that schools are in shambles is evidence of nothing more that inadequate local management or a populace that wants to eat dessert but leaves their vegetables.
It’s your statement “I can recall only one time that I thought ‘Wow, I wish there was a road here'” that leads me to that conclusion.
And no, it had nothing to do with them.
<
p>The time I am referring to was in Wisconsin a few years back when I literally came to the end of the highway (under construction) that would have allowed me to continue into Iowa.
that when you drive into the airport, you usually do so via a road?
you have to go way north of the airport, then cross the Merrimack and come back south?
<
p>NH is supposedly going to make a new connection between the airport and the ET. Maybe some stimulation will hasten that.
The Senate bill as of a week ago had 50 billion for nuclear power. With a B.
It has nuclear power with a z. Zero.
Please show me where Pelosi said we’re losing 500 million jobs a month.
here
nypost.com is a crap website for a crap paper, so I can’t even get your link to work. Or the homepage to work.
<
p>But the headline says it all. Pelosi briefly misspoke, and you’re trying to lie and pretend she meant to say 500 million and not 500,000. More lies from conservatives — same ol same ol.
You know, I was simply being helpful.
<
p>I noticed while skimming the thread that you ask for a link; I gave you a link, figuring that literally, you were looking for it.
<
p>But if you want to respond like a total prick, I’m more than happy to, you know, respond in kind.
<
p>Noted.
I thought you were arguing in sincerity, so I sincerely asked for a link. When I learned that in fact you were just going for another cheap shot, I responded in kind. If you want to hold a grudge, go ahead, but there are few things more pointless than an Internet grudge, IMO.
A thread to which I contribute 4 letters: “H-E-R-E” generates a reply from you that I’m ‘arguing in sincerity’ or ‘going for another cheap shot’ is surely puzzeling. Follow the thread.
And you have a long history of using, shall we say, dubious sources. Posting “here” in response to a question implies you’re providing an answer. As sabutai points out, if you actually read your link, Pelosi meant no such thing.
The link works now.
Pelosi said something absurd, but then corrected herself when it was pointed out to her. Steele said something absurd, but then stuck to it when challenged.
<
p>See the difference?
Why not answer David’s comment?
I should have pointed this out initially, but David’s post violates the Rules of the Road policy which prohibits “insults, personal attacks”, and “rudeness”. There is much interesting debate here in the comments, so perhaps rather than deleting the post and losing the conversation, it should be marked as an example of a policy violation. It is quite disturbing that an editor would so blatantly violate blog policy.
The excerpts you quote from the Rules are designed to foster civil discussion among participants on BMG. Last time I checked, Michael Steele wasn’t posting here, and I don’t expect him any time soon. (Of course, he’s welcome to chime in.) It’s similar to a cocktail party. It’s common to refer to some public official as an “ass” or an “idiot” in the course of cocktail party conversation; however, if you start calling the people in your conversation group asses and idiots, you’ll probably be thrown out. Just so here.
<
p>If you are so hyper-sensitive that you can’t stomach tough language when a public official says something stupid, then perhaps you should avoid political discussions.
<
p>And if you find the editors’ conduct here so “disturbing,” well, it’s a big internet.
David, admit it: it is only your opinion that Michael Steele said something stupid. It is my opinion that George Stephanopoulos, good ole befuddled George, is the one who deserves the epithet “ass.” Your name calling doesn’t disturb me because I recognize the mental deficiencies of liberals and have concomittant pity for same.
… you are more than welcome to create a post about Stephanopoulos being an ass. You have my pity for your mental deficiencies in not seeing this.
No one has to create a post about Stephanopoulos being uninformed in economics. His stupidity is obvious to anyone who watches the tape. To anyone except a liberal, of course.
Why do you want to be part of the conversation here if we liberals rank so far beneath you in mental capacity and ability to see the obvious? Are your pearls not wasted here among us mere progressive swine?
<
p>Perhaps Mensa sponsors a Political Discussion for Independent but Mostly Conservative Curmudgeons at which you would feel more at home.
<
p>Life’s short. Times are dark. Enjoy yourself better.
I’m only pointing out that one’s take on the Steele tape really depends on what one’s philosophy may be. I like this blog because you guys are intelligent, articulate and challenging, if not always correct in your analyses. Who is the curmudgeon?
Well, in my opinion, you used to be amusing but a bit irascible, but lately you’ve gone completely over into curmudgeon. I miss your sense of humor.
<
p>Do you think it could at least have a cameo in your next episode?
If so, are they Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform?
I used to be a liberal until I saw the error of my ways, until I grew up, until I got out in the real world, until I saw the corruption, until I was fired from my job polishing apples for Carmen Miranda’s headgear.
Edgar: “liberals are pure evil and you guys suck”
BMG: “go soak your head”
Edgar: “why are you guys so uptight?”
Also, I never referred to you as “evil.” I am sorry if I have antagonized you. Of course you are entitled to your opinions. And, perhpas, KBusch is correct: why should I continue to visit this site if I disagree with much of its philosophy. Proshchaite!
“What’s truly sad is a group of clones who get off by agreeing with each other about political banalities and half-lies” isn’t anywhere close to a compliment.
I got over it
<
p>
I love it how some people refer to torture as “harsh interrogation techniques” and you refer to insults as “tough language”. What’s so tough about resorting to name-calling?
<
p>If your goal with BMG was to foster civil discussion, why begin that discussion with name-calling? It’s counter-intuitive.
<
p>And what if Michael Steele did start posting here? What then? And how would you know?
… name calling at all. But of course, what he did was ascribe a name and then demonstrated with follow-up as to why he thought it was apt.
Being waterboarded and being called an “ass” sure do have a lot in common. If someone offered me a choice between the two, gosh, how ever would I choose?
<
p>Politics ain’t beanbag, as the saying goes, and this is a blog, not the Emily Post society. If you compare the discourse here to that at most other political blogs, I think we stack up pretty well. But, like I said, if you don’t like it, it’s a big internet.
Is that in both cases the tactic is defensively renamed to something less distasteful.
<
p>You also dodged my questions.
I also agree with him.
I can’t think of a game in which the umpire is a player, to be both simultaneously would be unfair.
Still, there are a lot of player/coaches out there. And player/owners (e.g Mario Lemieux)
because the rarely come across as umpires, and the posters here, because they rarely seem to require an umpire.
I’m a sucker for symmetric constructions.
have been amply addressed elsewhere in this overly long thread. But if you insist:
<
p>What’s so tough about resorting to name-calling?
<
p>That is not a serious question; it is contentious and argumentative, rather like asking “What’s so great about sliced bread?” If you want to rephrase, go ahead.
<
p>If your goal with BMG was to foster civil discussion, why begin that discussion with name-calling? It’s counter-intuitive.
<
p>Nonsense. What Steele said was absurd — it was factually wrong, and it reflected an astonishing disconnect with the way the world actually works. I simply said so, in a manner designed to leave no doubt whatsoever about my views. One of the useful things blogs bring to political discourse is an absence of the false balance that “on the one hand, on the other hand,” or “some say this, but others say that” journalism can create. If something is stupid, such as what Steele said on national TV, it should be called out as such. The fact that I used the mildly provocative terms “idiocy” and “ass” is secondary — the insults are so milquetoasty that I’m frankly astounded that anyone’s knickers are in such a twist over them.
<
p>And what if Michael Steele did start posting here? What then? And how would you know?
<
p>I wouldn’t know, unless he chose to post under his real name. But anonymity is irrelevant — we have deleted posts and comments, and occasionally banned users, who have violated the rules vis-a-vis other users, regardless of whether the users posted under their own names. The point, as has been stated several times elsewhere in this thread, is that the rules are designed to control discourse among participants on this site. In the vanishingly unlikely event that he starts posting here, we will afford him the same benefit of the rules that all other users get, and we will expect other users to do the same.
You admit that you used insults against Mr. Steele in the post, yet you stand by your strict policy of prohibiting insults among participants. This is like allowing one’s children to hit other people’s kids, but not each other.
<
p>The message is: as long as you hurt other people, it’s ok, they don’t matter. But when you take that attitude, it affects the way you treat the people around you, too. It sanctions a dehumanizing mind-set.
<
p>Furthermore, if the insults are so “milquetoasty” mild, why wouldn’t they be acceptable among participants?
<
p>And since you wouldn’t know whether Mr. Steele participates on this blog, doesn’t it make more sense to act as though he did, just to eliminate any possibility that you might be violating your own policy?
<
p>I know you have little time to engage me on this topic, so I appreciate your indulgence.
You barbq apparently don’t care about the consequences of allowing Steele et al. to get away with torpedoing the economy to enhance their partisan advantage. You have offered nothing zero zippo in the way of answering them effectively. In fact, you don’t even care about answering them effectively.
<
p>While it’s charming and cute that you care about “names”, those of us who think more about politics care more about the “sticks and stones” side of the moral equation.
<
p>Make no bones about it: I submit that you — not David — is the moral monster.
KBusch, I care so much about the progressive response to misguided Republican policy nonsense, that I’m willing to subject myself to the thankless task of pointing out the counter-productive and distracting tactic of resorting to insults and name-calling when used by my allies on this blog. I want to help ensure our collective response is as effective and flawless as possible, because we can’t afford to give our opponents any easy counter-punches. We can’t afford to turn off the multitude of potential allies with “harsh rhetoric”. The stakes are too high.
<
p>Do you think that Obama would have won if he had started insulting his opponents? No, because it would have turned the voters off. It’s unimaginable for that type of thing to work in a serious political discussion.
<
p>I’ll wait right here for your apology for calling me a “moral monster”. I think that qualifies as a personal attack, prohibited by the RotR.
You continue to worry about the names and continue to avoid addressing the sticks and stones. Could you take that challenge as more than just an application of trite sayings? It really is more complicated than a black or white choice between a stream of abusive language and Sunday school behavior. Some of us (not me) have run political campaigns; most of us have been involved in them.
<
p>Your first paragraph is embarrassingly smug and full self-regard. Kind of what stomv predicted. Hopefully you will begin to “subject yourself” to something new.
I’m not worried about the names, per se, I’m worried that our collective arguments against the opposition are undermined by nasty personal attacks, instead of pointing out the advantages of our proposals and the deficiencies of theirs. I’m arguing for civil discourse, something that BMG strives for in principle, if not in practice.
<
p>I was one of the two most active volunteers in a recent successful MA state rep race who purposefully stayed away from making nasty personal attacks against his opponent. So I have personal experience with the effectiveness of this strategy.
<
p>I’m not sure how what I said amounts to smugness or self-regard when I was describing my concern for our collective political effectiveness.
<
p>It is ironic that you challenge me to focus my arguments on the “sticks and stones”, Steele’s talking points, when my argument started by pointing out that this is precisely what David should have done, rather than lodging nasty personal attacks that distract from his valid criticisms.
It is obtuse of you to miss the main point.
<
p>You are arguing about how we should conduct the ideological debate. You don’t care about whether it is won or not, just how it is conducted. A sign of your not caring about whether it is won or not is that your breezy indifference to questions regarding political persuasion or moral consequences.
<
p>Consequently, despite your protestations, I think all you’re actually saying is, “David, please don’t say that your making me uncomfortable.”
<
p>If you cared at all about winning the political conflicts, you’d actually say something concrete about them that wasn’t platitudinous or trite.
David Axelrod advised the DCCC as well as the Elliot Spitzer and Deval Patrick campaigns. He was Barrack Obama’s chief strategist and is now a senior adviser at the White House.
<
p>A lot of important Democrats are under the impression that he knows what is effective in politics.
<
p>In an interview by the Washington Post, he was asked about some recent comments by Karl Rove. Axelrod replied:
That sounds like what you might call an insult or a personal attack.
<
p>Should you perhaps be “subjecting yourself” to a job at the White House — or, at least, educating David Axelrod who might continue with the “counter-productive and distracting tactic of resorting to insults.”
Yes, it’s a personal attack, but it wasn’t nasty. He didn’t say Karl Rove “made a complete ass of himself” or that he is a “maroon”. I’m not arguing against attacking your opponent for his views or poor ethics, but rather to keep that criticism civilized.
That’s exactly what it is, and intentionally so. Yes, we would ban someone who repeatedly insulted another BMG participant in terms that are tolerated in reference to public figures. That comes with the territory of being a public figure, especially a politician. They know it when they get into the business, and I can assure you that not a single one of them ever cared about being called an “ass” on a blog. So your concern on their behalf is utterly misplaced. In fact, the extent to which you’ve overreacted to a comparatively tame post is, well, I’d say pretty much unprecedented in the history of BMG.
<
p>It’s a blog. We’re pretty happy with the way it runs. We’re not changing it.
By “hurt” I didn’t mean personally hurt. I doubt Mr. Steele will ever know how you insulted him. But you launched a personal attack against him and sanctioned that behavior by posting it prominently. As an editor of a widely-read blog, you should be setting a higher standard for civil discourse. But hey, it’s your blog, so do what you want.
A personal attack would not be about what Mr. Steele said. It would be about who Mr. Steele was. It would impugn his college, his town, his profession, his wife, something about him personally. Saying that Mr. Steele in his professional capacity as chair of the RNC is saying things that are idiotic is not a personal attack.
<
p>Answer us this then. Take a trip to the left blogosphere. Say Talking Points Memo, or, if you’re wonkier, Brad DeLong’s, Ezra Klein’s, or Paul Krugman’s blogs. Look at all the errant nonsense the Republicans have been blasting down the airwaves. Would you answer our question? How is one to answer these lies that multiply like rabbits? Should they all be laboriously and politely refuted in a way that does not diminish the credit of the person asserting the misinformation?
<
p>Will that work?
<
p>How will that work?
<
p>Give an historical example of that working or, failing that, something empirical that’s more than a trite Sunday school saying about why it will work.
<
p>I suggest that the only way to handle this torrent of crap is to discredit it.
<
p>Let me add: it is a very dangerous torrent of crap. The stakes are higher than your fantasies about Mr. Steele’s feelings.
<
p>Does saying that he “made a complete ass of himself” and is a “maroon” qualify as nasty personal attacks?
<
p>
<
p>Yes, politely refuted. One can attempt to discredit one’s opponent by attacking her arguments or her conflicts of interest.
<
p>
<
p>Obama won.
Your style of response mostly seems to consist of pulling out one word or phrase, offering a pedantic mostly irrelevant refutation of the phrase and then throwing the argument in which it is embedded away. This is ironic, too. You want us to argue politely and all, but you don’t show much aptitude for doing it productively. Oddly, you seem precisely to be the kind of person with whom one cannot argue on the merits since you are certain your truths are already “self-evident”. You are happy to have a single idea in your head.
<
p>So I’m not sure this is worth it.
<
p>The utilitarian/deontological thing clearly sailed right over your head without your bothering to understand it.
<
p>Anyway, let me take you more seriously for a moment than you take me — or any of your other “allies” here.
First, it is well known that negative ads by and large work despite the fact that most people will say they hate them. You may think it is self-evident that personal attacks, even nasty ones, are counter-productive. That is far from self-evident though.
<
p>Consider the recent science wars: smoking and global warming. In both cases, the opponents came well-funded. In both cases, they were able to come up with all sorts of wrong, but complicated ways to refute scientific claims — or failing that to cast doubt upon them. And doubt for them is all that’s needed. If smoking might not be bad, why bother trying to overcome a difficult addiction? Why bother trying to regulate it? Likewise, if global warming might not be real, or might not be human-caused, or might not be slowed or stopped by human activity, why risk the economy on it? Doubt is all they need.
<
p>In both cases, solely focusing on the merits, on the arguments is a fool’s errand.
<
p>First, the supply of doubters was bottomless because it was well-funded.
<
p>Second, public opinion is not nearly as rational as you seem to imagine. How many people follow statistics or are able to answer the latest questions on sun spots and the Martian climate? But they do recognize expertise or at least its trappings.
<
p>Answering a campaign of doubt like that is multi-faceted. Yes, you absolutely need serious people who politely and meticulously argue on the merits. You do. Those people are necessary, important, and insufficient because you also need a whole band of people who call out the hypocrisy, deceitfulness, and stupidity of the doubt contingent. Winning is not simply a matter of winning 200 arguments.
I’m not sure I agree that the Obama campaign was polite in every respect to the guy who owned 8 houses and voted with Bush 90% of the time and whose running mate became the star of Saturday Night Live. I’d contrast what you’re saying to the 2000 election. Gore was polite. He took the high road. He won every argument. He lost based on the very personal attack about his woodenness and the Republican machine’s relentless pursuit of the story that he wasn’t honest.
<
p>Similarly, President Bush. His dive in popularity was not the result of the country suddenly seeing the incorrectness of neo-conservative foreign policy, extra-legal anti-terrorism strategy, and supply-side economics.
<
p>It was also the result of a lot of people deciding he wasn’t a good person.
<
p>Bush’s unpopularity is an enormous, enormous resource for progressives. All kinds of things can now be advanced by using the comparison to the hated Bush Administration.
<
p>Terrific distillation of behavior on both sides of the spectrum. Thanks.
but I’d be even happier if the thing you quoted from me was wrong.
Okay. I”ll call you mr. hyper-sensitive, but I can’t say I think it suits you. I find the “mr.” a bit too courtly, and the “hyper-sensitive” a smidge too obvious. How about just plain ol’ Giggles?
Steele demonstrated a breathtaking blend of ignorance and arrogance, as he tried to make this transparently tortured argument. I’m going to have to differ with other commenters and say “Way to go George” for remembering ALWAYS let the man in freefall continue to plead his case.
<
p>When he was named RNC Chair, he was interviewed on CNN. He spoke about how he would expand the Republican Party. It is clear that part of the Rep. losses in ’08 was their inability to close the deal with the blue-collar independents and Reagan Dems. I guess the first item on the “Rep. Big Tent” agenda was to insult blue-collar construction “jobs” as merely “work” that is irrelevant to the economy, therefore their needs are irrelevant and should not be included in the stimulus bill. Good call Mr. Chairman! Cross that off the “To Do” list.
<
p>Does anyone think that small business owners support the argument that “work” money flowing into their cash registers is not a valuable as “jobs” money? Will the banks accept mortgage payments from “work” sources or only “jobs” sources? Or is he essentially saying that BIG BUSINESS (a.k.a. white-collar Rep. Party donors with “jobs”) will be unable to get their act together by the time the govt. funded “work” is completed?
.
A new perspective I hadn’t thought of on this tired, tired thread.
<
p>Thank you, Debbie B.
What a maroon! Everyone knows that government creates jobs. Like the military jobs someone offered as an example downthread.
<
p>US hires a Sargent in the army and gets the money to pay his salary, not from the private sector resources, bur rather from a money tree. Has to be. Because to fund the government job, if the Government had to take resources from private sector it would mean no net job creation. Zero.
<
p>Built a skating rink in Roxbury. Jobs! And naturally, resources to build that skating rink, don’t deplete private sector funds or jobs because of the same money tree. Otherwise the private sector would sacrifice resources and private resources wouldn’t be available and again, same net zero for job creation.
<
p>Maybe the stimulus package is different. Obviously, no money tree. It’s not taking from the private sector; it’s taking from the future. Money floats into 2009 like a scene outta Terminator, from a time machine called the bond market and the jobs today are created from the jobs of tomorrow. And just like Arnold, that money is jacked. And badass. It’s doing roads, and skating rinks and solar panels.
<
p>But drat! Just like Arnold. One more guy in 2009 means one less one in the future.
<
p>Net job creation is again zero, OR LESS if i) the excess borrowing raises the interest rate so that the Net Present Value of the jobs today is less than those of tomorrow, or ii) the job created today creates less utility of the jobs in the private sector tomorrow.
<
p>Oh well, forget logic. It doesn’t matter, he’s a maroon ’cause you say so. LOL!!!11 Bush lied; people died. What an idiot, …[insert favorite KOS cliche here]