Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [swimwithstones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
swimwithstones wrote:
SH wrote:
That's not my argument. My argument is that some people are upset that Republicans aren't using family values as a litmus test even though they themselves are against using family values as a litmus test.


Ah, so you think people are upset because the GOP isn't using family values as a litmus test.

I doubt many people on the left are actually upset about that.

I think you'll find what people on the left are loudly calling attention to is the blatant hypocrisy dropping the litmus test reveals.

So you'd be fine with picking the litmus test back up and ceasing the hypocrisy?
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe I am nitpicking and probably not what you meant but sex isn't always intimate. In a Nevada brothel definitely not so.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
Why don't you give us the "real reason"? You're dying to say something. Just do it.

i don't think there's a single reason (i just know, very obviously, that they're not the reasons stated over the years). and, i'd be making educated guesses. i'd be interested in the responses i'd get from those who beg to differ. but what i am beyond certain of, and am regretful of, is that i can't have a fact-based, history-based, evidence-based conversation with you on this.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
swimwithstones wrote:
SH wrote:
That's not my argument. My argument is that some people are upset that Republicans aren't using family values as a litmus test even though they themselves are against using family values as a litmus test.


Ah, so you think people are upset because the GOP isn't using family values as a litmus test.

I doubt many people on the left are actually upset about that.

I think you'll find what people on the left are loudly calling attention to is the blatant hypocrisy dropping the litmus test reveals.


So you'd be fine with picking the litmus test back up and ceasing the hypocrisy?

No, I'd rather they admit it was only a rallying cry and not a true litmus test at all. The hypocrisy is a fait accompli regardless of what the right does now.

I think one of the reasons for pointing out the hypocrisy is because in 2024 there will be a Democratic nominee who will have had an extra-marital affair, and the GOP will clutch its pearls with both hands and decry it as an example of how the left is eroding the family values of the nation. Many won't buy the reversal, but many will. Pointing out the hypocrisy now may make it a little harder for some people to swallow it then.
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What you just wrote is complete nonsense. In a single bound you equated Brothel owners to feminists. Good news women! The long history of the oppression of Brothel owners is justly coming to an end! This is a win for all the oppressed! Minorities, women, and gays! And let it not be said that Brothel owners had a choice! They were born into the life trafficking in sex!
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
What you just wrote is complete nonsense. In a single bound you equated Brothel owners to feminists. Good news women! The long history of the oppression of Brothel owners is justly coming to an end! This is a win for all the oppressed! Minorities, women, and gays! And let it not be said that Brothel owners had a choice! They were born into the life trafficking in sex!

I think you're missing the point of the analogy. I'm just using two examples of hypocrisy for development of that concept. I'm not comparing and contrasting brothel owners and feminists.
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
swimwithstones wrote:
SH wrote:
That's not my argument. My argument is that some people are upset that Republicans aren't using family values as a litmus test even though they themselves are against using family values as a litmus test.


Ah, so you think people are upset because the GOP isn't using family values as a litmus test.

I doubt many people on the left are actually upset about that.

I think you'll find what people on the left are loudly calling attention to is the blatant hypocrisy dropping the litmus test reveals.


So you'd be fine with picking the litmus test back up and ceasing the hypocrisy?

If a group truly believes something that I don't agree with, then that's fine we all have our opinions. I might oppose that opinion and that's my right also. Basically we agree to disagree. I have a lot less problem with the "litmus test" than with conveniently switching positions on some formerly all important position.

Neither side is innocent of this, but in this age of Trump as president the hypocrisy of some members of the republican party and commentator class is particularly stunning.

Here is an example: https://twitter.com/.../1006701349910675457

Side question for those on the right, do you have similar examples of say Maddow, or other democratic politicians?

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [swimwithstones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
swimwithstones wrote:
The hypocrisy is a fait accompli regardless of what the right does now.


Let me put it another way then...

1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots
2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits.

That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences.

Quote:
I think one of the reasons for pointing out the hypocrisy is because in 2024 there will be a Democratic nominee who will have had an extra-marital affair, and the GOP will clutch its pearls with both hands and decry it as an example of how the left is eroding the family values of the nation. Many won't buy the reversal, but many will. Pointing out the hypocrisy now may make it a little harder for some people to swallow it then.


I honestly don't see much pearl clutching anymore, no. Maybe a small minority will have never stopped clutching, but that minority is getting smaller all the time. Really, the only way the right could wing a huge indignation over infidelity anymore is if there was some strange added element to the extra-marital affair -- like swinging or pedaphelia or something weird. (Super important disclaimer: I'm not equating either of those three options morally. I'm just saying all three are outside what's been clearly made mainstream.)


That being said, at some level, even Democrats and Republicans (not driven by typical family values issues) will still use extra-marital affairs against a candidate that has had them.
Last edited by: SH: Jun 14, 18 9:52
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
but what i am beyond certain of, and am regretful of, is that i can't have a fact-based, history-based, evidence-based conversation with you on this.


I don't deserve this. You may not agree with me, but all my conversations are fact, history, and evidence based.

Edit: And I rarely go ad hominem even in the face of insults like these (and others much nastier).
Last edited by: SH: Jun 14, 18 10:00
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
Quote:
but what i am beyond certain of, and am regretful of, is that i can't have a fact-based, history-based, evidence-based conversation with you on this.


I don't deserve this. You may not agree with me, but all my conversations are fact, history, and evidence based.

Edit: And I rarely go ad hominem even in the face of insults like these (and others much nastier).

i don't see, in this thread, that you have much of an interest in seeing what others have to say. and, based on your reply to me that elicited my reply (that you didn't like) it seemed like you were simply spoiling for a fight. i don't really want to engage with someone who just wants to yell through his keyboard.

that said, i doubt you and i disagree on too many things. if republicanism, today, was built on a national defense foundation that fulfilled our strategic goals (defending ourselves and our allies; fighting two simultaneous wars, etc.); was built on fiscal conservatism, low debt, consideration for future generations; was science-based in its planning and execution; was built on the preeminent value of individual self-determination; was designed around the smallest possible govt while fulfilling the promise that only a federal govt can provide; that honored our natl institutions, law and order, historic processes; that was appropriately reticent to change social structures quickly; that appropriately protected our borders; that resisted foreign entanglements; i'd be a republican.

today, tho, it seems to me, as an outsider looking in (because i'm not a republican), that corey stewart won the ideologican fight and bob corker lost. all the republicans i admire (corker, charlie dent, flake and mccain, scarborough) are leaving. trump and his acolytes remain. i would like to ask bob corker wheter all this time the narrative of republicans was simply fraudulent. i don't know. i believe in a lot of what corker believes in. just, that party is dead. was it ever actually alive? in the minds of voters? or was it only alive in the minds of buckley, hitchens and george will?

if you don't want me to tell you what the evidence suggests, as to what republicanism is, fine, then you tell me.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
Let me put it another way then...

1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots
2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits.

That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences.


Hmm. I'll have to work on how I sound.

I don't think their position has evolved at all. I don't even think it was really a position. I think it was a rallying cry. And it's an important point to make that the left's position is not "anti-family values" by any stretch. I personally think a person who pays porn stars for sex while his wife is pregnant is a dirtbag, regardless of political leanings.

To answer your two points specifically:

1) I think many of the GOP's points are not in the best interests of the country. So I disagree with them.

2) If they change their position on anything to the opposite of what they've always espoused them to be just because their current hero falls dramatically short, then yes, they are being hypocritical and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, regardless of party.

I'm having trouble understanding what point you're driving at. Nobody cares if the GOP agrees with the Dems on family values - the two parties agree on lots of things. People care about the hypocrisy.
Last edited by: swimwithstones: Jun 14, 18 11:32
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [swimwithstones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
swimwithstones wrote:
SH wrote:
swimwithstones wrote:
The hypocrisy is a fait accompli regardless of what the right does now.


Let me put it another way then...

1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots
2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits.

That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences.


Hmm. I'll have to work on how I sound.

I don't think their position has evolved at all. I don't even think it was really a position. I think it was a rallying cry. And it's an important point to make that the left's position is not "anti-family values" by any stretch. I personally think a person who pays porn stars for sex while his wife is pregnant is a dirtbag, regardless of political leanings.

To answer your two points specifically:

1) I think many of the GOP's points are not in the best interests of the country. So I disagree with them.

2) If they change their position on anything to the opposite of what they've always espoused them to be just because their current hero falls dramatically short, then yes, they are being hypocritical and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, regardless of party.

I'm having trouble understanding what point you're driving at. Nobody cares if the GOP agrees with the Dems on family values - the two parties agree on lots of things. People care about the hypocrisy.


This is just going round and round. I explain my point -- which is about a certain type of response to a certain kind of hypocrisy. You want to get back to "nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy". I tried to explain how your position does fall short under certain conditions -- maybe better elaborated in replies to others -- but either you just don't get it or you absolutely disagree. Actually, I guess, it's somehow both.
Last edited by: SH: Jun 14, 18 11:40
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
This is just going round and round. I explain my point -- which is about a certain type of response to a certain kind of hypocrisy. You want to get back to "nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy". I tried to explain how your position does fall short under certain conditions -- maybe better elaborated in replies to others -- but either you just don't get it or you absolutely disagree. Actually, I guess, it's somehow both.


Okay, let's just be simplistic and clear, then. No hyperbole - just trying to understand each other.

You said:

"1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots"
Me ==> Sure

"2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits."
Me ==> Yes

"That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences."

When you complain like you are - What exactly do you think I'm complaining about?

Are you saying you think lefties are upset because the GOP moved to the left to win an election, and so basically the lefties are whining because they were outmaneuvered?

Are you also saying you think lefties should not be upset because the GOP moved leftward, and so any complaints by lefties are complaints about their team losing rather than about issues?

Am I encapsulating your argument correctly?
Last edited by: swimwithstones: Jun 14, 18 12:19
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [swimwithstones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
swimwithstones wrote:
SH wrote:
Let me put it another way then...

1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots
2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits.

That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences.


Hmm. I'll have to work on how I sound.

I don't think their position has evolved at all. I don't even think it was really a position. I think it was a rallying cry. And it's an important point to make that the left's position is not "anti-family values" by any stretch. I personally think a person who pays porn stars for sex while his wife is pregnant is a dirtbag, regardless of political leanings.

To answer your two points specifically:

1) I think many of the GOP's points are not in the best interests of the country. So I disagree with them.

2) If they change their position on anything to the opposite of what they've always espoused them to be just because their current hero falls dramatically short, then yes, they are being hypocritical and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, regardless of party.

I'm having trouble understanding what point you're driving at. Nobody cares if the GOP agrees with the Dems on family values - the two parties agree on lots of things. People care about the hypocrisy.

Just a small point of order... I don't think anyone is alleging Trump paid to have sex with Miss Daniels (though he allegedly offered the other girl money and she declined).

Ok...back to your regular programming ...
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
i don't see, in this thread, that you have much of an interest in seeing what others have to say. and, based on your reply to me that elicited my reply (that you didn't like) it seemed like you were simply spoiling for a fight. i don't really want to engage with someone who just wants to yell through his keyboard.

In this thread I'm making a point. When it seems like people understand it, I'll move on. Granted, it's not a point people are used to hearing, so I'm patient. I'm not "yelling" or "outraged".

Quote:
if you don't want me to tell you what the evidence suggests, as to what republicanism is, fine, then you tell me.
This is the opposite of our exchange. I wanted you to cleary write it down rather than dog whistle it.

But you know what? I don't want to force your hand on something like this. I think if you're hesitant, it's because you know what's best. So this is my last post on this thread -- no matter what.
Quote Reply
Re: Weren't the Republicans the party of "family values"... [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
This is the opposite of our exchange. I wanted you to cleary write it down rather than dog whistle it.


the abject dismantling of govt, all govt, any govt, regardless of purpose. deregulation is now a big part of what the party stands for. deregulation to the point where anything else the party used to stand for is brushed aside. we deregulated banks (along with a little help from bill clinton) and it helped get us a financial meltdown that rivaled the great depression. and now we're doing it again. we're deregulating air and water, reversing not obama, but nixon. we're on a path to dismantle public lands. teddy roosevelt, another republican icon, would roll over in his grave over what's now the trumpian posture toward both the protection of public lands and the protection against the greed and power of the corporatists.

but you expected me to say racism. sorry to disappoint you. happy to have that discussion as well. but i don't think you want that discussion. you want that fight. but not that discussion.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply

Prev Next