ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags protest incidents , protest issues , sports incidents

Reply
Old 11th June 2018, 10:11 PM   #241
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Interesting that logger acknowledges that the GOP "donít have principles."
Going from Phiwums perspective, of course.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:22 PM   #242
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by logger View Post
This is so ridiculous! When the GOP had principles your side complained endlessly about it. Now that they donít have principles, your side complains about it. That makes it obvious itís just politics.
If one disagrees with the politics of the GOP, that disagreement exists whether the GOP has any principles or not, so I'm not sure I see your point....

....aside from the fact that it's quite gratifying to have you acknowledge the GOP no longer has principles. LOL
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 11:37 PM   #243
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
If one disagrees with the politics of the GOP, that disagreement exists whether the GOP has any principles or not, so I'm not sure I see your point....

....aside from the fact that it's quite gratifying to have you acknowledge the GOP no longer has principles. LOL
It looks like you missed the point entirely.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 11:50 PM   #244
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by logger View Post
It looks like you missed the point entirely.
Nah, I centered in on the most important part.

Thanks, though.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 09:52 AM   #245
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,069
Originally Posted by logger View Post
This is so ridiculous! When the GOP had principles your side complained endlessly about it. Now that they don’t have principles, your side complains about it. That makes it obvious it’s just politics.
Thanks so much for admitting the obvious fact that Republicans do not have principles.
__________________
On 28 JUN 2018 'yuno44907' said: "I am god and you have to help me."
On 03 JUL 2018 'yuno44907' got banned from the Forum.

A man's best friend is his dogma.

Last edited by Crossbow; 12th June 2018 at 10:22 AM. Reason: Typo correction
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:03 AM   #246
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Thanks so much for admitting the obvious fact that Republicans do not have principals.


Yes, how horrible for your side.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:05 AM   #247
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,544
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Thanks so much for admitting the obvious fact that Republicans do not have principals.
"Principles" but point taken. Logger seems to concede that a lack of principles is an advantage. That's an odd concession. Aside from his party, what does he believe in?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:09 AM   #248
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
"Principles" but point taken. Logger seems to concede that a lack of principles is an advantage. That's an odd concession. Aside from his party, what does he believe in?
Go read the post again Phiwum, it was posted from your perspective not mine.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:20 AM   #249
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,069
Originally Posted by logger View Post


Yes, how horrible for your side.
And how very wonderful for your side.
__________________
On 28 JUN 2018 'yuno44907' said: "I am god and you have to help me."
On 03 JUL 2018 'yuno44907' got banned from the Forum.

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:21 AM   #250
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,069
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
"Principles" but point taken. Logger seems to concede that a lack of principles is an advantage. That's an odd concession. Aside from his party, what does he believe in?
Sorry, but I cannot say what 'logger' believes in.

I am sure that he does believe in something, but I have no idea as to what that something is.

P.S.: thanks for the correction.
__________________
On 28 JUN 2018 'yuno44907' said: "I am god and you have to help me."
On 03 JUL 2018 'yuno44907' got banned from the Forum.

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:26 AM   #251
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Logger seems to concede that a lack of principles is an advantage.
Of course the lack of principles is an advantage, at least on a tactical level. It means you aren't restricted in your actions. This isn't news. And politicians of all stripes have known it forever, and frequently practiced it as well.

But it's not logger's point. His point is that it's kind of hypocritical to demand your opponent adhere to principles you're opposed to.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:30 AM   #252
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course the lack of principles is an advantage, at least on a tactical level. It means you aren't restricted in your actions. This isn't news. And politicians of all stripes have known it forever, and frequently practiced it as well.

But it's not logger's point. His point is that it's kind of hypocritical to demand your opponent adhere to principles you're opposed to.
Wrong.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:32 AM   #253
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,544
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Sorry, but I cannot say what 'logger' believes in.

I am sure that he does believe in something, but I have no idea as to what that something is.

P.S.: thanks for the correction.
No sweat, and typos happen.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 08:25 PM   #254
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,572
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course the lack of principles is an advantage, at least on a tactical level. It means you aren't restricted in your actions. This isn't news. And politicians of all stripes have known it forever, and frequently practiced it as well.

But it's not logger's point. His point is that it's kind of hypocritical to demand your opponent adhere to principles you're opposed to.

It is possible to respect that a person has principles while being opposed to them.



For example, the right used to be for free trade. Now they work against free trade. Seemingly for no reason except that Trump said so.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 05:33 AM   #255
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
It is possible to respect that a person has principles while being opposed to them.
Sure, it's possible, but for the most part that's not what actually happens.

It's always in retrospect that Democrats pretend to respect past Republicans. It never happens at the time. And the purpose is always the same, to denigrate current Republicans by pretending you think past ones were OK.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:01 AM   #256
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's always in retrospect that Democrats pretend to respect past Republicans. It never happens at the time. And the purpose is always the same, to denigrate current Republicans by pretending you think past ones were OK.
Or, you know, there is an objective deterioration from

George HW Bush



down
to


George W Bush



d
o
w
n




t
o





Donald Trump



Now you might not be willing to admit this objective decline, but in fact many Republicans have noted such.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:14 AM   #257
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Or, you know, there is an objective deterioration
Politics is not objective. And that doesn't explain the phenomenon, in which the same politician is evaluated differently before and after. It's not just the two Bushes either, the same re-evaluation happened with McCain and Romney.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:33 AM   #258
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Politics is not objective.
I disagree. Many aspects of politics absolutely are subjective, but there objective metrics by which presidents can be judged (for example, economy, foreign relations, domestic quality of life).

Statesmanship, and the ability to engage in dialogue without resorting to immature and childish name calling are also objective metrics when comparing Trump with....well, literally any other president. That is most definitely not subjective.

Quote:
And that doesn't explain the phenomenon, in which the same politician is evaluated differently before and after. It's not just the two Bushes either, the same re-evaluation happened with McCain and Romney.
Perhaps there is some truth to people in general positively re-evaluating the past based on more negative perceptions of the present. This is far from unique to Democrats, however.

Why, for example, does your complaint not also include those Republicans who say, for example "Carter should be thanking Obama for knocking him out of the position for worst presidency ever. Har har har"?

Don't bother answering--I know the answer--you didn't include it because it doesn't fit your partisan confirmation bias bitching. That's why.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 09:37 AM   #259
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I disagree. Many aspects of politics absolutely are subjective, but there objective metrics by which presidents can be judged (for example, economy, foreign relations, domestic quality of life).
Those are not measurements of a president. And there is no way to objectively construct a measurement of a president out of them either.

Quote:
Statesmanship, and the ability to engage in dialogue without resorting to immature and childish name calling are also objective metrics when comparing Trump with....well, literally any other president. That is most definitely not subjective.
"Statesmanship" is absolutely a subjective evaluation. And the value you place on things like name calling is also subjective. I'm not claiming you're wrong to value these things, but that doesn't make it objective.

Quote:
Perhaps there is some truth to people in general positively re-evaluating the past based on more negative perceptions of the present. This is far from unique to Democrats, however.
It's most pronounced from the Democrats, because they dominate the press.

Quote:
Why, for example, does your complaint not also include those Republicans who say, for example "Carter should be thanking Obama for knocking him out of the position for worst presidency ever. Har har har"?
That's not at all the same thing. It's not a re-evaluation of Carter, it's ONLY a comparison. Note also that it's specific to Carter, not Clinton.

Quote:
Don't bother answering--I know the answer--you didn't include it because it doesn't fit your partisan confirmation bias bitching. That's why.
You know my answer before I give it. And I'm the one with partisan bias confirmation problems? That's... ironic.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 03:56 PM   #260
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Those are not measurements of a president. And there is no way to objectively construct a measurement of a president out of them either.
I disagree. Presidents are frequently measured by the objective state of the union during their tenure. Frequency of lies told is also an objective measure, and Trump holds the belt in that metric, hands down.

Quote:
"Statesmanship" is absolutely a subjective evaluation. And the value you place on things like name calling is also subjective. I'm not claiming you're wrong to value these things, but that doesn't make it objective.
I disagree. This Trump quote is objectively poorly formed, objectively rambling, and objectively indicative of a disorganized and unclear mind unsuited for the presidency:

"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes,
OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the
smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a
conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's
why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went
there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my
like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but
you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would
have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear
is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the
power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of
what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?),
but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I
would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because,
you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter
right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."



Quote:
It's most pronounced from the Democrats, because they dominate the press.
Cite for this claim?



Quote:
That's not at all the same thing. It's not a re-evaluation of Carter, it's ONLY a comparison.
I was paraphrasing. I assure you, I have seen and heard many Republicans express a fondness for the Carter presidency during the Clinton and Obama administrations. If you have not as well, then you simply aren't listening.


Quote:
Note also that it's specific to Carter, not Clinton.
Note that Clinton is still a target of the partisan-outrage-generating right wing media.



Quote:
You know my answer before I give it. And I'm the one with partisan bias confirmation problems? That's... ironic.
Note how you, due to a particularly phrased quote, you dodged the fact that Republicans do the same re-evaluation of Democratic candidates earlier. What other explanation is there for your singling out Democrats? If you have an alternate answer, why didn't you submit it?

Last edited by Cabbage; 13th June 2018 at 04:35 PM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 04:11 PM   #261
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Politics is not objective. And that doesn't explain the phenomenon, in which the same politician is evaluated differently before and after. It's not just the two Bushes either, the same re-evaluation happened with McCain and Romney.
And while we're on the topic of re-evaluations, I'm curious to get your take on this right wing media re-evaluation of the value of meeting with the dictator of North Korea:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/polit...th-north-korea

Do you still maintain that only Democrats are guilty of partisan re-evaluations? To be fair, perhaps you never did....But then, why call out only Democrats for such behavior?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:20 PM   #262
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I disagree. Presidents are frequently measured by the objective state of the union during their tenure.
There are objective measures of specific aspects of the union. But there is no objective way to combine these into a single measure. For example, is GDP growth good? Is income inequality bad? What if GDP goes up but so does income inequality? What relative importance do you place on these?

There are other measures which aren't objective at all. Do you care about gay rights? More or less than, say, protecting wetland?

The state of the union is meaningless absent a set of values with which to evaluate it, and values are ultimately subjective.

Quote:
Frequency of lies told is also an objective measure, and Trump holds the belt in that metric, hands down.
There is no objective measurement of this either. I suspect you're probably going to reference Politifact. Everyone making this claim does. But Politifact's statistics are not valid. The sampling method is itself subjective (and Politifact even admits as much), making the entire endeavor subjective.

Furthermore, there's no reason to treat every lie as being equally important. If you tell ten lies about trivial stuff, are you more or less of a liar than someone who tells one lie about something really important? And importance is itself subjective.

I've got no problem with you concluding that Trump is a bigger liar than other politicians. Subjective conclusions are unavoidable in politics. But you don't actually have an objective basis for that conclusion. No one has developed an objective measure of that. It's not clear that such a measure is even possible.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:36 PM   #263
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post



There is no objective measurement of this either. I suspect you're probably going to reference Politifact. Everyone making this claim does. But Politifact's statistics are not valid. The sampling method is itself subjective (and Politifact even admits as much), making the entire endeavor subjective.
Counting how many lies one tells (without assigning some subjective value to the size of lies) and measuring that count against the same count for others is an objective measure that Trump objectively loses against any other president. Period.

And I notice you're no longer pretending that Democrats are uniquely guilty of re-evaluating opposition presidents. What happened, are you finally seeing the light on that particular issue?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:46 PM   #264
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Here's another objective measure of a presidential administration worth considering with respect to Trump: How many criminal convictions have there been of people in the administration?

Off the top of my head, I would guess the current president on the leader board is either Nixon or Reagan, but I fully expect Trump to take the lead when the investigation is complete.

Last edited by Cabbage; 13th June 2018 at 07:48 PM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:55 PM   #265
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Off the top of my head, I would guess the current president on the leader board is either Nixon or Reagan, but I fully expect Trump to take the lead when the investigation is complete.

Well, whaddayaknow, over the past 50 years it's easily Nixon. I feel it's wroth noting, however, that in that time period, THREE Republican presidents each, individually, surpass the number of criminal convictions of ALL Democratic presidents. (Nixon, Reagan, and GWB)

Of course, this is sure to be blamed on that pesky liberal mainstream media. LOL

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ump-Appointees
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 10:39 PM   #266
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 8,731
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There are objective measures of specific aspects of the union. But there is no objective way to combine these into a single measure. For example, is GDP growth good? Is income inequality bad? What if GDP goes up but so does income inequality? What relative importance do you place on these?

There are other measures which aren't objective at all. Do you care about gay rights? More or less than, say, protecting wetland?

The state of the union is meaningless absent a set of values with which to evaluate it, and values are ultimately subjective.

There is no objective measurement of this either. I suspect you're probably going to reference Politifact. Everyone making this claim does. But Politifact's statistics are not valid. The sampling method is itself subjective (and Politifact even admits as much), making the entire endeavor subjective.

Furthermore, there's no reason to treat every lie as being equally important. If you tell ten lies about trivial stuff, are you more or less of a liar than someone who tells one lie about something really important? And importance is itself subjective.

I've got no problem with you concluding that Trump is a bigger liar than other politicians. Subjective conclusions are unavoidable in politics. But you don't actually have an objective basis for that conclusion. No one has developed an objective measure of that. It's not clear that such a measure is even possible.
Unless, of course, you understand how matters of preference -- including political theory -- must have their own foundational postulates or starting principles, agreed to by convention and defined in identifiable terms. This then does provide a means to argue what may logically contradict or run afoul of those principles.

By this line of reasoning, Trump has and continues to advocate concepts that directly undermine democracy and the rule of law. Stating your objections to criticism using methods reserved for matters of fact, not matters of preference, is either a willful misdirect or a category error, your choice.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time playing video games.
Summer Ongoing penance for overeating: His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:08 AM   #267
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Unless, of course, you understand how matters of preference -- including political theory -- must have their own foundational postulates or starting principles, agreed to by convention and defined in identifiable terms. This then does provide a means to argue what may logically contradict or run afoul of those principles.
The foundational postulates are not actually agreed to. That is at the heart of our political divisions.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:11 AM   #268
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Counting how many lies one tells (without assigning some subjective value to the size of lies) and measuring that count against the same count for others is an objective measure that Trump objectively loses against any other president. Period.
But nobody has ever done any such a measurement, on any politician.

Quote:
And I notice you're no longer pretending that Democrats are uniquely guilty of re-evaluating opposition presidents. What happened, are you finally seeing the light on that particular issue?
No, I'm just bored of it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:25 AM   #269
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But nobody has ever done any such a measurement, on any politician.
??

Of course they have.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:21 AM   #270
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
??

Of course they have.
No, they have not. What on earth made you think they had?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:22 AM   #271
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, they have not. What on earth made you think they had?
I'm telling you you're wrong and I'm right.

That's all you need to know.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:29 AM   #272
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I'm telling you you're wrong and I'm right.

That's all you need to know.
Still upset, I see.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:35 AM   #273
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Hey, that's your method of discussion kiddo, not mine.

At any rate, because I'm not a coward, I'll tell you. Politico tabulates things like lies and I'm fairly certain you know that.

Last edited by NoahFence; 14th June 2018 at 06:37 AM.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:44 AM   #274
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,873
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Hey, that's your method of discussion kiddo, not mine.

At any rate, because I'm not a coward, I'll tell you. Politico tabulates things like lies and I'm fairly certain you know that.
I know more about Politico's measurements than you. They will even tell you that they do not, in fact, measure how many lies politicians tell. They take a sample of statements and evaluate them for lies. In no case is that ever a measurement of all the lies a politician tells. And because of how they take their sample, it's not even a representative sample of their statements or lies.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:50 AM   #275
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I'm telling you you're wrong and I'm right.

That's all you need to know.
How is this answer not intellectual cowardice?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:52 AM   #276
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How is this answer not intellectual cowardice?
Because I was illustrating a point. Zig's got an open question that he's ducking and I'd like to see how he likes it.

/derail off
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:25 PM   #277
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,392
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Thanks so much for admitting the obvious fact that Republicans do not have principles.
Originally Posted by logger View Post


Yes, how horrible for your side.
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
And how very wonderful for your side.

I think that the fact that the Republicans controlling our government do not have principles is bad for the entire country.

It doesn't really matter who's on what side.

There is a tiny segment of the population who are profiting.

Everyone else is getting screwed. Whether they realize it or not.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:48 PM   #278
Cabbage
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, I'm just bored of it.
No, you're just wrong, and you're unable to come up with a successful counter-argument to the fact I presented that both sides do it...

Hence....Excuses.

Hell, this temporal re-evaluation is damn near universal among people in general. It's just another variation on "The Good Old Days....Remember When....?"

And I'll take another point for pointing out "Criminal Convictions" is another objective metric for a presidency.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 09:36 AM   #279
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,219
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
No, you're just wrong, and you're unable to come up with a successful counter-argument to the fact I presented that both sides do it...

Hence....Excuses.

Hell, this temporal re-evaluation is damn near universal among people in general. It's just another variation on "The Good Old Days....Remember When....?"

And I'll take another point for pointing out "Criminal Convictions" is another objective metric for a presidency.
Only if you make the faulty assumption that crimes committed by their administration are bad. Zig clearly does not fall for that fallacy.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 11:57 AM   #280
G6000
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
So the NFL is going to start punishing players and teams that don't partake in mandatory political messaging before games. On social media conservatives are hailing the decision with comments that seem to best be summarized as "Yes, make them stand!"

"Make them stand?"

What is the point when the key action in that sentence is the word "make"? As in, take away choice.

All through the NFL protest blowup I never was able to figure out why conservatives want forced patriotism. Is it proper to even still call it "patriotism" at that point. After all we don't call rape "forced sex" because we understand that the "forced" part makes it not even a form of sex at all. Similarly shouldn't there be a new term for when someone stands for the anthem but not because they think America is without fault but because they face punishment if they do not.

And, more to the point, why do so many people love the idea of forced patriotism? Is it a power trip? A way to force someone else to do something you want not what they want?
I see you are not wearing a flag pin.

What are you, some kind of Marxist Mexican?
G6000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.