Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right Wing Cartoonist vs Reality
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 76 of 91 (614018)
04-30-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rrhain
04-30-2011 1:01 AM


Rrhain writes:
I realize it's been a month, but I've been busy.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
I'm talking about the responsibility borne for an evil act.
That may be what you think you're talking about, but that isn't what you're saying. You're trying to argue popularity makes right and it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people do something wrong doesn't make it less wrong.
quote:
But I do not think that he is exceptional.
Except he is. You're equivocating on the word "exceptional." You are trying to pretend that we're talking about popularity rather than substance. The evil is "exceptional" due to its depravity and idiocy, not because it is rare. Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.
quote:
Are the Raiders especially evil? Or is the whole society just as evil, in general?
Yes to both. You seem to think there is a dichotomy here and there isn't. If everybody in society is exceptionally evil, that doesn't make the evil any less exceptional. The popularity of an evil act does not change it in any way. It is still exceptionally evil.
You are equivocating.
quote:
And now let's look at Wiki's info on public support for the invasion in January of '03
And this is your second logical error. You are trying to play "a pox on both your houses" when your own investigation into the subject matter shows that the two parties were nowhere near the same. The Republicans voted in lock-step. The Democrats had much greater diversity. But by your logic, the mere fact that there were a significant number of Democrats who supported the war makes them equivalent to the Republicans.
That simply isn't true.
quote:
I find it difficult to say that the Senate Republicans were evil for voting to go to war in Iraq, because their "opposition" didn't really oppose them and would have made the same choice, if in different proportions of dissent.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? A group of people unified in support of an exceptionally evil act is equivalent to a group of people who are only marginally in support of that act? Do you really think things would have been the same had there been any real debate on the subject? You do recall that there were no guests against the war on any of the Sunday talk shows, yes? That nobody ever got to hear any significant pushback about the "intelligence", yes? You do recall that Bush tried to talk about the uranium back in his speech in October before the State of the Union but that it got pulled out because it couldn't be verified...only to have it show up in the State of the Union despite being still unverified, yes? How many people know that on the day Bush announced hostilities in Iraq, the inspectors were destroying some missiles due to their range being beyond treaty specs and were literally begging Bush to stop and let them do their job?
Do you really think that if the Republicans were more like the Democrats, it still would have been inevitable that we would have gone to war in Iraq?
quote:
I'd say that the Senate was evil, rather than arbitrarily choosing to only pay attention to the evil of the Republicans while ignoring the other relevant group in the decision-making process.
See, there's that "pox on both your houses" act again. And again, you seem to forget that we're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about the Republicans. You're the one who talked about "moderate" Republicans.
Well...where are they? Why is it Republicans routinely vote en masse? We can get to the Democrats and their inabilities in another thread. This is solely about the Republicans.
Give us a name. Name a single "moderate" Republican. Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? Have you seen their voting records? Snowe killed healthcare.
We need a name. You claim there are "moderate" Republicans.
Name one.
Just one.
How about a wikipedia article for you? But note, it calls moderate Republicans "Rockefeller Republicans".
Rockefeller Republican - Wikipedia
Edit:
This following statement is a general statement.
I'm not really too fond of political editorial cartoons. They tend to be extremely partisan biased.
Edited by Tram law, : added general statement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2011 1:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2011 1:17 AM Tram law has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 77 of 91 (614051)
05-01-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rrhain
04-30-2011 1:01 AM


Did GWB follow the constraints of Congresses authorization?
Worse than Watergate - Wikipedia
quote:
In particular, he (John Dean) notes that the 18 March 2003 presidential determination, a condition of the legislation which authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, failed to satisfy the terms imposed by Congress and consequently would justify impeachment.
The question is, did the George W. Bush administration satisfy the Congress authorization constraints?
Although, in hindsight, it was an error to give GWB and company any sort of authorization set up, available to be abused.
The Afghanistan war was a BIG mistake. The Iraq war was malicious stupidity. Too bad we can't use the old evaluation of a mediocre Presidency for Shrub's legacy - "At least he didn't start any wars".
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2011 1:01 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 78 of 91 (615071)
05-10-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tram law
04-30-2011 2:22 PM


Tram law responds to me:
quote:
How about a wikipedia article for you?
Wikipedia is not a source. Try again. Why? Take a look at their claim:
Yet the Rockefeller Republican label is sometimes applied to such modern-day politicians as Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine.
As I pointed out, neither Snowe nor Collins are moderates. They are staunchly conservative. Take a look at their voting records. Snowe killed healthcare reform. They talk like they aren't lock-step conservatives, but their rhetoric is immaterial. The only thing of any importance is their voting record and they are solid conservatives.
Same for the rest of them. Arlen Specter? You do recall that he left the Democratic party for the Republicans and the only reason he left the Republican party is because he wasn't right-wing enough and new he would never survive a primary.
The political system in the US has shifted further and further to the right since the 80s. Reagan couldn't get elected as a Republican these days. Hell, Nixon couldn't get elected as a Republican. Nixon indexed Social Security to inflation and instituted SSI. He created the EPA and OSHA.
Those programs could never get passed today with current Republicans.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tram law, posted 04-30-2011 2:22 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 10:25 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2011 9:55 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 79 of 91 (615100)
05-10-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rrhain
05-10-2011 1:17 AM


Fact checking
...neither Snowe nor Collins are moderates. They are staunchly conservative. Take a look at their voting records.
OK, lets.
Below is a link to the voting records of all 100 senators as determined by the American Conservative Union.
They range from a low near 0 for liberal senators to a high of near 100 for conservative senators. Snowe and Collins average near 50. Hardly staunch conservatives.
Perhaps you are so far to the left that everything looks conservative to you?
Page not found | CPAC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2011 1:17 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:41 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2011 6:27 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 91 (615109)
05-10-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
05-10-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Fact checking
Pardon my ignorance of your system but what exactly is your link showing?
I cannot make out what was being voted on, in this voting record you have linked to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 10:25 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 9:35 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 84 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 12:37 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 81 of 91 (615158)
05-10-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
05-10-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Fact checking
Straggler writes:
Pardon my ignorance of your system but what exactly is your link showing?
I cannot make out what was being voted on, in this voting record you have linked to.
You don't need to know what was being voted on.
What is important, and what you are ignoring, is that a conservative organization has established a ranking system that shows that those two senators are not arch conservatives, as you have claimed. They are about the middle of the road on their scale.
You were wrong. Don't dig the hole any deeper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 9:43 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2011 9:04 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 82 of 91 (615160)
05-10-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
05-10-2011 9:35 PM


Re: Fact checking
What is important, and what you are ignoring, is that a conservative organization has established a ranking system that shows that those two senators are not arch conservatives, as you have claimed. They are about the middle of the road on their scale.
Middle of the road according to a very conservative organization? You do not see the ridiculousness of your assertion?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 9:35 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 10:39 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 83 of 91 (615164)
05-10-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Theodoric
05-10-2011 9:43 PM


Re: Fact checking
Theodoric writes:
What is important, and what you are ignoring, is that a conservative organization has established a ranking system that shows that those two senators are not arch conservatives, as you have claimed. They are about the middle of the road on their scale.
Middle of the road according to a very conservative organization? You do not see the ridiculousness of your assertion?
Look their records up on any scale you like.
And perhaps you could include with your response some evidence (as I have), not just your unsupported opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 9:43 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2011 8:49 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 84 of 91 (615165)
05-11-2011 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
05-10-2011 12:41 PM


The 25 issues
This is apparently the 25 issues of the results linked to in message 79.
Moose
Added by edit:
Snowe and Collins of Maine voted against the "conservative ideal" on 2,4,12,16,18,22,24, and 25:
quote:
2. Debt Limit Increase/Spending Cuts. H.J.Res. 45 (Roll Call 8). The Senate defeated an amendment to the Debt Ceiling bill which would have cut federal spending by a total of $120 billion. Amendment opponents insisted on dividing the amendment into three separate votes. This vote was to eliminate $22 billion in excessive overhead and duplicative programs. ACU supports this kind of fiscal restraint but it was defeated January 26, 2010, by a vote of 33-61.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
4. Earmark Moratorium. HR 1586 (Roll Call 50). The Senate killed an amendment that would have imposed a one year moratorium on congressional earmarked spending provisions. ACU opposes earmarks, and supported this amendment. The vote to kill it was 68-29, on March 16, 2010.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
12. Financial Regulatory Overhaul. S 3217 (Roll Call 160). The Senate agreed to stop debate and vote on a massive re-write of the nation’s financial services industry regulations. ACU strongly opposed this re-write, judging that it will not protect consumers, and will in fact further de-stabilize the economy. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to limit debate, and on May 20, 2010 the Senate voted 60-40 to do so.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
16. Estate Tax Repeal. HR 4213 (Roll Call 213). The Senate defeated an effort to bring up a permanent repeal of the death tax. ACU supports elimination of the tax, and supported this effort, which failed July 21, 2010 by a vote of 39-59.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
18. Kagan Nomination (Roll Call 229). On August 5, 2010, the Senate voted 63-37 to confirm the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. ACU opposed this nomination, considering Kagan’s record as a political activist.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
22. Food Safety. S 510 (Roll Call 257). On November 30, 2010, the Senate passed a bill overhauling food safety laws, expanding Food and Drug Administration enforcement powers and adding 18,000 federal employees. The bill enormously increased the regulatory red tape to operate farms and processing centers but did nothing to reduce the many agencies now dealing with the same issue and did not in fact increase meat and poultry safety. ACU opposed this vast expansion of the regulatory powers of the FDA, but the Senate passed it by a vote of 73-25.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
24. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy Repeal. HR 2965 (Roll Call 281). On December 18, 2010 the Senate voted to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which prohibits military service by openly homosexual men and women. ACU opposed this major change in social policy during a lame duck session of congress in time of war. Nevertheless, the Senate voted to pass the bill by a vote of 65-31.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
25. New START Nuclear Arms Treaty (Roll Call 298). The Senate voted to ratify a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. ACU opposed this treaty for its ambiguity regarding missile defense and other matters of substance without legal understandings to the contrary. ACU also opposed its adoption by a lame-duck session of Congress without proper consideration and debate. Nevertheless, on December 22, 2010, the resolution of ratification was adopted by a vote of 71-26.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
One of them, but not both voted against on 5 and 13:
quote:
5. D.C. School Choice. HR 1586 (Roll Call 53). The Senate rejected an amendment that would have prevented the elimination of tuition vouchers in the District of Columbia for low-income students that was canceled by the Obama Administration. ACU supports school choice, and supported this amendment, which was nevertheless rejected March 16, 2010, by a vote of 42-55
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
13. Rescissions and Federal Salary Freeze. HR 4899 (Roll Call 169). The Senate killed an amendment that would offset the cost of a supplemental spending bill by freezing salaries of federal civilian employees and rescinding 5 percent of the budget authority for programs other than those in the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. ACU supported this move but on May 27, 2010, the Senate voted to kill the amendment by a vote of 53-45.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
They both voted for the conservative line on 1,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,17,19,20,21, and 23:
quote:
1. TARP Elimination. H.J.Res. 45 (Roll Call 2). The Senate defeated an amendment eliminating the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and lowering the debt ceiling by the amount of TARP funds repaid. ACU opposed TARP from the beginning and supported this amendment. Although a 53-45 majority of the Senate voted to eliminate TARP on January 21, 2010, under Senate procedures 60 votes were required.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
3. Becker Nomination (Roll Call 22). The Senate voted against halting debate on the nomination of Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board. ACU opposed the nomination of Becker to the NLRB because his long record as a union organizer indicated his lack of objectivity for the position. In this case, on February 9, 2010, although a 52-33 majority of the Senate voted to stop debate and move to confirmation, under Senate rules 60 votes were required.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
6. Health Care Bill Repeal. HR 4872 (Roll Call 84). The Senate voted to kill an amendment that would have repealed the so-called Obamacare Health Care overhaul enacted by Congress at the end of 2009. ACU opposed the overhaul, and supported this repeal effort, but the Senate voted March 24, 2010 to kill it, by a vote of 58-39.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
7. Health Care and Immigration Status. HR 4872 (Roll Call 95). The Senate voted to kill an amendment that would have limited federal health care programs to U.S. citizens or legal alien residents. ACU supported this effort to require documentation for eligibility, but the Senate voted 55-43 to kill it on March 25, 2010.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
8. Health Care Reconciliation. HR 4872 (Roll Call 105). After passing the Obama Administration’s health care reform bill in late 2009 on a party-line vote, the Congress used the reconciliation process to get a bill through the Senate making some fixes to the Health Care Act, including tax increases and federal funding of abortion. The bill also included a government takeover of the student loan program. ACU opposes the procedure and the substance of this effort, but the Senate did pass it March 25, 2010 by a vote of 56-43.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
9. Financial Regulatory Overhaul/Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. S 3217 (Roll Call 135). During consideration of the Financial Regulatory Overhaul bill, an effort was made to include government-sponsored financial institutions, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the regulations, particularly with regard to limiting their size. ACU opposes these government-sponsored institutions, and supported the amendment to limit their size. However, on May 6, 2010, the Senate rejected this effort by a vote of 35-59.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
10. Federal Reserve Audit. S 3217 (Roll Call 138). The Senate defeated an effort to provide for an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank by the Government Accounting Office. ACU has long argued for more transparency in the operations of the Federal Reserve, and supported this effort, which was defeated May 11, 2010, by a vote of 37-62.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
11. FHA Mortgage Rates Revisions/Down Payment Requirement. S 3217 (Roll Call 142). The Senate defeated an amendment designed to reduce taxpayer exposure for risky home mortgages by increasing the minimum down payment requirement from 3.5 percent to 5 percent and placing other limits on taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages. ACU thinks loose lending practices by government agencies fueled the meltdown in the housing market, and so supported this tightening. However, the Senate rejected it May 12, 2010, by a vote of 42-57.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
14. U.S.-Mexico Border Fence. HR 4899. (Roll Call 172). The Senate failed to bring up an amendment that would require completion of a 700-mile southern border fence. ACU supported this effort to secure the border. Under Senate rules, a two-thirds majority was needed to bring up the amendment, but on May 27, 2010, the vote was only 45-52.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
15. Greenhouse Gas Regulation. S.J.Res. 26 (Roll Call 184). The Environmental Protection Agency has signaled its intent to regulate CO2, despite the absence of any Congressional mandate to do so. On June 10, 2010, the Senate, by a vote of 47-53, declined to take up a resolution disapproving EPA’s intent. ACU opposes this power grab by EPA, and supported the effort.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
17. Arizona Immigration Law. HR 4213 (Roll Call 214). The Senate defeated an effort to bring up an amendment de-funding federal efforts to invalidate Arizona’s state immigration law. ACU supports the State of Arizona in this dispute, and supported the effort, but on July 21, 2010 it failed by a vote of 43-55.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
19. Union Elections. S.J.Res. 30 (Roll Call 239). Congress has declined to pass the so-called card check legislation, which would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers. Nevertheless, the National Mediation Board has promulgated rules that would accomplish the same result. On September 23, 2010, the Senate rejected a motion to proceed to consider a resolution of disapproval of the NMB action. ACU supported this effort to check a runaway Executive Branch Agency, but the effort failed by a vote of 43-56.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
20. Campaign Finance Disclosure. S 3628 (Roll Call 240). In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding free speech rights for groups of private individuals, corporate entities, and labor unions in political campaign advertising, efforts were made in both houses of Congress to overturn it. The House did pass such legislation, but on September 23, 2010, the Senate refused to take up a bill imposing federal requirements on political advertising. Although a 59-39 majority of the Senate did vote for it, under Senate rules 60 votes were required.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
21. Spending Reductions. HR 3081 (Roll Call 245). The Senate defeated an amendment that would have cut federal spending by 5 percent (except for defense, veterans’ and homeland security) after spending on these programs had increased by 20-30% since 2008. ACU supports efforts to reign in federal spending, but this effort failed September 29, 2010 by a vote of 48-51.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
23. Immigration Policy Revisions (DREAM Act). HR 5281 (Roll Call 278). On December 18, 2010, the Senate defeated an attempt to stop debate and pass a bill granting children of illegal immigrants legal status if they have been in the United States continuously for more than five years and were younger than 16 when they entered the country, acquired a GED or enlisted in the military, and were younger than 30 on the date of enactment. ACU opposes this kind of piecemeal amnesty for those in the country illegally, and while a 55-41 majority of the Senate did vote to put this measure to a vote, under Senate rules 60 votes are required to limit debate.
Read More :: Page not found | CPAC
The extra links showed up when I copy/pasted the individual items; apparently they were hidden text as I don't see them at the source. Oddly, when I tried copy/pasting 1-25 all at once, the links didn't show up. I didn't check out any of those links.
Added by edit #2:
OK, all those extra links just go back to the source page. Apparently they had intended to add supplementary information but didn't.
Added by edit #3:
By the supplied ratings, the 4 most conservative Democrats were Arkansas: Lincoln 46%, Prior 29%; Indiana: Bayh 39%; Nebraska: Ben Nelson 48%; Wisconsin: Feingold 24% (???).
Snowe and Collins of Maine were both at 64% (a ways above 50%).
Added by edit #4, comparing Feingold to Snowe/Collins:
Feingold voted the conservative line on 1,4,9,10,12, and 21.
Snowe and Collins voted the conservative line on 1,9,10, and 21.
Snowe and Collins voted against the conservative line on 4 and 12.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above #2.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above #3 - Info on the 4 "conservative" Democrats.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add Ben Nelson data to edit 3 info.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above #4 - The Feingold position compared to Snowe/Collins.

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 85 of 91 (615191)
05-11-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Coyote
05-10-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Fact checking
And perhaps you could include with your response some evidence (as I have), not just your unsupported opinion.
You do realize that Obama was once designated the most liberal Senator.
This is a snapshot of 25 votes. The current crop of conservatives may consider them middle of the road, but to anyone not hard line conservative, they are very conservative. The current GOP would vilify Nixon and Reagan as socialists.
Compare Nixon to Obama and you will find them very close on the right/left spectrum.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 10:39 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 91 (615194)
05-11-2011 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
05-10-2011 9:35 PM


Re: Fact checking
Coyote writes:
You were wrong. Don't dig the hole any deeper.
I think you must be confusing me with someone else as my request for clarification was my first post in this thread. Anyway Moose has cleared things up in Message 84
Coyote writes:
What is important, and what you are ignoring, is that a conservative organization has established a ranking system that shows that those two senators are not arch conservatives, as you have claimed.
I am not going to comment or reply beyond this - But it seems worth pointing out that classifying things as 'conservative' or otherwise on the basis of a scale constructed by arch-conservatives may not be the most objective basis for such a classification.
I am sure that on the Fidel-Castro political scale we are all (including Theoderic) rabid right wing capitalist lunatics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 9:35 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Rahvin, posted 05-11-2011 11:33 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 91 (615197)
05-11-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rrhain
05-10-2011 1:17 AM


As I pointed out, neither Snowe nor Collins are moderates. They are staunchly conservative. Take a look at their voting records.
I checked Snowe out here. It concludes that
quote:
Olympia Snowe is a Moderate Populist Conservative.
Collins looks to have a similar record. I'm not sure how you are seeing any 'lockstep' out of her voting record. APHA rates her at 38% (how often she votes the way the organisation would prefer) which is fairly high for a Republican (who tend to be around 10-20% mark from a brief scan of the data), I only saw one that was higher (Collins equals it). That said, I'm not American Politics expert and maybe I've got something wrong or maybe you are weighting the voting record using some unstated metric.
For instance, she may have voted for DOMA but then most Dem Senators did too so from a relative point of view she wasn't just being lockstep with Republicans but the whole Senate. On the other hand, she did vote against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, unlike many Republicans. She is also voted liberally for anti-homophobia laws, in contrast to many of her fellow Republicans. Is this record outweighed entirely by her vote regarding recent healthcare reform? And her other healthcare votes? Certainly they lean towards her party, but she votes contra-Republican in a fair number of places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2011 1:17 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2011 6:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 88 of 91 (615203)
05-11-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Straggler
05-11-2011 9:04 AM


Re: Fact checking
I am not going to comment or reply beyond this - But it seems worth pointing out that classifying things as 'conservative' or otherwise on the basis of a scale constructed by arch-conservatives may not be the most objective basis for such a classification.
The entire "right" vs "left" comparison is subjective from the start - I don't think you can find an objective basis for such assessments. How does one even determine whether an issue is "right" or "left" in the first place? Majority support from Republicans or Democrats, respectively? I can really only point to a few hot-button issues like abortion where the contrast would be clear. Rrhain would likely bring up things like the USA PATRIOT Act, but the fact is that abominable set of legislation works counter to the traditional conservative value of "small government." The values trumpeted in front of the media are frequently not at all the reality behind legislation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2011 9:04 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2011 6:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 89 of 91 (621287)
06-24-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
05-10-2011 10:25 AM


Coyote responds to me:
quote:
Below is a link to the voting records of all 100 senators as determined by the American Conservative Union.
And we trust them why? You do recall that the ACU was involved in a blackmail scandal involving FedEx, yes?
As is typical, such surveys distort the concept of "conservative" and "liberal" in order to ensure that whoever the target-du-jour is, they can be described as the "most liberal" or "most conservative" as required.
quote:
Perhaps you are so far to the left that everything looks conservative to you?
Perhaps. Perhaps the opposite is also true: You are so far to the right that everything looks liberal to you. I should point out that the current conservative regime has been screaming "SOCIALISM" at the mere suggestion that we return the tax rates back to what Reagan had.
So if Reagan is a socialist under current conservative standards, then I don't think I can trust them when they claim Snowe and Collins are "moderate."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2011 10:25 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 90 of 91 (621293)
06-24-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Modulous
05-11-2011 9:55 AM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
I'm not sure how you are seeing any 'lockstep' out of her voting record.
By looking at her actual voting record, not what conservative organizations would say.
quote:
That said, I'm not American Politics expert and maybe I've got something wrong or maybe you are weighting the voting record using some unstated metric.
By actual votes on things. The problem with using lobbying groups claims about voting records is that they routinely alter their metrics so that whoever is the target-du-jour can be declared the "most liberal" or "most conservative" as required.
quote:
For instance, she may have voted for DOMA but then most Dem Senators did too
Irrelevant. You're looking at it from the wrong direction: Yes, most Democratic members of Congress (both House and Senate) voted for DOMA. But we're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about the Republicans. Any attempts to say, "But the Democrats do it, too!" is naught but distraction.
Question: How many Republicans voted against DOMA.
Hint: How many gay Republicans were there in Congress at the time?
quote:
On the other hand, she did vote against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, unlike many Republicans.
You mean she voted against an amendment that would never pass in the first place. Real courage there.
quote:
She is also voted liberally for anti-homophobia laws
Oh really? She voted against DADT repeal saying it needed to be studied more. It was only after it was a done deal did she finally flip.
quote:
Certainly they lean towards her party, but she votes contra-Republican in a fair number of places.
No, she doesn't. She's gone along with her party 85% of the time in the last session. And most of the times she didn't, it was on procedural issues. How does that make her "moderate"? Ethanol subsidies, budget, health care, DREAM act, Bush tax cut extensions, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, immigration reform, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, estate tax, Patriot Act, bankruptcy, class-action lawsuits, Alito, Roberts, Bolton, she's with them all the way.
Now, she did go against the party with regard to free trade, marriage equality, S-CHIP, FDA, Lily Ledbetter, START, and the final DADT, but that is hardly proof that she's a moderate or commonly goes against her party.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2011 9:55 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024