Elected Officials Riling Up the Masses

[jryan]

Given the topic of each thread is effectively the same, with this one focusing on a case instance, it's not derailing the thread. Furthermore, you made the claim:

 

Originally Posted by

jryan

 

I think most people here agree that both parties are equally to blame for riling up crowds.

 

 

So if anyone's doing any derailing, it's you. Furthermore, that's an argument from popularity, a logical fallacy. You made the claim. You back it up. Can you actually demonstrate the equivocacy here, or do you think it can't be measured and therefore we should just assume it's equal?

 

No, because this thread is about the political parties roles in public protest and seeding such protest with anger. The other thread is about levels of party corruption.

 

In both cases you try to make the point that the Republicans are worse. In both cases you are wrong, or fail to make your point adequately.

 

Ironically, here you wade into a thread about which party is more responsible for riling the masses by being the most offensive poster in the thread. So unless you are a Republican, you yourself are contradictory evidence to your claim.

Edited April 9, 2010 by jryan

[toastywombel]

No, because this thread is about the political parties roles in public protest and seeding such protest with anger. The other thread is about levels of party corruption.

 

In both cases you try to make the point that the Republicans are worse. In both cases you are wrong, or fail to make your point adequately.

 

Ironically, here you wade into a thread about which party is more responsible for riling the masses by being the most offensive poster in the thread. So unless you are a Republican, you yourself are contradictory evidence to your claim.

 

I think the point is bascule is at least attempting to make his point that the Republicans attempt to rile up the masses more often than the Democrats and backing it up with examples.

 

Also, bascule not being a Republican is not contradictory to his claim. He may be a socialist, he may be a libertarian, he may be a communist. Just because he is not a member of the Republican party does not mean he is a member of the Democratic party. So you cannot jump to the conclusion that he is a member of the Democratic party riling up the masses, and then site that as a contradiction.

 

Just a small note Jryan, it is more likely for your arguments to be taken seriously if you use the correct wording. (weighed not wade). Unless of course you meant that bascule was walking through shallow water on his way across a stream or river while commenting on this thread.

[ParanoiA]

I'm open to any methods to quantify it but I'd like to evaluate the proposal first.

 

That said' date=' trying to quantify it is silly. However, so is saying we should assume they're equal by default until demonstrated otherwise.[/quote']

 

Then why are you bothering?

 

Pangloss makes the best point here. We can rewind to any convenient point in history and find one party's behavior worse than the other one - or maybe someone else can comb youtube more thoroughly. But what in the world is your point in holding one snakey salesman over another one? Why are you proud of the snakey salesman?

 

Why don't we try this a different way? Which members of congress are noble statesmen? Or which members demonstrate proper, respectful behavior with a genuine concern for the people over partisanship?

 

One is Dr Ron Paul, and possibly Rand Paul if he gets elected (you knew that one was coming, didn't you?)

 

Tom Coburn perhaps - he's even taking heat for saying Pelosi is a "nice lady" and for reprimanding the tactic of exaggerating the healthcare bill's contents.

 

Joe Liebermann maybe? He demostrated a cool, principled position when he supported the war against the cries of the democrat base.

 

Dennis Kucinich? I despise the man's politics, but he seems like the real deal to me. I know he flipped after speaking with Obama on the healthcare bill, but it came across to me as a genuine change of tactic to meet his desired ends.

 

 

There's probably more. I'd rather recognize statesmen for being true to their principles and to the people, than carry on about which group of scoundrels aren't quite as scoundrel-y as the others, as if that's something to be proud of.

[toastywombel]

I would hardly consider Joe Lieberman a Noble statesmen, just my personal opinion, but other than that, I am inclined to agree with that the other members of the list you provided are not too bad.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just a small note Jryan, it is more likely for your arguments to be taken seriously if you use the correct wording. (weighed not wade). Unless of course you meant that bascule was walking through shallow water on his way across a stream or river while commenting on this thread.

 

Wade actually is correct usage there. Think of this argument as a muddy bog.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There's probably more. I'd rather recognize statesmen for being true to their principles and to the people, than carry on about which group of scoundrels aren't quite as scoundrel-y as the others, as if that's something to be proud of.

 

Well they are essentially doing the same thing -- judging one as worse judges the other as better. I think I actually prefer people looking for faults, since there is so much of that. But yes, faults can be balanced by virtues, and that too should not be forgotten.

 

Hm, on second thought I think I see where you're coming from. There are countless politicians, and if we just kick out the ones we don't want we aren't assuring quality in the ones that we get to replace them. Whereas if we focus instead on the ones we do want, that's a much smaller number and the others have to show themselves to be better rather than just hide their faults long enough to get elected.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

Just a small note Jryan, it is more likely for your arguments to be taken seriously if you use the correct wording. (weighed not wade). Unless of course you meant that bascule was walking through shallow water on his way across a stream or river while commenting on this thread.

 

Just a small note to toastywomble: "Wading into a discussion" is a completely different phrase than "weighing in on a discussion". I used the former and it is perfectly acceptable.

[Pangloss]

I think the point is bascule is at least attempting to make his point that the Republicans attempt to rile up the masses more often than the Democrats and backing it up with examples.

 

I respect that, for much the same reason that I have a lot more respect for Jon Stewart than for Rush Limbaugh.

 

 

Joe Liebermann maybe? He demostrated a cool, principled position when he supported the war against the cries of the democrat base.

 

I'm afraid liberals have already thrown ol' Joe under the bus. He's been deemed unworthy.

 

IMO moderate Democrats are going to have a tough time in the wake of the signing of health care, as Joe Stupak demonstrated this morning when he announced that he will not be running for re-election. Stupak's compromise on abortion ran contrary to his constituents' desires and it cost Democrats a nine-term seat that would have been very useful to them next year on immigration reform, new civil rights legislation, energy, taxation and free trade.

[bascule]

IMO moderate Democrats are going to have a tough time in the wake of the signing of health care

 

Democrats are going to have a tough time, but it's only because the passage of healthcare has not energized their base, but instead had the opposite effect of riling up an already enraged conservative base. Again, I won't accuse Republicans of stoking the tea party fire so much as I would blame Fox News, but it was burning before healthcare passed, and healthcare has only caused it to flare up more.

 

I'm really curious how many seats the Democrats are going to lose in the House. 50? 60? 70? Will they lose the majority? It's certainly looking like it at this point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why don't we try this a different way? Which members of congress are noble statesmen? Or which members demonstrate proper, respectful behavior with a genuine concern for the people over partisanship?

 

One is Dr Ron Paul

 

I'll certainly agree with that. While I don't like a number of Ron Paul's positions, at least he's consistent, none of this spending when he's in power then whining about spending when his opponents are in power. And hey, he was smart enough to know starting an expensive, unnecessary war after cutting taxes will probably create huge deficits.

 

It's perhaps for these reasons that liberals have embraced him. They look to him as what a better Republican party could be. If more Republicans were like Dr. Paul, America would be a better country.

 

ED: Meanwhile here's what the GOP thinks of Dr. Paul:

 

BfNpRoCbY5E

 

ED2: And Ron Paul says the obvious: despite the repeated claims of the teabaggers, Barack Obama is not a socialist:

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/ron-paul-president-obama-is-not-a-socialst.php

Edited April 12, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

ED: Meanwhile here's what the GOP thinks of Dr. Paul:

 

That seems to be more what Ron Paul thinks of the GOP.

[bascule]

That seems to be more what Ron Paul thinks of the GOP.

 

What are you referring to specifically? The fact Ron Paul has a platform different from your average Republican and therefore gets booed by members of his party?

[jryan]

Here's a compilation of "riled up masses"... it seems that if the GOP wants to match liberal anger they have a lot of work to do:

 

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

[bascule]

Here's a compilation of "riled up masses"... it seems that if the GOP wants to match liberal anger they have a lot of work to do:

 

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

 

Did you bother to look outside today? I'm not sure you live in a populated area, but today was April 15th, tax day, and the teabaggers were out in force...

 

From one "partisan" to another, really jryan? Any of those venting their liberal anger bringing semiautomatic rifles to the events?

[Pangloss]

So you're saying that public threats by protesters against President Obama are to be taken seriously, but that it was appropriate not to take public threats by protesters against President Bush seriously?

[bascule]

So you're saying that public threats by protesters against President Obama are to be taken seriously, but that it was appropriate not to take public threats by protesters against President Bush seriously?

 

Show me one protester sporting a semi-auto rifle at an event Bush attended and I will entirely concede that point.

 

You know, like this guy at an event Obama attended (source) (and no, he's not alone) (seriously this is commonplace?)

 

 

For what it's worth, I own a semi-auto AK, and am permitted to carry it, but never did I think of bringing it to a protest, not as if I've ever attended any of these protests. But still, it's just the principle of the thing to me. If you're going to an event the President of the United States is attending, leave your guns at home, people.

[Pangloss]

So you are saying that those guys should be arrested, but that it was okay for protesters to threaten President Bush's life? And to justify this you show us pictures of people doing nothing other than carrying weapons. We're supposed to see that as threatening in contrast to, say, actually burning the president in effigy. I just want to make sure I'm reading what you're writing. Yeah, I can't really imagine what I was thinking there. Those anti-Bush protesters being so peaceful and obviously not meant to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

 

e-RV2MHNwnM

 

Oddly enough, I don't think I've seen a single video of President Obama being burned in effigy in an American protest (though certainly some from overseas). Have you? I suppose that would be seen as racist, but then aren't your ideological colleagues trying to tell us that these protesters ARE racists?

 

IMO it's not okay that people are threatening President Obama, and it's not okay that people threatened President Bush. Neither are justified just because one prefers their ideological bent.

[Sisyphus]

The number of death threats against Obama is 400% higher than the number Bush had:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

 

Just sayin'.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sisyphus

[bascule]

So you are saying that those guys should be arrested, but that it was okay for protesters to threaten President Bush's life?

 

Oh really Pangloss, do we have to go back and forth putting words in each others mouth? I guess we do...

 

So you're saying no conservative protesters have ever done anything like that to Obama... like made death threats...

 

 

Comparisons to Hitler...

 

 

Burned him in effigy...

 

 

Really?

 

No Pangloss, actually what I said was this...

 

Show me one protester sporting a semi-auto rifle at an event Bush attended and I will entirely concede that point.

 

Still waiting...

[Pangloss]

Oh really Pangloss, do we have to go back and forth putting words in each others mouth? I guess we do...

 

I didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you a question. You've been posting cheesy pictures of marginal, unrepresentative right-wingers acting foolish all over this subforum and telling everyone that they represent an actual danger to the country. Did you really think nobody would call you on it?

[jryan]

The number of death threats against Obama is 400% higher than the number Bush had:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

 

Just sayin'.

 

The secret service has corrected that misconception:

 

Secret Service: Threats against Obama no higher than normal

 

 

Just sayin'

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh really Pangloss, do we have to go back and forth putting words in each others mouth? I guess we do...

 

So you're saying no conservative protesters have ever done anything like that to Obama... like made death threats...

 

 

Comparisons to Hitler...

 

 

Burned him in effigy...

 

 

Really?

 

No Pangloss, actually what I said was this...

 

 

 

Still waiting...

 

The funny thing is, bascule, we have hard evidence that there are liberal front groups out their posing as conservatives and displaying hate speech. So you lose. We can not rely on your evidence as PRO-OBAMA supporters have tainted it.

 

Go complain to them for screwing up your screed.

[bascule]

Go complain to them for screwing up your screed.

 

Screed? Look at what you just wrote, jryan... pot. kettle. black.

[jryan]

Screed? Look at what you just wrote, jryan... pot. kettle. black.

 

 

It was smart of you to ignore the part about the plots that were uncovered that cast strong doubt on all of your photographic evidence. Calling foul on the "screed" comment was your only plausible defense.

 

Edit: But since you have built a considerable amount of writing haranguing Tea Parties, it would qualify as a screed. So you lose there, too.

 

If you don't like it then take it up with crashtheteaparty.org. They are the ones that have been fooling you.

[Pangloss]

Can you start a thread on that, jryan? I've been pondering it myself and I think it's worth a discussion of its own.

[jryan]

Can you start a thread on that, jryan? I've been pondering it myself and I think it's worth a discussion of its own.

 

Sure! I gotta run for a while, but I can get the ball rolling.

[Mr Skeptic]

We started off with a thread about elected officials riling up the masses, and we seem to be ending up with forum members riling up each other!

[bascule]

It was smart of you to ignore the part about the plots that were uncovered that cast strong doubt on all of your photographic evidence.

 

Is your reference for that this link:

 

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

 

...which is returning "Could not connect to the database server"