Partisan Politics Good For America?

[OE32]

I've never actually heard the phrase "pro hominem" - oh! Appeal to authority! Yeah, I did do that. You're right, it is a logical fallacy. Strike it from the record. Can we proceed on the merits?

Seriously, Andy, you have not said anything at all. You have attacked none of my points, only me. You say I'm not reasonable, but your only evidence of this is... hard to tell actually, you haven't actually argued anything I've said. That's THREE posts now where you've attacked my authority rather than my positions. I give up, I have no authority. You win, and you're right, I shouldn't have made myself the issue. Now, any point of contention with any of the things I've actually said?

One thing I like about basketball is the fact that there's a scoreboard. I don't have to argue about the form on my shot - it's easy to measure. Less so with politics. Dan can't shoot, but he can't tell, so what's the point? But seriously Andy, not ONE thing of substance to say? THREE posts about my demeanor?

You know, I'm sorry. I gotta stop myself. At some point, I gotta stop reading. Not much of an audience on this board, anyway. It's a Suns forum. It's a Suns forum. It's a Suns forum. Gah! Gotta cut myself off.

[Ghost]

I've never actually heard the phrase "pro hominem" - oh! Appeal to authority! Yeah, I did do that. You're right, it is a logical fallacy. Strike it from the record. Can we proceed on the merits?

To be fair, I made it up after you incorrectly accused me of being ad hominem when I disagreed with you. But, I also looked it up, and I was far from the first one, as it's a real term.

Seriously, Andy, you have not said anything at all. You have attacked none of my points, only me.

Actually, I have exclusively been attacking one point of yours (and a few sub-points below that one). That you debate in a reasonable fashion. I think you are a really intelligent guy and I know you are capable of having a good discussion, because we have had quite a few of those over the years. But something is going on with this topic that has you on a bit of a tear, and yes, all three posts of mine were geared at your claims of being such a totally reasonable guy (and the fact that I have to explain this is insane, since I was exceptionally clear about it in all three).

I honestly don't care about libertarianism. I don't think your interrogation of Indy made a lot of points except to show that your view of libertarianism is highly based upon only the most extreme and vocal members of the party. If you honestly want my point of view, you are wasting your time trying to interrogate Indy for his personal idea of what being a libertarian is, because frankly every libertarian out there has a different idea of what it is. So, I think you're trying to scapegoat him into answering for every bad thing the party has ever done or said, and you're doing it in a very disingenuous way that is not, in any reality, reasonable. I could be wrong, but I can only base my opinion on what I've seen you do.

But seriously Andy, not ONE thing of substance to say? THREE posts about my demeanor?

Good point. You have told us what a paragon of logic, reason, and intelligence you are many more times than that. I've granted you the intelligence part, but I only argued the others three times. Should I try to catch up?

Look, this thread is about partisan politics being good for America (or rather, how it's not). My point is that it's not, and you are demonstrating this in an extremely effective way. If that was your master plan and brilliant rhetorical strategy, I back down from everything I said, because you made your point a dozen times over, and with a truly masterful skill for satire.

At some point, I gotta stop reading. Not much of an audience on this board, anyway.

That would be unfortunate. (But I am curious what lesson we're supposed to learn from the potshot insult?)

[Nodack]

I was just thinking about how this little political board is just a microcosm of Washington and the greater US.

[Ghost]

I was just thinking about how this little political board is just a microcosm of Washington and the greater US.

Even with the worst our little political board has ever seen, we are way better than the general political discourse out there. That's why I came back here, frankly. I don't even watch the Suns or the NBA anymore.

[Nodack]

I watch the Suns still and haven't missed a game all year, but I stopped posting about the Suns since the Dragic trade. I don't know why, but listening to Phx-Suns.net fans talk about the Suns right now doesn't interest me at all.

Politics always gets me I guess because it's real life and so important. I consider myself an honest guy trying to understand the big picture. It's a tough job trying to understand the big picture because of so much propaganda. We all decide in each of our own minds what the big picture is and who is telling the truth. I have come to my own conclusions on each subject like everybody else has.

We remind me of politics in Washington because we can't discuss the topics without getting personal with each other just like in Washington and when that happens the discussion is dead and then it's just personal BS. Washington is 98% partisan BS. Political chat on political internet sites is all partisan attacks and nothing else. Nobody ever has a real discussion. We are kind of above that here and that makes it valuable to me.

Ghost, Indy and I have been in many discussions here for well over a decade. We get along well even though we don't always agree. I am not exactly sure why that is. Maybe because we are good at checking our egos at the door for the most part and I think all three of us are pretty good natured honest guys looking to understand the big world a little better. I am pretty sure that both of those guys have a problem with people with big egos from my experience here. OE you are extra confident and a little cocky, so I think that kind of puts a target on you. I don't think the standard rules of engagement on standard political sites applies here. If posible try to think of this as friends discussing politics rather than political enemies sparring in a win or lose contest.

[OE32]

Nodack - OK. I'll try to think of this more as a discussion among friends. Which makes sense - we've been here nearly two decades, after all.

Partisan politics are bad for America. But what always gets me is the combination of hubris and lack of informed consideration. That's not a conservative thing, but it's the conservative conclusions that most rile me. I don't think I've been attacking the extremist view of libertarians. I think the mainstream view is hollow, as I've said from the start, and this I base on many conversations, as well as the literature and the politics - I've cited a lot of this. It's just popular with young people right now - conservatives trying to stand apart from social conservative policy.

I may have been interrogating, but I was trying to have a substantive discussion. It got bad, in part, because I was an asshole starting with my takedown of Dan's statement about climate change. No one but me was willing to talk substance after that. Maybe that's a lesson for me. The truth is, I really didn't want a response from Dan, because I'm omg so tired of presenting databases of information on that subject trying to get people to admit the obvious, which is that NASA knows better than you or I. And when people become defensive of anti-scientific views, I get angry. I love truth, and I hate its defilers. So I didn't want a response. I got all this instead.

Libertarians - and I think this is mainstream - want the government to take a lesser role in the economy, want lower taxes and fewer regulations, and they call this "free market" capitalism. Is that not libertarian position on the economy? Well, I know a lot about regulation, and a ton about taxes. My professional education is almost expressly designed to deal with the questions raised by fiscal conservativism. And my professional opinion is that it's a foolhardy and destructive position. I would talk substance, but hardly anyone knows anything about the subject matter, and yet, people are so damned sure of their position and they swing elections all over this country. Distrust of experts has been popularized and is itself mainstream. It's madness.

If you'll allow me to take a step back and be less of a jerk, I will. That would be good for everyone, I guess. And I should stop using Dan as my whipping boy, and stop trying to get Indy to say something about his politics. I'll just hang out a bit more. It's been a really slow April at work, which is why I've been posting a lot. That'll change - probably this afternoon. But I'll read everything, at least.

Cheers, and thanks for your patience.

[OE32]

(But I am curious what lesson we're supposed to learn from the potshot insult?)

No insult intended. There just aren't very many people reading this. We're not going to change an election by our arguments here, that's all I was saying.

[Indy]

Way too much for me to respond to in the few minutes I have before my next meeting. I will say a couple of things though.

1) I am not here to represent, or defend Libertarians. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I am not a Libertarian. I actually do not belong to any of the parties with a capital letter. I actually register to my own party. I think it has a membership of 1.

2) The major staple of the Libertarian party I agree with is a reduction of government interactions with personal freedoms. I thought I pointed that out a while ago.

3) I am in favor of finding ways to spend way less on our government.

4) I am in favor of flat taxes for corporations (or something to put the US on better tax footing when compared to the rest of the world).

5) I have no idea why our government decided it is perfectly fine to tax its citizens, but exempt Churches. I would tax all churches that can't prove they are true charities and meet the regulations for charities.

6) I think this entire "debate" has been ridiculous, mainly because of OE. And I have nothing against you, and have been posting with you for nearly my entire adult life. But as Dack and Andy have pointed out, you are treating this like you think using a hammer to make your point makes it more valid. And maybe that has worked for you in the past in other places, but it doesn't work here. Nothing you have posted in this thread has changed an opinion I have had, primarily because nothing you said is new. It is the same thing you can read on nearly every comment thread on a news site.

7) I look forward to seeing your new style of posting after that last long post of yours.

[OE32]

OK, critique taken.

I do encourage you to start by thinking about how to make the government better rather than smaller. If smaller government is better in one or other realm, then we'll be on the same page. But I think there are also many areas in which the government should play a more active role. I worry that focusing on smaller government leads to general prescription which are not actually in the best interest of citizens.

[Indy]

OK, critique taken.

I do encourage you to start by thinking about how to make the government better rather than smaller. If smaller government is better in one or other realm, then we'll be on the same page. But I think there are also many areas in which the government should play a more active role. I worry that focusing on smaller government leads to general prescription which are not actually in the best interest of citizens.

I think making indiscriminate cuts would be stupid, just like it would be in your own household. But everyone of us has cuts we could (and likely should) make in our own spending, and the government is no different. At no point did I say we need a drastic change. But we spend way too much as it is.

And although I am in favor or a less bloated government, I completely agree that we need more support in some areas.

[OE32]

OK, critique taken.

I do encourage you to start by thinking about how to make the government better rather than smaller. If smaller government is better in one or other realm, then we'll be on the same page. But I think there are also many areas in which the government should play a more active role. I worry that focusing on smaller government leads to general prescription which are not actually in the best interest of citizens.

I think making indiscriminate cuts would be stupid, just like it would be in your own household. But everyone of us has cuts we could (and likely should) make in our own spending, and the government is no different. At no point did I say we need a drastic change. But we spend way too much as it is.

And although I am in favor or a less bloated government, I completely agree that we need more support in some areas.

OK, moving toward agreement here. Sure, everyone has cuts that can be made. So does just about every business. And the government is big, so there are surely opportunities for prudent cuts. In terms of overall size, though ("we spend way too much as it is") - I'm not sure about that. Government accounts for roughly 22% of GDP - a little high, historically, but not astronomical. And if I were to pick a place to cut, it would be the low taxes for the wealthy - that, too, is an expense one has to consider. There are simply many areas of public investment where we'd get a better ROI than by giving more money to the wealthy - especially when interest rates are so very low. Which is why, while there are surely cuts to be made, it's just not the first thing I'd look at. After all, it's not like the problem with our economy right now is that too much money is being spent generally. It's that's there's too much savings. That's what the Summers/Bernanke debate is all about currently.

[Nodack]

Now we are getting somewhere. I'm like you Indy and don't belong to any party although Dan might argue that I am a Democrat. I voted for Obama twice. My allegiance is to America, not a party. I voted for Obama mainly because he wasn't a Republican and I have become angry at the party for their actions in the past decade or so. I have no problem with some of the core beliefs of the Conservative party like having a balanced budget, low debt and I think we should police our borders better.

Unfortunately no party has stopped illegal immigration and both sides use it as political ammo more than they actually care about doing anything. Bush doubled the debt and no Republican said a word until Obama was elected and then they threw a fit, meaning they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

Trimming down the government is fine with me as long as you are trimming fat and not important things. Romney promised to eliminate FEMA if elected. That's not trimming fat, that's eliminating a part of the government that helps desperate Americans after disasters. He found out just how dumb it was when New York was hit by the hurricane. Christy asked for help and Republicans turned their backs on him while Obama helped. Romney went out and collected some cans of food and had his family invade a shelter and start washing already clean dishes in an attempt to show his support, but it just came across as being disengenuine and made him look stupid. I don't think Romney ever intended on eliminating FEMA, but he had to throw the Tea Party bunch a bone and it backfired.

I am really upset at our political system right now. I think it is busted. We can't afford health care, but we can afford to spend billions on elections. What did I just hear? Cruz has raised 30 million for his campaign in just two weeks. Crazy. Way too much money involved in elections.

The media jumping in bed with political party's is a bad thing especially if they claim to be news. They are intentinally stirring up anger and slant every story to demonize the other party. It has worked. Now many Republicans want a revolution and a civil war to oust those evil Democrats that hate America and want to turn it into another communist country. Obama isn't even from the U.S., he is a Muslim from Kenya that hates America and has vowed to destroy it. That's the BS that makes me mad. People eat it up like candy and believe every word of it. The Republican Party isn't doing anything to change those perceptions and in fact promote the tabloid politics. I don't know why, but that angers me a lot.

I know that there is an MSNBC that slants the news to make Republicans look bad as well. I don't see near the level of BS when I go there. They aren't saying Boener has ties to the Mafia or that he secretly hates America and is working with ISIS to destroy America. They slant the news, but they don't make up stupid ridiculous BS like FOX does as far as I have seen. I rarely read MSNBC. I read FOX a lot more just to see what the evil side is posting. Yes I call them evil. They are evil to me. The whole party has become evil to me. I know lots of Republicans that aren't evil. The core beliefs aren't evil, but their actions for the past decade or so have been pure evil in my book and that's why I vote Democrat. They aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. They are very partisan themselves, but the core actions I support much more than Republicans actions. Democrats seem to try to help the regular Americans to a fault. Republicans seem to try to help big business and rich people to a fault and pretend to care about regular Americans. Most politicians are wealthy and don't even grasp what it is like to be a regular working American.

I am rambling like I tend to do and not really saying anything so I will end this post.

[Mori Chu]

Nodack: I tend to feel the same way. I don't really have much fondness for the Democrats, but I think the Republicans have gotten literally evil in the last 15-20 years and it scares me. They've tried to impeach Obama and tried to vote to repeal Obamacare how many times? It's so childish and pointless. As you say, they traffic in hyperbole and bullying, like the whole "Obama is a Muslim terrorist" crap. They also have floated the party over to an area where their social views no longer match the general public consensus, on things like gay rights, abortion, and religion. You turn on Fox News and it's blatantly biased and ridiculous, and then you see your Republican friends watching it and eating up every word of it. And then you call them out on it and they make some comment about the "liberal media" and "balance" and "MSNBC does it too". Well, I don't watch MSNBC. Why do you watch Fox crap?

I love the idea of economic conservatism and I really want there to be a party that is socially tolerant but also interested in things like balancing the budget, trimming the fat from government, and so on. No current party seems to be these things. It saddens me. I don't think Hillary Clinton is our next great President, but I will absolutely not vote for Republicans until the tone and tenor of their party changes significantly.

[Dan H]

They've tried to impeach Obama

When?

Compare and contrast the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to ... rack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to ... ge_W._Bush

[Nodack]

They didn't try to impeach him, but as the article states most Republicans are in favor of it. Their reasons? Benghazi and not securing the border. There have been I think 8 seperate investigations into Benghazi with zero evidence of any wrongdoing or coverup found. Not securing the border? Nobody has ever secured the border. They want to impeach him, but have nothing to base it on.

According to that article they tried to impeach Bush for reasons too numerous for me to list, but mostly based on the Iraq war. I still believe the war was based on lies and fabrications in an attempt to control their oil. I still think killing hundreds of thousands of people based on fabricated evidence out of greed is an impeachable offense.

Benghazi and not securing the borders? Not so much. You would have to impeach every President for not securing the border. There were a lot of Benghazi's under Bush's watch and nobody said anything about impeachment for not stopping those.

[Dan H]

I'm not in favor of it at all because then the booger-picker would be in charge.

[Nodack]

I have to admit, that I am not a big fan of Biden myself.

[Dan H]

I wish Murphy Brown was still on, they could arrange to dump a truckload of pacifier's on his doorstep.

[OE32]

Yeah, but did you see what that guy did to Paul Ryan in the debate? What an epic ass whooping.

[Nodack]

I think if you are a Democrat, then Biden kicked his ass. I think if you are a Republican, you probably think Ryan kicked Biden's ass. I think if you are the normal public on that night you were probably watching reruns of Murphy Brown and didn't care what a couple of wind bag politicians had to say.

From what I have been reading from Iran I would have to say that the Iran deal is dead. Iran is now saying there was no deal and that Obama and Kerry are lying about it. That should make Republicans happy. I was just watching FOX News covering it and they said Obama and Kerry are delusional and made up the whole deal. FOX praised Iran's leadership and talked about how great Iran is at negotiating and that Iran ate Obama for lunch. Of course that doesn't surprise me. Putin was praised as a great leader by FOX as well when it came to dealing with Obama. Remember the old days when Americans stuck by each other? Even in the worst political fights between the two sides, they managed to paint a united picture when it came to dealing with other countries, especially nemesis's like Iran and Russia. Not anymore. Now Russia and Iran can count on the Republican party to not back Obama in any circumstance, no matter what. Even if we were near war with Russia and China together, Republicans would still consider Obama the real enemy and heap praise on both those countries for sticking up to the evil Obama.