Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[FearfulJesuit]

Christie gets himself involved in a scandal.

[Sheb]

I'm feeling like linking to the "evil is petty" page on TvTropes.

[wierd]

The actual form of the "left's" extremism doesn't make good headlines, and doesn't generate ratings. That's why it doesn't get the press it deserves, and why the false presumption that generates the cogitative dissonance holds sway.

Eg:

Ultracons percieve the "not really liberal" actions of the democrats as "OMG! Communists!"
The democrats loudly shriek "We are not communists!"

Bounce it back and forth, and you have tension, drama, intrigue. Everything a good ambulance chasing news network eats up.

[Max White]

You are going to have to clarify for me...
I understand how dismissing everybody who disagrees with you flatly as 'OMG COMMIES!' I can see how absolute refusal to talk about as issue like an adult because you mistakenly think it is communism is an extremist stance... But how is trying to point you that you are not, in fact, a communist really that extremist in any way? I would say it is pretty rational.

[Sheb]

Yeah, wierd, what you're railing against is not extremism, it's corruption.

[wierd]

You misunderstand.

The ultracons create a dramatic situation by being melodramatically insane about everything and everyone not 100% beholden to their radical views being "communists".

The democrats are not actually communitst-- far from it. They have much more in common with oldworld conservatives. They just aren't radical, so they MUST be liberal. (A product of the binary false dichotomy exhibited by the ultracon decision making process.)

The democrats strongly, and rightly assert that they are not communists.
The media, claiming "fair, and unbiased coverage", falsely provides a sense of acceptability and rationalism to the ultracon perspective, which then generates a return line of "OH yes you are! You want to regulate the market and keep hard working people from getting filthy rich like they deserve to! That's communism right there buddy!"

Which then creates the false impression, via the media's misrepresentation, that the democrats espouse communist leanings or desire communism.

This then leads to the false prevailing notions about the democrats being 'radical left'.

They aren't.

It's a case of "Me thinks thou dost protest too much!" In action.

[wierd]

Yeah, wierd, what you're railing against is not extremism, it's corruption.

I would consider it a form of extreme corruption.  The practice is systemic within the party, and essentially synonymous with it.

[Descan]

Unless they're Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

... And Bernie Sanders is an Independent so maybe not even then :v

[Sheb]

Well, must have misunderstood your posts then, because I'd swear you were talking of extremists democrats as a counterparts to extremists republicans.

[wierd]

GOP == Party ruled by ideology, featuring corruption
DNC == Party ruled by corruption, featurng ideology

Clearer?

[Helgoland]

-snip-

I like you.

wierd, this is the point where you double-check what you're sayiing, just to make sure it came out right.

[wierd]

-snip-

I like you.

wierd, this is the point where you double-check what you're sayiing, just to make sure it came out right.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The reaction of another person to the thought processes of another person, does not have any causal relation to either person, and thought process being correct.

It simply says there is a disagreement.

It has been my experience that one-liner answers often lack the capacity to explain the objection, and that the objection is not based on reason, but instead on emotion.

There is a reason why personal feelings aren't allowed in science. A person's opinion about the nature of gravity holds no bearing on the nature of gravity. If there is a disagreement about the nature of gravity, then that agrument behind that disagreement must qualify itself. A one liner "you are wrong" does not contribute anything of value. It merely asserts there is a disagreement. Not why.

Since he did not supply a why, I CANNOT re evaluate. That is why I ignored. The one liner makes the unqualified presumption of being from correctness. Without a counter argument of substance, I cannot evaluate that. I am not a telepath.

[Helgoland]

I'm just saying - when GreatJustice starts agreeing with you, there's a good chance you strayed away from what you wanted to say. He's a very useful corrective that way

[wierd]

Such a heuristic implies that greatjustice is always wrong though. This is logically just as unsound as presuming he is always right. O.o

It is perfectly cogent for me to be spot on, and for him to like the answer. (Boggle)

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Maybe GJ just always enjoys reading when someone strays away from what he wanted to say. Kind of like watching someone on a bicycle go slower and slower until they wobble severely and suddenly speed up, but in the wrong direction.