# Party loyalties



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

After reading this piece



I'm wondering how many of you plan to vote for the party of your choice, regardless of the individual candidate up for election in your locale. What do you think of the arguement's merits?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I agree with Mike Kinsley. In fact, here's a piece I wrote a couple of months ago discussing the primary results in Connecticut and Vermont:

Stay on the Democratic ticket, Bernie. 

Here’s what I’m sick of hearing: “I don’t vote for the party, I vote for the person.”

We hear it a lot in Vermont, and I think that people usually mean it when they say it. The problem is, it’s a stupid thing to say. If you don’t know what political party a candidate is a member of you don’t know enough to vote for him or her. You don’t know how they will vote on some of the most crucial votes: majority leader, Speaker of the House, control of the body. You don’t know where they will look for guidance, where they will get their aides or draw from for their political appointments. You don’t know the overall agenda they will be pursuing and who will help them get there. No office holder can know everything, so they will inevitably defer to the party on a myriad of decisions.

You may think you’re voting for the person, but you’re voting for the party.

It’s important, and we’re seeing it a lot this year.

First we have Connecticut. Joe Lieberman was a lifelong Democrat, and he’s trying to pretend that he still is. It was the Democratic Party that helped him get elected to Connecticut Attorney General, and U.S. Senate, and that put him on the ticket as our candidate for Vice President. It was Democrats across his state and across the country that gave money for his campaigns, raised money for his campaigns, knocked on doors, made phone calls, and put him where he is today. Yet somehow he thinks he’s bigger than the party. He thinks the party owes him, but he has it backwards. He owes the party for all the years the party supported him. He ran for reelection in the primary, nothing wrong with that, but running in the primary means you’re offering yourself as the party’s choice. They vote for you, you’re the candidate of the party, the party will work for you and hopefully try to get you elected; they vote against you and someone else is the candidate. The voters made their choice, but that’s what they’re supposed to do. He owes it to the party to accept the decision of the voters and get out of the race. He hasn’t done it yet, but I still think there’s a chance he may.

As I said, he owes the party, but he hasn’t repaid the party’s support. He supports Bush’s war, like some other Democrats. Unlike most other Democrats, though, he refuses to even look at the possibility he might have been wrong. He’s also taken Bush’s position in trying to dismantle Social Security, which is pretty much a bedrock principle for Democrats. He has also taken every chance to attack the party, and to repeat the Cheney line that anyone who questions the President is a traitor.

We have a little different situation here in Vermont. The Progressive Party grew out of the Progressive Coalition, the original Sanderistas who elected Bernie mayor back in the 1980's (even before I moved to Vermont!), but Bernie has been very consistent in running as an Independent, not a Progressive. He hasn’t claimed to be bigger than the party, but he definitely stakes out a position outside of any party. In years past he attacked the Democratic Party, but I haven’t heard as much of that since he got to Congress. Maybe the fact that he caucuses with the Democrats is part of it. Or maybe he sees that he really does fit in the Democratic Party of John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Paul Wellstone.

I remember when Bernie ran for Congress. I’m not talking about the first time, when he and Paul Poirier split the center-left vote, but the second time, when he won. I remember clearly having lunch with a group of colleagues and commenting that he was creating a problem for the Democratic Party, because if he got elected to Congress as an independent it would be impossible for the Democrats to ever run a candidate for that seat, and that’s exactly what happened. In a state that has become increasingly Democratic, he was an obstacle to one of the top slots in the lineup. Still, it was in the interest of the party to support him, or to not oppose him, because the positions Bernie takes are Democratic Party positions. When his ideas advance, Democratic ideas advance. It’s a benefit, but it’s come at a cost.

I’ve been a justice of the peace for years. One of the things we do is count ballots every election day. It’s mostly done by machine, but we have to hand count the write-ins. Every year we’ve had to count a lot of write-ins for Bernie in Montpelier, because people always write his name in on the Democratic ballot. I’m sure it’s enough to get him on the ballot on the Democratic line, but every year he declines to run as a Democrat.

This year it’s different. This year he filed a written consent with the Secretary of State, agreeing to have his name on the Democratic primary ballot. He’s going to win, no doubt about it. He’s also been campaigning with the D’s, supporting our candidates, and the party has been supporting him. We decided early on not to run a candidate against him because we know that a three-way race is the only way the Republicans can take the seat.

But he’s on the Democratic ballot, not because of write-ins but by his own choice, he’s going to win the primary, and he should do the same thing Lieberman should do: he owes it to the people who have supported him for decades to accept the decision of the voters and accept the nomination of the party.

Stay on the Democratic ticket, Bernie.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Short answer, no. I am a Republican who has voted for a Democrat as my congressman, Carolyn McCarthy, who generally shares my views. Have occasionally crossed the line in other elections if I felt it was warranted. That being said, I will generally pull the level for a Republican if I do not know much about either candidate.

The article started out as a thoughtful discussion of voting rationale then denigrated to just another anti Republican diatribe. Bla, bla, bla.

Cheers,

Ken


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I respectfully disagree*

I do vote for the candidate, and not the party, because I belive the political parties are essentially mobs. Not mobs as in mafiaso, but mobs as in the type of people who lynch other people without any consideration of actual guilt or innocence. A Republican or Democrat who will stand up to the mob mentality of his or her own party is the type of candidate for whom I want to vote. I recently read two books, one from either side of the political spectrum (Take It Back and Crunchy Conservative), which made the point that both political parties get hijacked by their own extreme wings. On many issues (not all admittedly) the American people are not nearly as divided as the talking heads (who earn their livings by screaming at one another instread of calmly discussing actual issues) would have us believe. One of the topics mentioned in Take It Back was abortion, where polls were taken without using questions designed to produce the answers desired by the people commissioning the polls. Overwhelmingly (80%) the people polled wanted abortion to remain legal. Approximately the same percentage of people wanted 3rd triemester abortions banned, wanted children to have parental consent for abortions, and wanted genetic testing performed on the children (aborted or otherwise) of underage mothers so that the fathers could be prosecuted. Which political party has this position? Neither, because both parties have been hijacked by the extreme (I prefer to think of them as insane) elements of their own party. Any elected official who stands up to the stupidity of their own party should be rewarded, not castigated.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Assuming the person standing up against the party line is saying things that are remotely rational.

Agnash, I agree with you on many of your points. As a moderate Republican I get annoyed to no end at the far right's demands. It is the centrist vote that determines the elections, not the extreme right or left. Dogmatic clowns.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Vote?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Nice to see it nakedly exposed Jack. Party above all. Keep up the fight comrade!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> First we have Connecticut. Joe Lieberman was a lifelong Democrat, and he's trying to pretend that he still is.


A slight bit off topic but does anyone remember how the media treated Jim Jeffords when he jumped ship from the GOP to Indy, caucusing with the Dems. He was hailed as "courageous" and sticking to principles, being guided by his conscience, etc. When Lieberman did the same thing the question the media asked was "aren't you worried about what this does to the party?"


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

This comes up periodically, with switches going both ways (Phil Gramm, Dick Shelby, and Zell Miller going to the R's, probably some with R's switching to D's although I can't recall one right at the moment).

I don't recall any mainstream media news coverage that called Jeffords courageous; I do remember coverage of the work Harry Reid put in to get him to jump ship, and quite a bit of coverage of the meaning of his switch for the balance of power in the Senate.

By the same token, most of the coverage of the Connecticut primary that I saw was along the lines of the attached story from the Post that discussed the meaning of Lieberman's defeat within the Democratic Party, and what it would mean for the balance of power within the party between supporters and opponents of the war, with a lot of discussion leading up to the election about what the DSSC would do if Lamont won.


In other words, on both occasions the news coverage focussed on the political consequences of what happened. I don't recall the MSM declaring any of the participants to be heroes or villains. I agree, though, that it would be irresponsible for a reporter to portray either choice as either courageous or villainous.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Actually, I don't recall any mainstream media news coverage that called him courageous...





> We hope and trust that Senator Jeffords' courageous decision...


 at



> Last week I was deeply touched by Senator Jeffords' courageous decision, his eloquent words


 at

From Howard Dean:


> Jim has distinguished himself as a courageous public servant..


 at



> It's striking - and for us Democrats, embarrassing - that it took a Republican to unmask the Bush agenda. When Jim Jeffords quit the G.O.P....


 at

Enough proof?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wait, I thought the point under consideration was that the media outlets themselves were making the formal statement and using terms like "courageous."

Who wouldn't expect democratic party members like Daschle or Dean to take this POV? Of course they're going to view the jump as courageous.

That's not the same as an official endorsement using that language from a reputable media outlet. Maybe someone did, but I don't think your links here prove that.



Wayfarer said:


> at
> 
> at
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Wait, I thought the point under consideration was that the media outlets themselves were making the formal statement and using terms like "courageous."
> 
> Who wouldn't expect democratic party members like Daschle or Dean to take this POV? Of course they're going to view the jump as courageous.
> 
> That's not the same as an official endorsement using that language from a reputable media outlet. Maybe someone did, but I don't think your links here prove that.


We're going to play semantics? Okay, Jack said, "news coverage". I think one can safey assume that means the media is "covering" things, i.e. reporting events. All quotes I gave were reported by the media, aka, "news coverage". If that does not placate you, you win as it is really just not worth it.

Cheers


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Wait, I thought the point under consideration was that the media outlets themselves were making the formal statement and using terms like "courageous."


Just one example (I have limited time):

https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-25-jeffords-choice.htm

quote: _A Yankee moderate in a party increasingly dominated by conservatives from the South and West, Jeffords was always near the top of the list of targets for Senate Democrats in need of one more vote._

also: _Through all of this, Republicans had not detected how serious things had become. Jeffords continued to meet every Wednesday for lunch with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and the few other GOP moderates. Snowe, who frequently reminded her party's leaders that moderates were too often slighted, felt Jeffords was more quiet than usual._


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> We're going to play semantics?


Well, if I may jump in, playing semantics seems to be what you are doing. pt4u67 was saying that "the media" was "hailing" Jeffords as courageous. Nothing in your quotes comes close to that. Of course Dem politicians call that move "courageous". That's their job. But never in your quote does the journalist ("the media") take such a position.



pt4u67 said:


> Just one example


Where in your example is the journalist or the media portraying Jeffords as "courageous" (or anything of the sort)? I only see factual accounts in your quotes.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

*Straight party*

I almost always vote straight party. It's not because my "loyalty" is to the party, per se. I just can't imagine the other side being closer to my views. Admittedly, it's oftentimes a choice between the lesser of two "evils". But so far, I've not encountered a Democrat who is more fiscally conservative than the counterpart Republican on the ticket, for instance.
Furthermore, as someone already mentioned, in national congressional races, it affects more than just that one seat.

That being said, I may very well break with tradition next week on some state elections, after I've had more of a chance to study the various candidates' positions on border security in Texas.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Well, if I may jump in, playing semantics seems to be what you are doing. pt4u67 was saying that "the media" was "hailing" Jeffords as courageous. Nothing in your quotes comes close to that. Of course Dem politicians call that move "courageous". That's their job. But never in your quote does the journalist ("the media") take such a position.


The problem Etienne, is that I was replying to jackmac. He said, as I noted for your ease in reading above, "media coverage". I provided examples of "media coverage". This is where my raising of semantics in regards to Bertie came in. Please explain how I am playing semantics, I gave a straightfoward reply to a straightforward statement. People sympathetic to Jack's usual liberal views might not like that I disproved this statement and hence want to wrangle it but seriously, I am sure if I thought it was worth the effort I could get quotes of actual media figures making these statments. Then BertieW would say, "But I requested 'reputable' media..." and I would say, "But is not Peter Jennings or <insert other suddenly non-reputable figure that has said 'courageous' in regards to Jeffords here> reputable"? And then someone would question that...and it would go on and on.

So okay, the media made no favorable comments to Jeffords defection. How is that?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

On national and state elections, I will almost inevitably vote party line. Local politics is another matter, but still related, to a small degree.

The candidates might have a view (or two) outside of the established party line, but that is very unlikely to sway me to vote for a candidate who's party is completely out of line with my views.

Potential control of the Presidency and/or the Congress/House is more important than one or two individual views of a particular candidate.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Well, if I may jump in, playing semantics seems to be what you are doing. pt4u67 was saying that "the media" was "hailing" Jeffords as courageous. Nothing in your quotes comes close to that. Of course Dem politicians call that move "courageous". That's their job. But never in your quote does the journalist ("the media") take such a position.
> 
> Where in your example is the journalist or the media portraying Jeffords as "courageous" (or anything of the sort)? I only see factual accounts in your quotes.


Perhaps courageous is not quoted however I recall when he did jump ship many reporters would start off the story with words like "many say this is a courageous move" however this was over four years ago and was uttered mostly by TV reporters therefore the exact words are lost to the ether (at least to my ability to retrieve them). However please listen to this (NBC/Today...Katie Couric on Jim Jeffords):

Maybe not the word courageous but I think you get the picture.

The reason I pointed out that particular article however and those specific quotes was because 1) it refers to Jeffords frustration with conservatives from the south and west however I have found no comparable reference to Lieberman being frustrated by the take over of his party by the left, and 2) Sen. Snowe's warning to the GOP that moderates were too often slighted. I don't recall a single interview with Bill Clinton asking him if the left wing of the party was jepordizing the future of the Dems or if moderates like Lieberman ought not be "slighted."

Again please recall in 2004 when Ted Kennedy was referred to as a liberal lion:
https://www.usatoday.com/news/polit...resident/2004-03-24-kennedy-kerry-cover_x.htm

and the take on Zell Miller:

_BLITZER: You delivered a speech that was very well received here the other night, pretty positive. You had your little attacks, snide attacks at John Kerry. But did Zell Miller go over the top a bit last night?

GIULIANI: No, he didn't! I don't think he did. Look, he feels very, very strongly about what he's saying.........

BLITZER: but as a politician, though, are you concerned that the anger that millions of people saw on his face last night could wind up turning off voters, as opposed to bringing them into the Republican Party?_


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Blind party loyalty is dangerous. Democracy fails when 1) there are no qualifications to vote other than living to a certain age and being born in the right jurisdiction; 2) very few people do, in fact, vote; and 3) most of the people who vote know little or nothing about the candidates, but simply vote for a party.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Blind party loyalty is dangerous. Democracy fails when 1) there are no qualifications to vote other than living to a certain age and being born in the right jurisdiction; 2) very few people do, in fact, vote; and 3) most of the people who vote know little or nothing about the candidates, but simply vote for a party.


Are you suggesting that further qualifications be placed on voting?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Are you suggesting that further qualifications be placed on voting?


Yes...


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The problem Etienne, is that I was replying to jackmac.


Who, in turn, was adressing the original question posed by pt4u67. Frankly, that's still semantics on your part and I suspect you are well aware of the fact.



> People sympathetic to Jack's usual liberal views might not like that I disproved this statement and hence want to wrangle it


They might not like it if you disproved this statement indeed. But you did not do it. Right now I do think, until further analysis on the subject, that pt4u67 does disprove it convincingly in post #18, though.



pt4u67 said:


> I have found no comparable reference to Lieberman being frustrated by the take over of his party by the left


I don't see the situations as being symmetric. Lieberman's situation coud be described as being kicked out more than changing his affiliation as Jeffords did. Good and rather convincing point about Zel Miller, though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Who, in turn, was adressing the original question posed by pt4u67. Frankly, that's still semantics on your part and I suspect you are well aware of the fact.
> 
> They might not like it if you disproved this statement indeed. But you did not do it. Right now I do think, until further analysis on the subject, that pt4u67 does disprove it convincingly in post #18, though.
> 
> I don't see the situations as being symmetric. Lieberman's situation coud be described as being kicked out more than changing his affiliation as Jeffords did. Good and rather convincing point about Zel Miller, though.


Okay, you win. My post was nothing but esoteric, vacuous rhetoric, had no bearing what so ever on the topic, and the mainstream media spat upon and reviled Jeffords. What was I thinking?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay, you win. My post was nothing but esoteric, vacuous rhetoric


Indeed. As I pointed out, it was possible to make a convincing point, pt4u67 did it, and I recognize it, I am not "wrangling" anything.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Indeed. As I pointed out, it was possible to make a convincing point, pt4u67 did it, and I recognize it, I am not "wrangling" anything.


Indeed good sir, I once again admit defeat and my shortcomings. I am not worthy.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The problem Etienne, is that I was replying to jackmac. He said, as I noted for your ease in reading above, "media coverage". I provided examples of "media coverage".


Thinking that talking heads spouting off is the same as "media coverage," is, perhaps, just another sign of how intellectually wayward the American right has gotten since 1994...

I can't recall a previous election when I've voted straight ticket. My past includes votes for Newt Gingrich (of which, to be honest, I'm still moderately proud) and even a single vote for George W. Bush that causes me to hang my head in shame every time I think about it.

However, I can't imagine a situation that would not require a straight ticket vote a week from tomorrow. The need to restore sanity by ousting the rot of incompetent ideological rigidity is so compelling today that straight party voting is the only rational solution.

Furthermore, the only point to made about Zell Miller (a man for whom I've once cast a ballot to serve as my governor) is that he's gone completely insane in his old age. We've all seen it before, and it's just not pretty when there's a camera on in front of it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> Thinking that talking heads spouting off is the same as "media coverage," is, perhaps, just another sign of how intellectually wayward the American right has gotten since 1994...


Am I to ascertain from this that not only am I intellectually wayward but also part of the American right? If so, that damnable Canadian citizenship of mine is going to get in the way.....


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> Thinking that talking heads spouting off is the same as "media coverage," is, perhaps, just another sign of how intellectually wayward the American right has gotten since 1994...


Technically they are "media." So are screenwriters and novelists and mimes, for that matter. But organizations that engage in journalism are among the "news media," a subset of the "media" that wouldn't include Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, for example. Alas, the only people who seem to draw that distinction are members of the news media. It was easier when people just called us "the press," but that became inaccurate when radio started because the electronic media do not use printing presses.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

crs said:


> Technically they are "media." So are . . .mimes, for that matter.


More media mimes are needed. Many more.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> This comes up periodically, with switches going both ways (Phil Gramm, Dick Shelby, and Zell Miller going to the R's, probably some with R's switching to D's although I can't recall one right at the moment).


Uhhhhh.....Zell Miller never switched parties, and the two that did switch did so in the only decent way to do so, to resign as in the case of Gramm and be re-elected as a Republican, or to run under a different party for re-election as in the case of Shelby.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The audio clip (was that Katie? Still cute as a button, that one!) was generally laudatory of Jeffords, although I would say that the main thrust was not to praise his decision but to talk about how comfortable he is with it. The Jeffords story was big, big news, mainly because it turned over control of the Senate. Any time a switch in party affiliation made that big a difference it would get a huge amount of coverage. Just wait and see what kind of coverage Lieberman gets if he is the swing vote in an evenly divided Senate next week.

I would say that the Blitzer transcript clearly does not take sides; anyone who could listen and watch could see that Miller was not only angry but visibly unhinged, and any rational observer would ask if he was hurting or helping the R's. The USAT piece was clearly a piece of analysis; it wasn't taking sides with Kennedy and Kerry so much as describing and analyzing Kennedy's role in supporting Kerry's campaign.

It's very hard to credibly support a proposition, particularly one as vulnerable as the canard that the news media have a liberal bias, on the basis of one story or the coverage of one politician. 

For a counterexample, look at the tremendous amount of coverage they gave the Swifties in their unfounded accusations against Kerry. For another, and this is an example of their coverage of one politician, look at how they treat Saint McCain: He gets virtually no coverage of what appear to be either flip-flops or blatant hypocrisy, like the varying positions he has taken on the Confederate flag, not only has he been on the Sunday morning chat shows more than any other politician in recent years, he is almost always there alone, without someone from the Left or from the Democratic Party to counterbalance him.

Etienne is clearly correct that what happened to Lieberman, which was widely described by right-wing commentators as a purge or something of that nature, was simply that he lost an election. He hasn't been kicked out of the party, he hasn't walked out as a matter of principle, he just lost an election. Last I checked the voters of a party got to choose who would run under their banner.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Yes...


Such as?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> For another, and this is an example of their coverage of one politician, look at how they treat Saint McCain: He gets virtually no coverage of what appear to be either flip-flops or blatant hypocrisy, like the varying positions he has taken on the Confederate flag, not only has he been on the Sunday morning chat shows more than any other politician in recent years, he is almost always there alone, without someone from the Left or from the Democratic Party to counterbalance him.


It doesn't matter what they do or don't cover about McCain, conservatives within the party are aware of his inconsistencies and don't support him nearly as much as the media does. In a presidential election between any Democrat other than Hillary Clinton I would either not vote or vote for the Democrat; the only way I could bring myself to vote for John McCain is if he were to run against Hillary. I have this sneaking suspicion that the media supports McCain as they do because he's far enough left that they can sleep with themselves at night knowing that they haven't done too much "harm" and if he wins, they can say, "There's no left wing bias, look at all we did for this 'Republican.'"


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Such as?


A good start would be a mandate that in order to be permitted to vote, one must first pass a test like the ones that legal immigrants must pass in many countries (such as in the US) in order to become citizens. Another part of the test could be used to weed out sociopaths and psychotics.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> A good start would be a mandate that in order to be permitted to vote, one must first pass a test like the ones that legal immigrants must pass in many countries (such as in the US) in order to become citizens. Another part of the test could be used to weed out sociopaths and psychotics.
> 
> Regards


JLP, you can not be serious?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> For another, and this is an example of their coverage of one politician, look at how they treat Saint McCain: He gets virtually no coverage of what appear to be either flip-flops or blatant hypocrisy, like the varying positions he has taken on the Confederate flag, not only has he been on the Sunday morning chat shows more than any other politician in recent years, he is almost always there alone, without someone from the Left or from the Democratic Party to counterbalance him.


Did you read the Esquire mag cover story on McCain this summer? Great piece, and McCain tends to get the coverage he does because of his usual willingness to actually say something unscripted. The guy who wrote Esquire's piece, which by the way went into some depth about the Confederate flag issue, told an online forum for journalists that when he was discussing ground rules for traveling with McCain to do the story, McCain said he'd make it simple: Nothing would be "off the record." You won't find many politicians at any level -- or the subject of any news story, even an athletics coach or a chef -- who would grant that kind of access, and that's why McCain gets treated the way he does. It has nothing to do with politics; it has to do with the fact that he behaves as if he has nothing to hide and is basically a reporter's dream. Even those who disagree with his politics tend to respect him because he seems to treat others with respect. The Esquire piece pointed out McCain's shortcomings but was basically positive because McCain wasn't an a-hole behind the scenes like a lot politicians.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> A good start would be a mandate that in order to be permitted to vote, one must first pass a test like the ones that legal immigrants must pass in many countries (such as in the US) in order to become citizens. Another part of the test could be used to weed out sociopaths and psychotics.
> 
> Regards


Should I infer from your profile that you live in England?

There are a couple of problems with your idea. First, somebody will need to decide who is qualified to vote, and most Americans would not entrust the power to disqualify anyone to vote to anyone. Second, and probably related, is the fact that we have a history of seemingly neutral requirements, such as literacy tests, being used to prevent black people from voting, and we just aren't going back.

Whatever may happen in other parts of the world, here the bigger problem is convincing people to vote, not keeping them from doing so. It's always distressing when I make campaign phone calls at the number of people who say, without any sign of embarassment or distress, that they don't vote.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Indeed good sir, I once again admit defeat and my shortcomings.


Congratulations, it takes a brave man to admit he is wrong.

_
And yes, I do know you are tongue-in-cheek, maybe you will actually be brave one day._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Congratulations, it takes a brave man to admit he is wrong.
> 
> _
> And yes, I do know you are tongue-in-cheek, maybe you will actually be brave one day._


Not a chance. I am a craven coward and quiver from the thought of your verbal martial arts. You awe me with the breadth of your intellect and the edge of your wit. You are all things I wish to be; brave, courageous, commanding. You sir are a model Frenchman exhibiting the martial features the French are so well known for!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> First, somebody will need to decide who is qualified to vote, and most Americans would not entrust the power to disqualify anyone to vote to anyone.
> 
> Second, and probably related, is the fact that we have a history of seemingly neutral requirements, such as literacy tests, being used to prevent black people from voting, and we just aren't going back.


Legislators are already entrusted to affect people's lives in all sorts of ways. Some of these powers include sending them to prison, sending soldiers to war, and in some countries, even executing people for heinous crimes.

I agree with Chuck Franke that a photo identification for voting is reasonable and prudent. Should mentally retarded people be permitted to vote - or those who cannot speak a word of the mainstream language of a country? What about those who are certifiably insane, or those who have literally no conception of how their government is run, and absolutely no familiarity with the candidates they're choosing (much less any idea of what office they are seeking).

Is democracy strengthened or weakened when these sorts of people can be handed a 'voting guide' and pushed into a voting booth by a third-party?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I agree with Chuck Franke that a photo identification for voting is reasonable and prudent. Should mentally retarded people be permitted to vote - or those who cannot speak a word of the mainstream language of a country? What about those who are certifiably insane, or those who have literally no conception of how their government is run, and scarcely any idea of the candidates from which they're choosing (much less any idea of what office they are seeking).
> 
> Is democracy strengthened or weakened when these sorts of people can be handed a 'voting guide' and pushed into a voting booth by a third-party?


Who determines who is mentally fit to vote and who is informed enough to vote? There are a number of posters here who seem "certifiably insane" to me, and likely vice versa. No doubt the standards of fitness would vary from town to town.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Who determines who is mentally fit to vote and who is informed enough to vote? There are a number of posters here who seem "certifiably insane" to me, and likely vice versa. No doubt the standards of fitness would vary from town to town.


I am surprised no one has mentioned anything to do with economic standing.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> Who determines who is mentally fit to vote and who is informed enough to vote? There are a number of posters here who seem "certifiably insane" to me, and likely vice versa. No doubt the standards of fitness would vary from town to town.


A quick Google search turns up these questions from the US citizenship test:

https://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

They all seem to be the very brick-and-mortar elements that one would wish a voter to know.

Keeping sociopaths and psychotics out would be much more difficult; indeed, it would immediately disqualify many current politicians from holding office. The citizenship test model would suffice for now.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> A good start would be a mandate that in order to be permitted to vote, one must first pass a test like the ones that legal immigrants must pass in many countries (such as in the US) in order to become citizens. Another part of the test could be used to weed out sociopaths and psychotics.
> 
> Regards


And who designs the test? Who determines the passing score? As in any test, how will its validity be judged? Can it be unfairly manipulated? (yes). And those with mental illness don't have rights. Are we like Nazis who allow only those that we consider "proper" to vote.

Your suggestion, not you, is absurd. If one is a citizen one must has the right to vote regardless. Otherwise we will usher in a new era of Jim Crow.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And who designs the test? Who determines the passing score? As in any test, how will its validity be judged? Can it be unfairly manipulated? (yes). And those with mental illness don't have rights. Are we like Nazis who allow only those that we consider "proper" to vote.
> 
> Your suggestion, not you, is absurd. If one is a citizen one must has the right to vote regardless. Otherwise we will usher in a new era of Jim Crow.


Actually, I think "one man, one vote" is pretty much inherently wrong. Nothing to do with Nazis or Jim Crow in the least, I just think if you chose to spend your life in petty crimes and drug abuse vs. working your buns off and getting ahead, it is inherently unfair that each has an equal say at the voting booth.

Agree or not with me, but keep the Nazis/racist shyte out of your disagreement.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, I think "one man, one vote" is pretty much inherently wrong. Nothing to do with Nazis or Jim Crow in the least, I just think if you chose to spend your life in petty crimes and drug abuse vs. working your buns off and getting ahead, it is inherently unfair that each has an equal say at the voting booth.
> 
> Agree or not with me, but keep the Nazis/racist shyte out of your disagreement.


In many states felons cannot vote so nothing to worry about there. Otherwise in a free society everyone has an equal voice regardless of their station in life. The person who takes drugs and loafs around, as much as I pity him, deserves to be heard the same as me or you. That's democracy. Its actually the fairest way of assigning political power. To do otherwise would concentrate political power into too few hands. The strength of a democracy is the range of ideas and their struggle within the marketplace of ideas.

Regarding the Nazis and Jim Crow I think its perfectly legit to allude to those examples because their advocates at first made arguments that appealed to many reasonable people. When we begin to speak of rationing political power in such a way as it classifies people then we are on the road to something that is inevitable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> In many states felons cannot vote so nothing to worry about there. Otherwise in a free society everyone has an equal voice regardless of their station in life. The person who takes drugs and loafs around, as much as I pity him, deserves to be heard the same as me or you. That's democracy. Its actually the fairest way of assigning political power. To do otherwise would concentrate political power into too few hands. The strength of a democracy is the range of ideas and their struggle within the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Regarding the Nazis and Jim Crow I think its perfectly legit to allude to those examples because their advocates at first made arguments that appealed to many reasonable people. When we begin to speak of rationing political power in such a way as it classifies people then we are on the road to something that is inevitable.


I suppose if one is locked into nothing but binary thinking patterns, anything is possible. I suggest you re-read my post above and take special note of where I said the problem lies with "one man, one vote" and ponder this issue in a non-binary, non-exclusionary manner. Also, drop the whole "market place of ideas" analogy, it is so flawed in this context I would hope I do not have to waste the bandwidth pointing out how so (although I am sure I will have to).

Lastly, still with the Nazis and Jim Crow? You would think someone that posts pretty hard right wing ideaology the way you do would be a little more careful throwing that shyte at the wall as the most likely person it is going to stick to is you.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> Uhhhhh.....Zell Miller never switched parties, and the two that did switch did so in the only decent way to do so, to resign as in the case of Gramm and be re-elected as a Republican, or to run under a different party for re-election as in the case of Shelby.


Zig Zag Zell (what Georgia Republicans used to call the man) never did formally switch, that is true. However, de facto he is now a Republican. He famously ranted like a madman at and after the GOP convention in 2004. He caucused with the GOP in the Senate for a time. I don't believe he was ever even elected to the Senate, either, his term being an appointment by his former Lt. Gov (Roy Barnes) to finish out the late Paul Coverdell's term.

Just last night I saw a commercial in which Miller announced his endorsement of the incumbent Republican governor (Sonny Perdue) over his Democratic challenger, Mark Taylor. The great irony there is that Mark Taylor is the guy who took the brilliant idea Miller had that put him on the national map in the first place - the HOPE scholarship, which provided for the college education of all moderately-bright Georgian highschoolers and was/is funded by a tax targeted at people who lack basic math skills - and turned HOPE from really good idea into an actual working program. Without the founding and success of HOPE, nobody outside of Podunk County, GA, would today know or care what a man named Zell Miller had to say.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I suppose if one is locked into nothing but binary thinking patterns, anything is possible. I suggest you re-read my post above and take special note of where I said the problem lies with "one man, one vote" and ponder this issue in a non-binary, non-exclusionary manner. Also, drop the whole "market place of ideas" analogy, it is so flawed in this context I would hope I do not have to waste the bandwidth pointing out how so (although I am sure I will have to).
> 
> Lastly, still with the Nazis and Jim Crow? You would think someone that posts pretty hard right wing ideaology the way you do would be a little more careful throwing that shyte at the wall as the most likely person it is going to stick to is you.


I'm sorry you think I post "hard right wing ideology." I consider myself a conservative but hardly an ideologue and try to not use inflammatory rhetoric however I suppose at any given point with so many different people reading what we all post someone is bound to get the wrong idea from time to time.

Regarding your binary vs. non-binary thinking I take it you are fancifully referring to thinking locked into two dimensions, or as binary logic suggests, either this or that. I think then the challenge is incumbent upon you to explain what you mean when you say one man, one vote is inherently problematic.

I realize that the marketplace of ideas analogy may seem quaint however it does work. Why? because it forces people to sharpen their views in order to gain footing. As someone versed in physiology I believe that political thought/ideas are much like a muscle. When stressed appropriately and exercised properly it will increase in size. When not exercised it atrophies. In a democracy we must allow everyone to participate (provided they meet the legal requirements of course) and must allow views to be aired so as to allow for that exercise. I am confident enough in my political views that I don't fear that debate.

Lastly I will offer no apologies for referring to Nazis and Jim Crow. Both systems tried to control political debate using the most base reasons: because certain classes of people did not merit inclusion into the political discourse. I'm not comparing you to them. I'm simply stating that ideas like yours have a nasty way of morphing beyond your expectation of what you want them to mean. However if for some reason you or anyone else took what I said as referring specifically to him rest assured I did not.

p.s. Just so that you know there are no hard feeling, I love bagpipe music!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sorry you think I post "hard right wing ideology." I consider myself a conservative but hardly an ideologue and try to not use inflammatory rhetoric however I suppose at any given point with so many different people reading what we all post someone is bound to get the wrong idea from time to time.


Fair enough, let us stick with your view of yourself.



pt4u67 said:


> Regarding your binary vs. non-binary thinking I take it you are fancifully referring to thinking locked into two dimensions, or as binary logic suggests, either this or that. I think then the challenge is incumbent upon you to explain what you mean when you say one man, one vote is inherently problematic.


I thought it would be relatively simple to figure out, if not from my original statement, then from my pointed advice to ponder it. Just as liberals call our tax system "progressive" based on income, why could we not have a progressive voting system whereby those that participate in this representative democracy at varying degrees, get varying degrees of input to its direction? As de Tocqueville noted, for instance, when the lower portions of the population figure out they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers, the country is in trouble. This is one example where the sheer number of less wealthy people can vote to raid the purses of the more wealthy, for their own benefit.

Participation quotient would not be based solely on income and/or wealth; this was just an example of possibly why "one man, one vote" is a set up for long term failure. We could even have different participation levels for the same person in different areas. For instance, there will be arguments both for and against healthcare workers having differential voting influence on healthcare legislation. Or maybe lawyers should be excluded from tort reform votes? I think decreasing the power of the overly self-interested from a certain vote has its merits.



pt4u67 said:


> I realize that the marketplace of ideas analogy may seem quaint however it does work. Why? because it forces people to sharpen their views in order to gain footing. As someone versed in physiology I believe that political thought/ideas are much like a muscle. When stressed appropriately and exercised properly it will increase in size. When not exercised it atrophies. In a democracy we must allow everyone to participate (provided they meet the legal requirements of course) and must allow views to be aired so as to allow for that exercise. I am confident enough in my political views that I don't fear that debate.


It is not that the analogy is quaint, it is just that it is flawed. See the definition of "marketplace" and make up your own mind.



pt4u67 said:


> Lastly I will offer no apologies for referring to Nazis and Jim Crow. Both systems tried to control political debate using the most base reasons: *because certain classes of people did not merit inclusion into the political discourse. *I'm not comparing you to them. I'm simply stating that ideas like yours have a nasty way of morphing beyond your expectation of what you want them to mean. However if for some reason you or anyone else took what I said as referring specifically to him rest assured I did not.


Again, flawed. I am in no way speaking of exclusion, merely a different form of inclusion.



pt4u67 said:


> p.s. Just so that you know there are no hard feeling, I love bagpipe music!


Ah, we all have common ground!

Keep in mind, this is not about exclusion, but looking for better outcomes. Since you are in healthcare, let me ask you a question regarding your area. Say a vote were to come up for the inclusion of hot packs for pain relief to be made billable under Medicare Part B. Do you really think that the owner of a company that manufacturers hydroculators would cast a disinterested vote, merely based on patient outcome? So possibly everyone else should get two votes and the owner of the DME company should only get one? It is a very arcane and simplified example I grant, but pretty much what I am trying to capture.

Another might be a cut in the dividend tax rate. Do you really think Bill Gates, owner of billions of dollars of dividend rights from MSFT, would cast a vote ment to put the country's interests above his? Also, would he not inherently have more riding on the vote, making this issue very important to him vs. a welfare recipient? Possibly people earning over $X in dividends should have less of a say at the ballot box or possibly they should have more....


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Fair enough, let us stick with your view of yourself.


Thank you.



> I thought it would be relatively simple to figure out, if not from my original statement, then from my pointed advice to ponder it. Just as liberals call our tax system "progressive" based on income, why could we not have a progressive voting system whereby those that participate in this representative democracy at varying degrees, get varying degrees of input to its direction?


Because voting is the cornerstone of democratic (at least the modern notion) government. All one has to do is to look back to our history and see that this was exactly the way it was. Take for example giving women the right to vote. Prior to 1920 women weren't allowed to vote for some of the reasons you cited. Partly because it was believed that they did not have as much at stake or that they did not sufficiently share in the stakes. This notion of graded vs. universal suffrage has been around a long time.

One reason is that it concentrates political power into small pockets of special interest. Lets say a banking bill were to come up for a vote. My guess is that if those with a larger stake were given a greater measure in the vote then it would be easier for special interests to skew the results of the vote in their favor (assuming we're speaking of a referendum type vote). With universal suffrage it becomes more difficult for a concentrated few to push things in a way that favors them. I would also ask the question, how do we determine who has a sufficient share in the stakes?



> Participation quotient would not be based solely on income and/or wealth; this was just an example of possibly why "one man, one vote" is a set up for long term failure. We could even have different participation levels for the same person in different areas. For instance, there will be arguments both for and against healthcare workers having differential voting influence on healthcare legislation. Or maybe lawyers should be excluded from tort reform votes? I think decreasing the power of the overly self-interested from a certain vote has its merits.


Again, to use your example of healthcare legislation by your example the outcome of voting on healthcare legislation would be unfairly influenced by a predominance of healthcare workers. Maybe that outcome is not in the best interests of the public. Who safeguards that interest? Would it not be better for the healthcare lobby to have to convince voters that said legislation was in their favor and allowing competing views in? The opposite would be just as bad. That is to decrease the value of the vote of those involved in a particular industry/group because that legislation may be of benefit to them.



> It is not that the analogy is quaint, it is just that it is flawed. See the definition of "marketplace" and make up your own mind.


I don't think the definition is flawed at all. By marketplace I mean that the free exchange of ideas occurs and the public is able to determine which idea, or parts of an idea, best suit them. The purveyors of those ideas then have to fashion their product in a way that not only suits their interests but also the interests/concerns of their customers. Those that are successful move on and become accepted and others don't. Has not that been the way in which social progression has occured in this country?



> Keep in mind, this is not about exclusion, but looking for better outcomes. Since you are in healthcare, let me ask you a question regarding your area. Say a vote were to come up for the inclusion of hot packs for pain relief to be made billable under Medicare Part B. Do you really think that the owner of a company that manufacturers hydroculators would cast a disinterested vote, merely based on patient outcome? So possibly everyone else should get two votes and the owner of the DME company should only get one? It is a very arcane and simplified example I grant, but pretty much what I am trying to capture.


Personally I don't think hot packs or other modalities should be billable to Medicare B however that's a different discussion. Of course the maker of the hydroculator would not have a disinterested vote. In fact he should lobby hard to get the inclusion passed. However don't you feel good that he only has one vote himself. If the owner of the company were to use your rationale he would suggest that because he has more at stake and because he has knowledge about the benefits of his product superior to that of the layman, for that reason his vote should be given greater weight.

Just a very brief example: In 1999 as a result of the BBA of 1997 a $1500 cap in Medicare B outpatient rehabilitation services went into effect. It capped OP PT/OP/SLP at $1500. As you can imagine grandma can blow through that in 2-3 session of combined rehab. The legislation was flawed however there was such an outrage and such intense lobbying on the part of the APTA and AARP and other interested groups that the cap was vacated in order to be "reviewed" at a later date. The subject never came up again (although I must admit I don't see Medicare patients in my practice). Certainly practitioners stand to gain financially from this decision however we were able to work with other interest groups for whom the concern was other than financial.

One man, one vote is exactly that. No matter what the stakes a particular person has in the outcome his vote is only one of many. In the case of Bill Gates and other billionaires I doubt that they will ever be in the majority so as to tyrranize the tax code totally in their favor. What if your argument were to be turned on its head however and someone suggested that the Bill Gates' of this country should be given a greater voice at the ballot box precisely because they were richer and therefore had a greater stake in the outcomes of elections. A sort of "natural aristocracy" if you will. Under your terms the polar opposite your argument would be just as valid.

I will say this much however and that is I think people in this country need to do a much better job at learning the issues at stake and participating in our democracy. The ironic think is that despite our views yours seems to be the defacto position as at best only 50% of the electorate bothers to exercise this right. Consequently policy decisions are usually geared toward pleasing that portion of the electorate that consistently votes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I will not quote your reply, no need to waste bandwidth.

You picked only one side of the argument each time in your reply. What is to stop the mass of people making low wages from voting to pilfer the wealthy through taxes? That is basically the liberal platform. This is just the other side, to one argument I put forth. I tried to show both sides, you just picked the one.

You do not like or do not seem to fully grasp my idea and that is fine. We can agree to disagree, I am just not so quick to dismiss the concept of differential participation.



pt4u67 said:


> I don't think the *definition* is flawed at all. By marketplace I mean that the *free exchange of ideas occurs* and the public is able to determine which idea, or parts of an idea, best suit them. The purveyors of those ideas then have to fashion their product in a way that not only suits their interests but also the interests/concerns of their customers. Those that are successful move on and become accepted and others don't. Has not that been the way in which social progression has occured in this country?


I did not say the *definition* was flawed, I said the analogy was. One reason has to do with the definition of "marketplace" which is quite distinct from the analogy of the "marketplace of ideas". You will see, if you go and looked at the concept of "marketplace" as I suggested, that marketplaces to not exist for "free exchange". Everything is done in the pursuit of profit in a marketplace.

You mention AARP and the recision for the BBA capitation. Perfect example of where self interested parties overrode the will of our elected representatives through political pressure (I hate the AARP btw, and its entire sordid and incestual history). Maybe 1.5k was too low a cap, but I also think unlimited is too high a cap. Also, not to nitpick, and I could well be wrong, but I think the BBA was 1996, not 1997. Lastly, I would not be so quick to dismiss that low-tech modality for the elderly. Live with RA or OA pain for a few decades and then come talk to me. If it is dovetailed or coupled with other modalities, I have no problems with it (get the idea I am in this arena too?)

Anyways, that went off topic. Just like share holders in a company get as many votes as they have shares, and people are allowed to lobby for proxy rights, I think some sort of voting system based on participation in society is an idea worth looking at.

Regards


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer, 
I don't think I was advocating one side or another. What I am saying is that by differential participation the pendulum could swing both ways. Do you not agree? The idea is to even the grass as much as possible. One way is for everyone to have the same voice at the ballot box and without qualification. 

With regards to a marketplace, it is not those that are marketing the ideas should stand to profit from the exchange. Perhaps the term is hackneyed but what I am referring to is a system wherein ideas can be presented for consumption by the public and those ideas that appeal to the broadest numbers will be adopted. And by "free exchange" what is meant, and I think most would agree, that the exchange is free from interference from the government. 

I realize that we could go around and around and I'm old and wise enough to know that I'm not going to change your mind. I just would like you to understand that I understand your point. I just don't agree with it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There are R's that I would never vote for.

There are a number of D's that were moderate, or even conservative that I've voted for before.

The problem of today is the D's are not much of what they used to be. It seems they have gone off the deep in.

The R's are almost completely ill-responsible fiscally. About the only thing they have done fiscally right is keep taxes down. And the D's still haven't figured out that keeping taxes down brings in more taxes, because, high taxes means higher unemployment, which means, less taxes being paid by people and business.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Not a chance. I am a craven coward (snip)


Even if you had the misguided notion that your shtick was a good one, surely you should realize that it does get old. It gets boring to see you repeating the same line over and over to escape from actually articulating your points.

And the snide reference to my nationality? Real classy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Even if you had the misguided notion that your shtick was a good one, surely you should realize that it does get old. It gets boring to see you repeating the same line over and over to escape from actually articulating your points.
> 
> And the snide reference to my nationality? Real classy.


I reply to people as I see fit. It is not schtick, it is merely feeding back to someone that actually refuses to deal with my points in a fair and logical manner. I do not waste time, just feed tripe right back. It seems to work.

As to a snide reference to your nationality, you sir brought baggage to that reference, I would just read it at face value. Also, I never claimed to be classy, I never felt the need to bring that to people's attention and just assumed it was apparent.

Cheers!

Edit: P.S. You should note that I can disagree with people and have lengthy conversations with them in disagreement. As long as I am getting real replies, I will continue to discuss with them. I just had one above and we are both agreeing to disagree in an amiable fashion. One often is served what one brings to the table.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I reply to people as I see fit.


Fair enough, anybody has a right to be rude, but should not be surprised when he is judged accordingly.



> It is not schtick, it is merely feeding back to someone that actually refuses to deal with my points in a fair and logical manner.


I only made a very minor point in the discussion. It was that in one of your first messages you were obviously wriggling and not answering to the question at hand. One of your main points in answer to that was that it only showed that I was disappointed to see the claim disproved (a stupid argument since I was convinced that it was disproved by another person who actually made a fair and convincing point on the subject).

The fact that you like to use that shtick or that you can also engage in rational debate is rather irrelevant.



> Also, I never claimed to be classy


I see. What's next? Allusions to my sexuality? I cannot wait.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Fair enough, anybody has a right to be rude, but should not be surprised when he is judged accordingly.


Good. You have been judged.



Étienne said:


> I see. What's next? Allusions to my sexuality? I cannot wait.


Please, I for one have no desire to know. I am not asking, please do not tell.

I shall give you the last word as you apparently want it, and I am sure we have bored all concerned by now.

Cheers


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*Tsk, tsk, tsk.....*

Etienne,

Be careful about accussing anyone of being rude. In case you forgot, you wrote that Christianity was mere superstition. The rudeness of that comment pales in comparision to Wayfarer pointing out that recent French military history is far from glorious. You will have to get used to the fact that not all of us kneel down before the altar of the Fifth Republic and l'Etat like you do and we will have to accept that you are anti-Christian. But Vive la Différence I say!

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Speaking of superstition, here's a relevant clip from the Colbert Report:






I think he hits it on the head when he says everyone dismisses as myth gods such as Thor and Zeus, but some of us just take the logic one god further.



Karl89 said:


> Etienne,
> 
> Be careful about accussing anyone of being rude. In case you forgot, you wrote that Christianity was mere superstition. The rudeness of that comment pales in comparision to Wayfarer pointing out that recent French military history is far from glorious. You will have to get used to the fact that not all of us kneel down before the altar of the Fifth Republic and l'Etat like you do and we will have to accept that you are anti-Christian. But Vive la Différence I say!
> 
> Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

BertieW,

Perhaps Christianity is a myth but I'll bet a Jesuit (well some Jesuits anyway) can make a more compelling argument than some Viking high priest. My point is that waht Etienne said is far more offensive, and to far more people, than anything that Wayfarer, yet no belabors the point. Take your lumps and move on, the Interchange is a contact sport.

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

No arguments here (though, for the record, I'm in the Dawkins camp). Just thought the video clip might amuse/interest some in the Forum.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how much energy goes into some of these spats.

Cheers.



Karl89 said:


> BertieW,
> 
> Perhaps Christianity is a myth but I'll bet a Jesuit (well some Jesuits anyway) can make a more compelling argument than some Viking high priest. My point is that waht Etienne said is far more offensive, and to far more people, than anything that Wayfarer, yet no belabors the point. Take your lumps and move on, the Interchange is a contact sport.
> 
> Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Be careful about accussing anyone of being rude. In case you forgot, you wrote that Christianity was mere superstition. The rudeness of that comment pales in comparision to Wayfarer pointing out that recent French military history is far from glorious.


Of course too, he failed to notice this was in relation to his questioning my bravery. Funny how selective people can be, no?

Regards


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Zell Miller is an asset for the Republicans. He is well respected here in Georgia.

He is saying what many here think whereas no one agrees with Kerry. That's the big difference. 

I'm sure Rove is grinning ear to ear over Kerry's remarks. Probably glad to hand him a mic.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The great irony there is that Mark Taylor is the guy who took the brilliant idea Miller had that put him on the national map in the first place - the HOPE scholarship, which provided for the college education of all moderately-bright Georgian highschoolers and was/is funded by a tax targeted at people who lack basic math skills - and turned HOPE from really good idea into an actual working program.


Mark Taylor is a symbol of pork barrel politics in Georgia however which is why he is trailing Sonny by high double digits...Sonny has been very effective.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Mark Taylor is a symbol of pork barrel politics in Georgia however which is why he is trailing Sonny by high double digits...Sonny has been very effective.


Actually, Mark Taylor's trailing Sonny - why do Georgia politicians have such uniquely crappy names: Sonny, Saxby, Zell, Newt, etc. - because he spent all of his money on a nasty primary fight against Cathy Cox, and also because Cox has decided to throw a hissy fit instead of being a mensch and supporting her party's candidate. (I voted for Cox in the primary, not because I was so enamored with her - the woman who, after all, brought Diebold to Georgia - but because I thought she had a better chance of beating baldy than Taylor.) So his message, whatever it in fact is, can't really be heard over the relentlessly annoying cacophony of "Sonny do[o doo]."

And what exactly has that fat bald joker done while he's been in the governor's mansion? Besides, of course, being devastatingly effective at gutting education funding (especially higher education) and writing himself six-figure tax breaks? Oh, and as a man he's a putz, too. But then again so is Taylor, so one can't fairly vote in this election based on moral character. And at least none of Sonny's kids ever murdered someone whilst driving drunk...

Taylor will lose, and fairly badly, but it'll close up quite a bit in the next week I think.

And I've lived in Georgia for a lot of my life, but I don't know anyone in Georgia who still respects the old fart who challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. Then again, I don't know married to an immediate relative, either...


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Be careful about accussing anyone of being rude. In case you forgot, you wrote that Christianity was mere superstition.


Indeed I did, and I also did not mean it.

Read again that thread and the context. Somebody was disparaging atheism. I used the exact same phrases he was using replacing the word "atheism" with the word "christianism" and the disparaging comment he was making with the word "superstition". I thought anybody could see clearly, when reading the two posts in sequence, that I was not expressing my opinion but trying to help that fellow understand how his phrases could be insulting to many people (the main point was that he was making that broad comment without any arguments).

Apparently I was not as clear as I thought, since at least one other person (I think it was Jill) took offence. I then explained more plainly the point I was making.

I did not think the misconception about what I was saying had remained. I hope it's clearer now.

I might be in the minority, but I try to hold fast to the motto that says that conversations here are supposed to be civil. I try to refrain from being uncivil, unless somebody has been rude or insulting first of course (as was the case in this thread).



> You will have to get used to the fact that not all of us kneel down before the altar of the Fifth Republic and l'Etat like you do


I have no reverence to the current institutions of my country that could be considered as religious in nature. I actually think the constitution of the Fifth Republic is rather bad, as far as constitutions go.



> we will have to accept that you are anti-Christian


I am many things. Anti-Christian is not one of them. As far as religions go, I actually think it is probably one the very best, and I have been a Christian.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Good. You have been judged.


And you have failed once again to answer to any of the points I was reiterating (because you had not addressed them before), which proves that what you are mainly interested in is definetely not discussion. Kind of interesting to see you claiming that I am the one refusing to discuss after that.

It's a pity you get so heated about a point that was very minor from the start.



Wayfarer said:


> Please, I for one have no desire to know.


What other personal characteristic will you use then? The suspense is killing me...


----------

