The Republicans are the Problem

[Nashitheki]

The poor think the rich are the problem.
The rich think the poor are the problem.

If put to a vote, I wonder what the outcome would be ?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If put to a vote, I wonder what the outcome would be ?

Uh, I think the rich are the minority are they not? The poor are just not represented as well, its not like they are contributing to PAC's. :no:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Inclined to agree with the article

 

[Falvlun]

Which ever side you're on, it's always the other side which is the problem.
Since this is true for all sides, it suggests that either all sides are the problem, or no side is the problem.

I disagree and I think that's exactly what the article was pointing to: The myth that, in order to be unbiased, we must hold that two opposing viewpoints have equal merits, equal amount of problems, and equal amount of responsibility for current mess we're in. You see this sort of reporting/thinking when it comes to teaching ID vs evolution in school, abstinence only vs complete sex ed, the science behind global warming, and most particularly, regarding the divide b/w the two parties.

Obviously, neither party is blameless. Both sides employ divisive, unproductive tactics. But that does not imply that both sides are equally to blame for the present, highly partisan gridlock that has overtaken Washington in the past 20 years (and particularly during Obama's presidency).

After all, breathing produces CO2 emissions. Does that mean breathing is just as bad as burning coal, in terms of our environment?

Fairly assessing responsibility does not, and should not, require an even 50:50 division. And pretending that it does only allows the actual problem to hide behind the sham.

 

[Nashitheki]

Uh, I think the rich are the minority are they not? The poor are just not represented as well, its not like they are contributing to PAC's. :no:

Uh, I'm not talking the kind of vote most folks are use to.

 

[Panda]

I always thought people were the problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

I always thought people were the problem.

Unacceptable!
Who wants to identify their own group as the enemy?
It has to be someone else.

 

[Panda]

Unacceptable!
Who wants to identify their own group as the enemy?
It has to be someone else.

Oh what I meant was. "Everyone else is the problem but I am awesome in every way"

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree and I think that's exactly what the article was pointing to: The myth that, in order to be unbiased, we must hold that two opposing viewpoints have equal merits, equal amount of problems, and equal amount of responsibility for current mess we're in.

The article is perpetuating a myth....a different one. You see each side as having different amounts of merit. This can be true if we have
agreed upon goals, eg, low unemployment, good highways. Then we can objectively compare results of different agendas. But this line of
thought falls apart if there are differing fundamental values, in which case "merit" is inapplicable. If I value liberty high relatively to security,
but you value the reverse, then our efforts to advance our agendas would make each other both "the problem". Abortion rights, gun rights,
freedom of speech, religious freedom, etc would be similar. It's a matter of perspective. Dems see their own values as "true", therefore
Pubs are the problem. That's a very myopic view of politics, one which ignores that other people see their different values as "true".
To me, Democrats & Publicans are "the problem". And of course, to them, Libertarians would be "the problem"....if we could.

You see this sort of reporting/thinking when it comes to teaching ID vs evolution in school, abstinence only vs complete sex ed, the science behind global warming, and most particularly, regarding the divide b/w the two parties.

Evolution is science. ID is religion. There is no "equal merit" because fundamental presumptions are different.
Now, if ID tries to gussy itself up as science, then relative merit can be evaluated.

Obviously, neither party is blameless. Both sides employ divisive, unproductive tactics. But that does not imply that both sides are equally to blame for the present, highly partisan gridlock that has overtaken Washington in the past 20 years (and particularly during Obama's presidency).

I often see objections to the concepts of equality & equivalence introduced for the purpose of saying something to the effect "The worse one
is the only one to address.". To this I say hogwash, because even if we could agree on the definition of "worse", we'd be lousy at measuring it.

After all, breathing produces CO2 emissions. Does that mean breathing is just as bad as burning coal, in terms of our environment?

Oh, you big silly. That's a terrible analogy because there is no fundamental difference of values driving this narrow hypothetical straw man.

Fairly assessing responsibility does not, and should not, require an even 50:50 division. And pretending that it does only allows the actual problem to hide behind the sham.

I've never proposed a 50:50 split, so again I call "Straw Man!".

 

[Falvlun]

The article is perpetuating a myth....a different one. You see each side as having different amounts of merit. This can be true if we have
agreed upon goals, eg, low unemployment, good highways. Then we can objectively compare results of different agendas. But this line of
thought falls apart if there are differing fundamental values, in which case "merit" is inapplicable. If I value liberty high relatively to security,
but you value the reverse, then our efforts to advance our agendas would make each other both "the problem". Abortion rights, gun rights,
freedom of speech, religious freedom, etc would be similar. It's a matter of perspective. Dems see their own values as "true", therefore
Pubs are the problem. That's a very myopic view of politics, one which ignores that other people see their different values as "true".
To me, Democrats & Publicans are "the problem". And of course, to them, Libertarians would be "the problem"....if we could.

I'm not arguing about Republicans not supporting legislation that I support, though. I'm arguing, as was the article, specifically about responsibility regarding the gridlock in Congress.

Regardless about what the government does regarding abortion, gun control, et al, I still want it to work. And it isn't able to do that right now, largely due to the tactics and policies of one party.

Evolution is science. ID is religion. There is no "equal merit" because fundamental presumptions are different.
Now, if ID tries to gussy itself up as science, then relative merit can be evaluated.

Yer preachin' to the choir. The point was that the media does indeed often present them as two sides with equal merit.

I often see objections to the concepts of equality & equivalence introduced for the purpose of saying something to the effect "The worse one
is the only one to address.". To this I say hogwash, because even if we could agree on the definition of "worse", we'd be lousy at measuring it.

So, why go to the other end of the spectrum and say everyone is equally at fault?

If Tommy steals one cookie, but Joey steals ten cookies, who is more responsible for the jar being empty? Both should be reprimanded for stealing, but Joey's share of the blame is much larger, should be punished accordingly, and needs greater reform (or more self-control).

I also don't buy the "We can't tell who's worse" bit. Sometimes, you can. Like in this case.

Oh, you big silly. That's a terrible analogy because there is no fundamental difference of values driving this narrow hypothetical straw man.

I've never proposed a 50:50 split, so again I call "Straw Man!".

I didn't intend a strawman. I was simply trying to illustrate times where two things can both contribute to a problem, but one of the things is far more responsible.

You did, however, propose an "all or nothing" regarding responsibility, which to me, implies a belief in equality of responsibility.

 

[Sunstone]

What are your thoughts?

I agree with the article that mainstream journalists overwhelmingly adopt the line that both sides are equally to blame for our dysfunctional government. However, if you are looking at the causes of that dysfunction, then I think an objective appraisal would find the Republicans have contributed disproportionately to the dysfunction. Indeed, I recently read obstructionism has been their strategy since the day of Obama's inauguration.

Whether you think that obstructionism is right or wrong, good or bad, is a value judgement. But it is simply a fact -- and not a value judgement -- that the Republicans have contributed disproportionately to the government's current dysfunction. For the press to pretend otherwise amounts to a misrepresentation of the truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not arguing about Republicans not supporting legislation that I support, though. I'm arguing, as was the article, specifically about responsibility regarding the gridlock in Congress.

I don't see gridlock as necessarily a problem, since it prevents Pubs & Dems from cooperating to do even more damage.
But it takes two to lock things up. There's no reason that Pubs should let Dems have their way, or vice versa.

Regardless about what the government does regarding abortion, gun control, et al, I still want it to work. And it isn't able to do that right now, largely due to the tactics and policies of one party.

Of course.....Dems.
But I thought the thread was about blaming the others?

Yer preachin' to the choir. The point was that the media does indeed often present them as two sides with equal merit.

Who puts any stock in what they say? Only a fool....oh.....the voters.

So, why go to the other end of the spectrum and say everyone is equally at fault?

You keep attributing this "equally" bizness to me when I specifically argue that "equally" does not apply.
I ain't quantifying here, bub.

If Tommy steals one cookie, but Joey steals ten cookies, who is more responsible for the jar being empty? Both should be reprimanded for stealing, but Joey's share of the blame is much larger, should be punished accordingly, and needs greater reform (or more self-control).

You've a false premise, ie, that one can objectively look at Pubs & Dems, & say that it's as simple as counting cookies, & the the Pubs are clearly worse.
That ain't so clear. We have somewhat different values & different agendas. But even where they are shared, the efficacy of Dem programs is quite
dubious (eg, quantitative easing, which is a smokescreen for printing fiat currency). Actually, I blame the Dems even more for making us vulnerable to
economic collapse & perpetuating our ruin. But this is opinion territory, not facts...& opinions differ.

I also don't buy the "We can't tell who's worse" bit. Sometimes, you can. Like in this case.

You think you can tell which is worse, but you have only your opinion. I differ.

I didn't intend a strawman. I was simply trying to illustrate times where two things can both contribute to a problem, but one of the things is far more responsible.

Strawmen distract rather than illustrate.

You did, however, propose an "all or nothing" regarding responsibility, which to me, implies a belief in equality of responsibility.

I did not imply that.
You incorrectly inferred it.
I blame both. But if you insist on my venturing an opinion, I blame Dems more....
- Their role in running Fannie & Freddie so as to make the housing market more unstable & to inhibit worker mobility
- Their advancing the nanny state
- Their being slightly more responsible for massive increases in dysfunctional regulation of the economy
- Their slightly greater involvement in crony capitalism
- I could think of others, but I don't expect agreement with those either.

Then there are murky issues. Which was worse....
- Clinton's gutting the intelligence community, which arguably contributed to 9/11....or Bush's 2 wars (which Dems went along with) which sapped our economy?
- Bush's wasteful & feckless bail-out plan....or Obama's continuing the same plan?

 

[YmirGF]

And yet the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate from 2007-2010. The Republicans were powerless to stop anything they wanted to pass. Yes, they could drag things out, but ultimately they couldn't stop a thing. Even today, the House is run by the Republicans, but the Democrats still control the White House and the Senate. In this respect, there is no possibility that a Republican initiative will see the light of day.

My guess is that this "Blame the Republicans" campaign is designed to deflect attention away from the incompetence of the Obama Administration, gearing up for the election. The Democrats simply cannot run on Obama's record, so they are forced to demonize the Republicans instead.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

My guess is that this "Blame the Republicans" campaign is designed to deflect attention away from the incompetence of the Obama Administration, gearing up for the election. The Democrats simply cannot run on Obama's record, so they are forced to demonize the Republicans instead.

the Republicans have done enough by themselves to justify their own demonization.
"Well they do it too!" is no excuse for them to do it, at all.
And they are doing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

the Republicans have done enough by themselves to justify their own demonization.
"Well they do it too!" is no excuse for them to do it, at all.
And they are doing it.

I don't see where anyone excused Pubs just cuz Dems misbehave too.
The point is to recognize that faults abound in both parties, & to single one out
for blame is to falsely sanitize the other. It amounts to a propaganda campaign.
The article was, after all, in the Washington Post....what else would we expect?
They'd no more blame Democrats than Fox would blame Republicans.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, I do, I hate both parties equally.
But being in the news biz it's been my observation that since the beginning of the Bush Presidencey the tendency is for Repubs to lie, blatantly. The Dems lie in half-truths. And since they lost to Obama the Reps have been spoiling crybabies who only contribute to the political process by refusing anything offered, and their own offerings are essentially rights-destroying; they have totally lost the focus of their party's original aims and now do nothing but play at contrariety.

Seriously, it's them. When they began roping in the crazy uber-religious simply for their numbers they infected their party with a fatal virus, and it's just about time to remove the tube.

 

[YmirGF]

the Republicans have done enough by themselves to justify their own demonization.
"Well they do it too!" is no excuse for them to do it, at all.
And they are doing it.

That's the best you can come up with? *giggles*

America is SO doomed...

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I didn't realize I had to strive for perfection.
Especially with this audience, Jesus.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I do, I hate both parties equally.
But being in the news biz it's been my observation that since the beginning of the Bush Presidencey the tendency is for Repubs to lie, blatantly. The Dems lie in half-truths. And since they lost to Obama the Reps have been spoiling crybabies who only contribute to the political process by refusing anything offered, and their own offerings are essentially rights-destroying; they have totally lost the focus of their party's original aims and now do nothing but play at contrariety.

Seriously, it's them. When they began roping in the crazy uber-religious simply for their numbers they infected their party with a fatal virus, and it's just about time to remove the tube.

It's always the other side that lies worst.
And it's always said with sincerity.....by both sides.
Honestly, I can't tell which is more dishonest.....it's like trying to figure out which stinks more.....chicken sh** or turkey sh**.
Each has its own special charm.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

'Other side'?
You think Im a Democrat?