Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:27 am**

Definitely tongue in cheek, because although the Jews do indeed vote Democrat at large, it's the Republicans who are generally much bigger defenders (and sometimes unconditional) of Israel, (Dems/liberals are far more likely to voice the Palestinian views) and you're more likely to find Republicans who are closer to the Jewish fundamentalist religious views.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:17 pm**

Lord Mhoram wrote:Malik,

Your description of the "liberal playbook" is a total joke. I say this not because Democrats don't appeal to interest groups and demographics, but because, well, everybody does it. You might as well call it the "American political playbook." But you like to concentrate on one party. Just don't pretend it's actual analysis. Like I said, it's pretty obvious. Anyway, yeah, the Republicans should totally ignore the Democratic electioneering strategy. It sucks and the Republicans' is rock solid.

I don't care about electioneering strategy. I vote Libertarian, for Christ's sake! And they never win! If the Republicans violate conservative principles, I don't want them to win. No more than I want liberals to win.

No, everyone does NOT parse the population into groups and then pander to them individually and propose laws specially tailored to their group. You have the impression that everyone does it because that's how your party operates, and you are perhaps too insular to realize the rest of the world isn't like this. Your party will say anything to win, and stoop to any divisive tactic to foster a sense of victimization. My party is a party of principle. Yours is "electioneering strategy." So speak for yourself. This is not the Libertarian playbook, and it shouldn't be the Republican playbook, either. That's why they are losing, because they no longer follow their principles. People who vote Republican and Libertarian don't want the government to do stuff for them. They want the government to leave them the f*ck alone. They don't feel like victims, so they don't buy into that crap. When their party starts to treat them like the Democrats treat their people, they either stop voting or vote Libertarian. So they are losing votes because they are abandoning their principles, not because they have an inferior "electioneering strategy." Having an "electioneering strategy" is exactly what they don't want their leaders to do.

You don't understand us, that's clear. You think we're not serious about this, "I want to be free" ideology. Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:28 pm**

Malik23 wrote:Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.

This is pure bile, not the stuff of meaningful discourse.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:35 pm**

Lord Mhoram wrote:
Malik23 wrote:Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.
This is pure bile, not the stuff of meaningful discourse.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 pm**

Farsailer,

I wish there were a more polite way of saying to you what I would like to say.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:01 pm**

Lord Mhoram wrote:
Malik23 wrote:Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.
This is pure bile, not the stuff of meaningful discourse.

Gonna have to agree with you on that one, and it don't happen too often

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:05 pm**

Farsailer wrote:
Lord Mhoram wrote:
Malik23 wrote:Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.
This is pure bile, not the stuff of meaningful discourse.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?

If it was the truth, it would hurt. I'm not going to characterize this as "bile," (because I first try to lead by example >cough.<) but I will agree that, in meaningful discourse, it is neither useful to mis-characterize your opposition in the most unflattering terms you think will be allowed - nor, is it useful to characterize such characterizations as "bile."

Moving on (from de-railing a very good question with rants against perceived code words and whatnot) to the issue: What do the 'Pubs need to do?

Should they just sit back and watch and throw bricks from a distance?

Should they start re-building their base around issues that motivate larger groups of people to vote for them? (Which was, I believe, the original option that sparked two pages of "debate.")

Should they just hire better marketing staff?

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:27 pm**

Plissken wrote:
Moving on (from de-railing a very good question with rants against perceived code words and whatnot) to the issue: What do the 'Pubs need to do?

To regain power, I don't think they need to do anything. If things get better, the ones who hold office will get part credit, even for things they opposed.
At that point, Reps can go back to their usual mode: security, immigrants, non-patriots, etc.
If things don't get better...well.
Also, it almost never fails that when one party has full control corruption and/or stupidity sets in (for dems and reps both).

If they want to do what's best, they need to grow up and face some facts:
Free market is great: but in some areas it does more harm than good.
[Health care, for instance. And education could go this way, if we shatter our public school system]
Most gays, blacks, women, hispanics, etc. Don't want to be treated as victims, don't want special programs, don't want to be coddled...what they want [and what a real liberal wants] is simple fairness, justice, and opportunity, from top to bottom, left to right.
[just to name two]
I'm pretty sure Malik is going to say his ideology is the way to get these things...but it never has before, why would it now?

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:49 pm**

Lord Mhoram wrote:
Malik23 wrote:Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.
This is pure bile, not the stuff of meaningful discourse.

you were expecting......what exactly?

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:41 pm**

Don't help, Es.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:14 am**

Steele's Campaign Spending Questioned

Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.

Federal agents in recent days contacted Steele's sister, a spokesman for Steele said yesterday.

The claim about the payment, one of several allegations by Alan B. Fabian, is outlined in a confidential court document. Fabian offered the information last March as he was seeking leniency for himself during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:25 am**

To those who don't want to be part of Mr. Steele's inclusive party, he warned: "Get ready to get knocked over."

At the election Friday, the collective embrace of Mr. Steele was crystal clear.

"This speaks volumes about the inclusiveness of the Republican Party," former Republican National Chairman Jim Nicholson told The Times as he stood at the back of the room watching the ecstatic uproar in the Capitol Hilton ballroom after Mr. Steele's victory was announced.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:02 pm**

Lord Mhoram wrote:Farsailer,

I wish there were a more polite way of saying to you what I would like to say.

Sorry, that was a little over the top. I should have known Boston Brahmin don't tolerate dissent very well.

But that got started over the questioning of the premises of your politics in which you say it's ok to divide everyone because "everyone" else does it too. To quote you accurately:

Lord Mhoram wrote:I say this not because Democrats don't appeal to interest groups and demographics, but because, well, everybody does it.

Malik and I are pointing out that while it it true the current Republican party has been doing it too, not all voters believe in the politics of grouping. There are many out there who believe that true conservative principles apply across all groups, we believe that not only are many voters tired of the "liberal playbook" that promotes division in the name of "diversity", we are also tired of the existing Republican "playbook" that does groupings in its own way, and we believe that the embrace of such universal principles is the way the Republican party should remake itself. Voters like us have not been served any better by Bush than they were by Clinton; in fact, we have not been represented at all. I could not bring myself to vote for the Republicans in this decade, for instance. But many do so while holding their nose.

OTOH, I don't believe the new Republican Party will go that way, there is too much inertia in the current way of doing things. Steele will be bent back into line eventually... and that's too bad.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:14 pm**

Lord Mhoram wrote:
Malik23 wrote:Perhaps that's why you think it's "imaginary" because you are willing to sell out your freedom for a government program, and you can't imagine anyone else feeling differently, or sticking to their principles despite losing elections.
This is pure bile, not the stuff of meaningful discourse.

You have done nothing in this thread but call my opinions "caricatures," "jokes," and "imaginary." You have gone on 100% attack from square one. You haven't had one sentence of "meaningful discourse," but instead just take some cheap shots from the distance, without actually engaging my points.

You ARE willing to give up an amount of freedom for more government programs, more government wealth redistribution. It's not bile, it's a fact. You're for Obama's stimulus package (for instance), aren't you? You DO have trouble imagining that people feel differently than your "everybody practices pandering politics" mentality. And you DO have trouble imagining that people stick to their principles, despite losing elections. You demonstrated this with your own words.

It's not bile. You just don't have a way to argue against it. So, like you've been doing this entire thread, you insult instead of debate.

<mod edit: Syl>

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:13 pm**

Enough, guys. Plissken's already said what needs to be said. Any more off topic personal stuff and I'll lock the thread. Since I started the thing, I'd really rather not do that.

Syl wrote:
* Attack the Argument Not the Person: “My opponent is still very young and inexperienced . . . scarcely knows English . . . can’t grasp the complexities of my argument . . . looks funny . . . dresses badly.” All of these statements fail to promote rational dialogue by substituting an attack on the person for an attack on the argument. While there are a few circumstances in which the character and honesty of the advocate is a relevant issue (for example, in a debate between political candidates one may argue that character predicts future policy choices), in many cases the character assault merely covers for an inability to address the arguments. In most public contexts, debates are best conceived as contests between ideas, which happen to be represented by people, not contests between people.

...

A Respect for Ideas and People

An essential element of a debate is that it is a human encounter, one that respects reason over force, arguments over assertions, and persuasion over demagoguery. Aside from a simple recognition of respect for all parties in a debate and the process itself, there are several important elements that we see:

Avoid Name-Calling, Personal Categorization, and Harassment

While most of us are smart enough to avoid making gratuitous insults to our hosts, our audience or our opponents, many public debates still provide opportunities for insensitivity...

Kevin's Watch

Republican Reformation?