I have to say the whole Howard Dean outburst was the most overblown media-fueled campaign assassination I have ever seen. It was a total non-issue for me. I wouldn't of voted for Dean, but that outburst meant nothing. That media tape clearly had the volume raised *some* when compared to home videos of the same speech. I just can't believe how overblown the issue was, and how it basically destroyed his campaign.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
As a quasi-Republican...
- Thread starter Mill
- Start date
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
^ There's a true Replublicrate for you , Mill.
Oh, so I'm a moderate because I can't figure out what I want? Heh, I know what I want, it is just that neither party offers it. Sorry but I am not a parrot, and a party platform is not how I learn what I want to believe in. Furthermore the most disgusting thing about the Republican party is the "with us or against us" type of attitude that has been driving off all the moderates. Hey if you want a super conservative party then take the Rep party and let it be yours. The Dems are running into the same problem with the super Libs, so eventually us moderates will take over. We can compromise to get things done because we are realistic. I don't live in a fantasy world where everyone has to agree with me or they can't be a part of my life. Maybe you should take your rhetoric to one of the numerous flame threads already available. This one was meant for some serious discussion. The media assassination of the Dean campaign was utterly sickening. Instead of listening to talk radio you might be bothered to pick up a decent book one day. Till then have fun trying to flame me.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
Neither party offers it? There are more than two parties, in fact there are numerous parties and if you had any defineable beliefs you would be able to find one that coincides with your views. Truth is you don't want a party because you want to flip flop on any issue that you come across. Moderates are political nobodies as far as I'm concerned because they don't take a hardline approach to any issue thus, making them ineffective. Has any successful politican ever been less than adamant about their beliefs?
I already told you I was a realist. I don't need to be part of a "party" to have my beliefs. Third parties rarely have any impact on elections, and when they do it is only significant if they can sway votes from one of the other major parties. I don't think I've flip-flopped on any issues, but you haven't been reading this forum long so you hardly know me. Problem is moderates are the key to government. They allow both idiotic extremist sides to reach a compromise and allow the government to function. Your logic has a major flaw, but I'd doubt you've noticed it. If both parties stuck to their guns and were never "...less than adamant about their beliefs" then our government would be at a standstill and all that would happen is petty bickering. Compromise and moderation are key to getting anything done. I don't flip-flop on issues, but I certainly have room to compromise so that life can go on, roads can get built, etc. You obviously want both parties to lock horns like bulls and create even more widespread distrust and hatred of Washington. How exactly does that achieve any notable effect on our problems or show any courage? It show that people couldn't see their weaknesses in their own ideas and the strength in others. If everyone was equally brilliant and qualified then we would all agree and debate would be a moot point. Since this is not true and we have freedom... compromise is necessary. How old are you? 16, 17? The real world is not one of extreme ideas and courageous stand of your views. Unless it is a completely sacred view it is open to alteration as the events change and open to compromise so that some GOOD gets done. The founding fathers must have been total morons that "were...less than adamant about their beliefs" and that is why they compromised to create the Constitution, compromised to create two chambers of congress, and compromised on pretty much any other policy issue. One day you'll have some sense and realize that.
ReiAyanami
Diamond Member
the Anarchist Fascist Party, it's right for everyone (or left)
mill,
you used to be a republican right before bush?
it just seems to me alot of the supposed republicans few years back have turned into right leaning moderates in the last 3 years, no idea if its actually right or not 🙂
btw, I totaly agree with you on the dean issue, like who cares if he yelled a bit, its not like it is a major change in character for anyone if they yell
you used to be a republican right before bush?
it just seems to me alot of the supposed republicans few years back have turned into right leaning moderates in the last 3 years, no idea if its actually right or not 🙂
btw, I totaly agree with you on the dean issue, like who cares if he yelled a bit, its not like it is a major change in character for anyone if they yell
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
As a Conservative and also a Republican...I offer you a :beer:.
Good post.
CkG
Edit - and the dean thing? Well, it made for great fun😛 I don't believe he really stood a chance with the people anyway.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Mill for President! :beer:
You're right, but isn't this just typical for the media? Tons of stories get way too much press; at least more than the actual story warrants, IMHO. So Dean got a little excited at a rally - big deal!! I don't like him on the issues, but I certainly don't hold the 'scream' thing against him. And people complain that politicians are too bland and dull, just reciting prepared statements and 'talking points'.
I think that Dean was vilified because he was the front runner, but also I think something else was at work. I can understand playing it a few times in the day, but it was being played literally every five minutes. How is that reporting a story? That is basically forcing the American public to remember someone based on one incident. Anyway, I don't think Dean was electable either, but it wasn't that just Fox News was doing this. Every major network was replaying the same thing and making Dean out to be a wacko. The home video I saw made it looked like he was optimistic and upbeat and trying to rally his supporters. It is too late to matter now, but I was having a conversation about this with a friend earlier. I just don't like the idea of the media being able to destroy a campaign like that.
I dont like it either, but on the other hand the media allowed Dean to have a campaign in the first place. They nominated him the frontrunner... until people started voting, and he got very few votes for being a "frontrunner". Shouldnt the "frontrunner" be the guy who is going to get the most votes? Not just the guy who can get a small number of very vocal supporters?
Dissipate
Diamond Member
Hmm, sacrificing beliefs because you believe they will never work, talk about a self fulfilling prophecy.
There are few extremists in government, furthermore just because someone is in a party does not make them an extremist. Logical fallacy #1.
Being adamant about your beliefs does not mean that you take every issue and not budge at all. It doesn't mean you can't compromise, it just means that you believe in something strongly, and when you do compromise you still make it known what your beliefs are. On some issues you budge more, some issues you budge less. Hardline approach on some issues, softer approach on others, but compromise is never completely thrown out.
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth! I have nothing to say here because this is not what I want and this doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you yourself do not have any defineable beliefs which is the real issue.
Bwahahaha. Sorry, had to laugh. My age has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here. When Kasparov is sitting across from his 15 year old grandmaster opponent I don't think he takes his moves less seriously because of his age.
The founding fathers weren't adamant about their beliefs?! That's about the most laughable statement I have read in a LONG while. They actually had very strong beliefs, especially about democracy. What if they decided that they were all moderates and fighting the British was an "extreme view"? Having strong beliefs does not preclude you from compromising, this is a logical fallacy (read above).
Seriously, how old are you? Secondly, yes the Founding Fathers did compromise severely to even create the constitution and our current form of government. Care to actually post something of substance instead of saying "logical fallacy" every time I presupposed your views? You did the same to me, so it is a bit hypocritical for you to say that I was the one using fallacies. At any rate... using a fallacy doesn't mean your argument isn't valid, credible, or sound.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
21 isn't that far away from 16 or 17. What's the point in asking? He can say that he's 45 or 82.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
There is a gap, but there is also a gap between 21 and 25. A 21 year old, on average, is hardly very mature, realistic, or very well educated.
A 21 year old asking someone else's age is just kind of strange, IMO. It's not as if the average 21 year old is very experienced, educated, etc.
I guess asking someone's age on the internet is the most popular type of 'insult'.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
Making my age an issue is a logical fallacy. It falls under the category of Ad Hominem. If you took a course in argumentation (which I did and I got an A) you would realize this and you would also realize that persistently inquiring about my age makes you look like a complete @ss.
If you took a course in logic which I also did and I got an A, you would realize that the statement I bolded for everyone to see is also a logical fallacy! This is absolutely hilarious. Using a fallacy doesn't mean your argument isn't valid, credible or sound?! A logical fallacy by its very definition is INVALID. There are two main properties of an argument, validity and soundness. An argument that is valid is logically consistent, an argument that is sound is logically consistent AND its premises are also true. Your argument and sub-arguments failed both tests, therefore your argument is invalid.
I didn't say the founding fathers didn't compromise, I said they had strong beliefs. As I have said several times now these are two seperate issues and strong beliefs do not preclude compromise.
You are still dodging the question. I don't think your age is irrelevant to the argument at hand, because you are the one who said I didn't have a clue and should come back later. Secondly, you stated: "Moderates are political nobodies as far as I'm concerned because they don't take a hardline approach to any issue thus, making them ineffective." Yet then you later point out yourself that compromise and moderation are key to the government functioning correctly. I would like for you to point out how my premises were incorrect, and how my argument was fallacious. Just saying so doesn't make it true, and you are engaging in numerous fallacies yourself. You ad-homed me in your initial post, and now are trying to throw out a red herring about the grade you made in a logic class... all the while ignoring the question I asked. So, what course was it that you took? College course? Grade school course? High school course?
I repeat, how old are you? If you don't want to answer, then what is your reasoning?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
