John Stewart on the GOP's "Pledge To America"

[HELLRAISER]

In 94, the GOP did actually have some novel ideas like a balanced budget, welfare reform, etc. Clinton to his credit seized on the political winds and enacted most of them, and he gets credit for them, which is fine. So instead of focusing on politics, look at the facts and tell me how these items are a bad thing? Explain how spending money we don't have and growing a Federal government that's already full of waste, incompetence and corruption is a more appealing option? :dunno:

That goes to prove the GOP is Republican In Name Only and the Democratic Party are true Conservatives.

 

[Hot Mega]

In 94, the GOP did actually have some novel ideas like a balanced budget, welfare reform, etc. Clinton to his credit seized on the political winds and enacted most of them, and he gets credit for them, which is fine.

Uh, Clinton ran on welfare reform in '92. Further you're alleging GOPers caused the things we champion Clinton for by way of the CoA...How so when a variety of their proposals did not come to fruition??

So instead of focusing on politics, look at the facts and tell me how these items are a bad thing? Explain how spending money we don't have and growing a Federal government that's already full of waste, incompetence and corruption is a more appealing option? :dunno:

I haven't addressed the merits of their ideas, just their credibility and motivation in calling for them. I mean, it's not like we haven't seen this movie before. After all, that's what this whole "freekin" thread is about!!

GOPers babble incessantly about "fiscal responsibility" but as soon as they get a congress and a prez ...what do they do?? Not only finance a war of choice to nation-build ..and not only fail to cut or create a single dime to pay for it...but then finance hundreds of billions more in tax "cuts" and "rebates". What say you to this??

So when GOPers make the identical calls for policies they made a decade ago...the question for you C/S is why aren't you laughing at them?

 

[24788]

99.999% of politicians are greedy. The rest of them just don't know how to use the business yet.

 

[afterlights]

Damn, I am really beginning to hate all the politicians in this country

*claps*

My day is so much brighter the less time spent discussing (read: arguing) politics. It's just so damned invasive it's almost impossible to escape though.

 

[HELLRAISER]

^ that kind of apathy is exactly the reason why things have deteriorated in this country and will continue to get worse if people don't know how to think critically, don't do their own independent research, and remain uninformed and out of touch with reality.

 

[shayd]

These political debates are fucking ridiculous.

 

[Hot Mega]

These political debates are fucking ridiculous.

I saw a thread once about someone having red bumps on their anus. It never occurred to me to click on it or comment in it.

 

[CunningStunts]

Uh, Clinton ran on welfare reform in '92. Further you're alleging GOPers caused the things we champion Clinton for by way of the CoA...How so when a variety of their proposals did not come to fruition??


I haven't addressed the merits of their ideas, just their credibility and motivation in calling for them. I mean, it's not like we haven't seen this movie before. After all, that's what this whole "freekin" thread is about!!

GOPers babble incessantly about "fiscal responsibility" but as soon as they get a congress and a prez ...what do they do?? Not only finance a war of choice to nation-build ..and not only fail to cut or create a single dime to pay for it...but then finance hundreds of billions more in tax "cuts" and "rebates". What say you to this??

So when GOPers make the identical calls for policies they made a decade ago...the question for you C/S is why aren't you laughing at them?

They certainly changed their MO during the Bush years and believe you me, they disappointed me and a lot of people. Hopefully they learned from that debacle and will move back to more of a libertarian, Constitutional approach, which is the only sane and rational way to govern the US.

BTW, I hear the lefties incessantly talk about how much the wars cost, but the first "stimulus" bill Obama rolled out was more than both of them combined. Not that I think we should have been in Iraq mind you, but damn, this Congress and the President have wasted more money on shit that hasn't worked than the last 3 presidents combined... in just less than 2 years!

 

[CunningStunts]

That goes to prove the GOP is Republican In Name Only and the Democratic Party are true Conservatives.

Dude, I hope you are joking, because if not, you've finally lost it.

 

[Hot Mega]

They certainly changed their MO during the Bush years and believe you me, they disappointed me and a lot of people. Hopefully they learned from that debacle and will move back to more of a libertarian, Constitutional approach, which is the only sane and rational way to govern the US.

That's just it. How is it a "change" in MO when they did the exact, same thing during the Reagan years?? Talk one way but "govern" another.

BTW, I hear the lefties incessantly talk about how much the wars cost, but the first "stimulus" bill Obama rolled out was more than both of them combined. Not that I think we should have been in Iraq mind you, but damn, this Congress and the President have wasted more money on shit that hasn't worked than the last 3 presidents combined... in just less than 2 years!

Define "hasn't worked". It's only been implemented 3/4s of the way.

Also you seem to have your data skewed. While the stimulus was near $800B...more than a 3rd of it was for tax cuts. SOOO if you want to count the cost of the wars plus the Bush tax cuts your accounting of the spending would be more accurate.

And for all of the belly-aching about the stimulus spending...at least it's aims are to address the g'ment's actual responsibilities to building and repairing infrastructure here as opposed to re-building and repairing shit we :spump: up someplace else.

 

[shayd]

I saw a thread once about someone having red bumps on their anus. It never occurred to me to click on it or comment in it.

Unfortunately, that thread in the scheme of things meant jack shit. In this case, people are treating this thread as though what they say honestly means a single fucking meaningful thing. I honestly have trouble telling whether people realize that this scapegoating is hogwash. Literally every single fucking thread that's even remotely political turns into "IT'S THE GOP's FAULT!!" followed by "NO IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT!" and back and forth for 20 pages. It's turned into a 5th grade shouting match, with a few members legitimately trying to make eloquent and reasonable points, only to be insulted.

There's only so many times this can happen before these thread just become stupid, and pointless. That being the case, my comment really really doesn't seem out of place in this thread.

 

[Hot Mega]

Unfortunately, that thread in the scheme of things meant jack shit. In this case, people are treating this thread as though what they say honestly means a single fucking meaningful thing. I honestly have trouble telling whether people realize that this scapegoating is hogwash. Literally every single fucking thread that's even remotely political turns into "IT'S THE GOP's FAULT!!" followed by "NO IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT!" and back and forth for 20 pages. It's turned into a 5th grade shouting match, with a few members legitimately trying to make eloquent and reasonable points, only to be insulted.

Sometimes these things can take on a Hatfields and McCoys tone. But nonetheless, some points are relevant and valid.

There's only so many times this can happen before these thread just become stupid, and pointless.

Everything can seem pointless to anybody who has other interests.:2 cents:

How many times have we heard it said of sports for example?

That being the case, my comment really really doesn't seem out of place in this thread.

We're all different but I just mentioned my way of dealing with threads I see as ridiculous, annoying, etc.

It's not really my place to admonish the way people discuss topics I find ridiculous.:dunno:

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Republicans Pledge to America

I will make the W tax cuts permanent, freeze spending at 2008 levels, reduce the deficit, shrink government, keep military defense and homeland security spending intact, offer a revised healthcare program with tax breaks or vouchers, not change entitlements, keep earmarks, keep the war going in Afghanistan, reduce unemployment, and spur private industry growth with tax breaks….

Wanna buy some swampland!!!!

 

[shayd]

Sometimes these things can take on a Hatfields and McCoys tone. But nonetheless, some points are relevant and valid.

Certainly there are valid points, but the ratio of mudslinging posts to rational valid posts is approximately 38923792432:1. Then, there are pages upon pages of little more than name calling and often desultory nonsense.

Everything can seem pointless to anybody who has other interests.:2 cents:

How many times have we heard it said of sports for example?

I really don't know how sport, (which by it's very essence is trivial), and the tone of this thread are comparable. There seems to exist an illusion in these threads of seriousness, and that "I know the facts about (insert political jargon here)..." and in practice, this attitude has essentially been nothing more than poppycock. If it's going to be about name calling and scapegoating, there's absolutely no reason for any rational human being to hide behind the guise of "I have the facts" and therefore the intellectual high ground. These threads are pointless by chronic overuse, not nature, and really, through sheer saturation of the board.

We're all different but I just mentioned my way of dealing with threads I see as ridiculous, annoying, etc.

It's not really my place to admonish the way people discuss topics I find ridiculous.:dunno:

That's very noble of you, however, the repeated pattern of how these threads divulge into sheer irrationality or just plain repetition is not unlike the 500000 threads of "Who would you fuck etc...", or one of the historical gems brought about by BaconSalt. Generally speaking, people on this board grow wearing of a topic after roughly the 10,000,000th iteration. So, when all of the political threads begin following a predictable pattern of insults and really, childishness, I'd say anyone with a cursory knowledge of rational discussion would take offense. It's basic respect for the topic at hand, (that all involved claim to care about), and the users involved.

But if these threads are really just about mudslinging from the get-go, by all means consider my original comment out of place.

 

[HELLRAISER]

Unfortunately, that thread in the scheme of things meant jack shit. In this case, people are treating this thread as though what they say honestly means a single fucking meaningful thing. I honestly have trouble telling whether people realize that this scapegoating is hogwash. Literally every single fucking thread that's even remotely political turns into "IT'S THE GOP's FAULT!!" followed by "NO IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT!" and back and forth for 20 pages. It's turned into a 5th grade shouting match, with a few members legitimately trying to make eloquent and reasonable points, only to be insulted.

There's only so many times this can happen before these thread just become stupid, and pointless. That being the case, my comment really really doesn't seem out of place in this thread.

You should check the sources cited a few people actually post instead of generalizing by equating rival debaters. If you bother to check the sources cited by those who are repeatedly called commies, liberals, socialists, etc. by the pretenders to the throne on the right, you'll notice that those who are on the right rarely cite legit sources while those who disagree with them such as myself tend to post credible sources to back up our opinion.

 

[Hot Mega]

Certainly there are valid points, but the ratio of mudslinging posts to rational valid posts is approximately 38923792432:1. Then, there are pages upon pages of little more than name calling and often desultory nonsense.

I really don't know how sport, (which by it's very essence is trivial), and the tone of this thread are comparable. There seems to exist an illusion in these threads of seriousness, and that "I know the facts about (insert political jargon here)..." and in practice, this attitude has essentially been nothing more than poppycock. If it's going to be about name calling and scapegoating, there's absolutely no reason for any rational human being to hide behind the guise of "I have the facts" and therefore the intellectual high ground. These threads are pointless by chronic overuse, not nature, and really, through sheer saturation of the board.

That's very noble of you, however, the repeated pattern of how these threads divulge into sheer irrationality or just plain repetition is not unlike the 500000 threads of "Who would you fuck etc...", or one of the historical gems brought about by BaconSalt. Generally speaking, people on this board grow wearing of a topic after roughly the 10,000,000th iteration. So, when all of the political threads begin following a predictable pattern of insults and really, childishness, I'd say anyone with a cursory knowledge of rational discussion would take offense. It's basic respect for the topic at hand, (that all involved claim to care about), and the users involved.

But if these threads are really just about mudslinging from the get-go, by all means consider my original comment out of place.

Geez man...I don't know what to say to all this but, wow.

Is there a two sided circumstance no matter how trivial or serious that isn't prone to go back and forth?

Is there a two side circumstance which doesn't have varying qualities of input? Your ratio assertion reflects a common sense reality that the majority of people don't follow issues well enough to provide a quality input.

Because some may add low quality, irrelevant or other types of frivolity to a discussion doesn't make the discussion ridiculous IMO.

No one's deluded into believing these discussions, debates and disagreements mean anything to anyone beyond those involved in them...it's an anonymous message board for crying out loud...on a porn site no less.

Which again begs the question why would someone care to even add input to a discussion they weren't interested in or thought was ridiculous?

The analogous point to bringing up sports is there are people who see any discussion of sports or politics equally trivial whereby any and all discussion or debates on it amount to a ridiculous waste of time.

Sports are trivial? In most cases they are....unless you're the guy who's betting, or the owner of some franchise or a player who's livelihood depends on it or a network channel who's business model is built on it, etc.

 

[shayd]

You should check the sources cited a few people actually post instead of generalizing by equating rival debaters. If you bother to check the sources cited by those who are repeatedly called commies, liberals, socialists, etc. by the pretenders to the throne on the right, you'll notice that those who are on the right rarely cite legit sources while those who disagree with them such as myself tend to post credible sources to back up our opinion.

Great idea. Just to keep it germane, let's take a look at the second page of this thread.

We've got:

6 "sources":
1 YouTube Clip of spin.
1 legitimate transcript of a speech.
1 legitimate review of literature.
1 opinion piece from what is essentially a blog.
1 opinion piece directly from the Libertarian party. And finally,
1 opinion piece that thankfully included references to actual journal reviews.
All in all, 3 legitimate sources.

And then the fun begins:

Again, it was because [Clinton] wasn't dumb enough to start one.

the actions taken post 9/11 were purely optional and the most retarded ones were chosen.

WTF are you on anyhow?

My God are you that dense and biased against this country?

Debating with you is like talking pig latin to a donkey

you ALWAYS have to read the fine print with GOPers and listen to exactly what they say...not how they sound.

For those who like to read beyond a fox news level,

Oh god. Somebody is still living in 2003.

Thank God you're not in the position of dictating foreign policy

That goes to prove the GOP is Republican In Name Only and the Democratic Party are true Conservatives.

It goes both ways bud. You can disagree with other people politically, however, once you cross that threshold of "you're an idiot because you're a (insert political affiliation here)" without a rational basis, you lose the benefit of using an sort of logical backing to your beliefs. Posting "sources" that are tantamount to modern propaganda (see: most political blogs) does not give one the higher intellectual ground. By all means, if you want to have a mudslinging contest with others, go for it, but don't try to put forth the illusion of a logical, intellectual debate. I think you pretty much elucidate my point here:

check the sources cited by those who are repeatedly called commies, liberals, socialists, etc. by the pretenders to the throne on the right

That's nothing more than mudslinging, simple as that.

Geez man...I don't know what to say to all this but, wow.

Is there a two sided circumstance no matter how trivial or serious that isn't prone to go back and forth?

Is there a two side circumstance which doesn't have varying qualities of input? Your ratio assertion reflects a common sense reality that the majority of people don't follow issues well enough to provide a quality input.

I have no trouble acknowledging that debates go back and forth, that's not the issue. The point of contention is the context within which this takes place. Go back and forth all you want, but when the bulk of the thread devolves into repudiation based on name-calling and other 5th grade tactics, (viz irrational sweeping generalizations), you've lost any intellectual backing. If that's the case, why not just start a thread for the expressed purpose of shouting obscenities and insults at one another based on political affiliation, and drop the guise of intellectual debate?

Because some may add low quality, irrelevant or other types of frivolity to a discussion doesn't make the discussion ridiculous IMO.

No one's deluded into believing these discussions, debates and disagreements mean anything to anyone beyond those involved in them...it's an anonymous message board for crying out loud...on a porn site no less.

I have no problem with some posts being low quality, that's the nature of the beast. However, as evidenced by my reply to Hellraiser, the irrelevant, or just outright pointless discussion far outnumbers that of quality input. THAT severely undermines the legitimacy of the discussion.

Which again begs the question why would someone care to even add input to a discussion they weren't interested in or thought was ridiculous?

I'm plenty interested in the subject of this thread. Add to that the fact that political threads take up a seemingly larger and larger portion of the total threads on this board, and you've got a fairly strong indication why. You see, as I've alluded to before, I have no problem with people talking and discussing political issues, in fact, I encourage it. I just assume, (apparently contrary to what you or others believe) a basic respect for fellow members, and in general for rational intellectual debate, that one would, when making claims that are supposedly factual in nature, do away with the entire concept of ipse dixit.

The analogous point to bringing up sports is there are people who see any discussion of sports or politics equally trivial whereby any and all discussion or debates on it amount to a ridiculous waste of time.

If these political discussions are outright labeled as trivial, that's fine with me. However, playing the fence between rational discussion and outright nonsense would not fall in line with that, and that's exactly what political discussions here have entailed.

Sports are trivial? In most cases they are....unless you're the guy who's betting, or the owner of some franchise or a player who's livelihood depends on it or a network channel who's business model is built on it, etc.

You're reversing roles here. Those who bet, are owners, players or work for networks, are FAR outnumbered by those who aren't. They are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Hot Mega]

Great idea. Just to keep it germane, let's take a look at the second page of this thread.

We've got:

6 "sources":
1 YouTube Clip of spin.
1 legitimate transcript of a speech.
1 legitimate review of literature.
1 opinion piece from what is essentially a blog.
1 opinion piece directly from the Libertarian party. And finally,
1 opinion piece that thankfully included references to actual journal reviews.
All in all, 3 legitimate sources.

And then the fun begins:


It goes both ways bud. You can disagree with other people politically, however, once you cross that threshold of "you're an idiot because you're a (insert political affiliation here)" without a rational basis, you lose the benefit of using an sort of logical backing to your beliefs. Posting "sources" that are tantamount to modern propaganda (see: most political blogs) does not give one the higher intellectual ground. By all means, if you want to have a mudslinging contest with others, go for it, but don't try to put forth the illusion of a logical, intellectual debate. I think you pretty much elucidate my point here:


That's nothing more than mudslinging, simple as that.




I have no trouble acknowledging that debates go back and forth, that's not the issue. The point of contention is the context within which this takes place. Go back and forth all you want, but when the bulk of the thread devolves into repudiation based on name-calling and other 5th grade tactics, (viz irrational sweeping generalizations), you've lost any intellectual backing. If that's the case, why not just start a thread for the expressed purpose of shouting obscenities and insults at one another based on political affiliation, and drop the guise of intellectual debate?



I have no problem with some posts being low quality, that's the nature of the beast. However, as evidenced by my reply to Hellraiser, the irrelevant, or just outright pointless discussion far outnumbers that of quality input. THAT severely undermines the legitimacy of the discussion.



I'm plenty interested in the subject of this thread. Add to that the fact that political threads take up a seemingly larger and larger portion of the total threads on this board, and you've got a fairly strong indication why. You see, as I've alluded to before, I have no problem with people talking and discussing political issues, in fact, I encourage it. I just assume, (apparently contrary to what you or others believe) a basic respect for fellow members, and in general for rational intellectual debate, that one would, when making claims that are supposedly factual in nature, do away with the entire concept of ipse dixit.



If these political discussions are outright labeled as trivial, that's fine with me. However, playing the fence between rational discussion and outright nonsense would not fall in line with that, and that's exactly what political discussions here have entailed.



You're reversing roles here. Those who bet, are owners, players or work for networks, are FAR outnumbered by those who aren't. They are the exception, not the rule.

So, how do you actually feel about Jon Stewart's take on the GOPer "Pledge...."?

 

[HELLRAISER]

Great idea. Just to keep it germane, let's take a look at the second page of this thread.

We've got:

6 "sources":
1 YouTube Clip of spin.
1 legitimate transcript of a speech.
1 legitimate review of literature.
1 opinion piece from what is essentially a blog.
1 opinion piece directly from the Libertarian party. And finally,
1 opinion piece that thankfully included references to actual journal reviews.
All in all, 3 legitimate sources.

Is 3 legit sources that shows the hypocrisy of the GOPs "Pledge to America" not suffice? Now, how many legit sources did the opposition provide to validate their opinions?

 

[Nester6]

Yep. What a shame McCain wasn't elected. All our problems would be over.

True Jagger, they wouldn't be over, but they surely wouldn't be 5 times as worse as they are with Obama!