Justice Stevens to Retire Soon

[Mirai Gen]

Man I'm not going to touch on Beck's supporters or nothing but let me just say...

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I'm just sayin', it's funny how you're actually a part of the problem you're decrying. By perpetuating the notion of Us against Them, pure good against pure evil in their starkest terms, and by colorizing all those who listen to a certain person or act a certain way as evil and unredeemable, you're only serving to heighten the civil discordance that threatens to topple over this nation. You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

It really wasn't an Us Vs. Them up until the Republican party turned it into one. As it's been said, trying to make peace flat out will not work because then FOX News will use it as more fuel to the fire and it will keep spiraling out of control.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

The more you buy into the Us v. Them psychology, the more you buy into the notion that Republicans are all ubiquitously evil and irredeemable, the more you (and Democrats of all shapes and sizes) fall into the exact trap of performing the exact actions the Republicans in positions of power want you to take.

Snake, you yourself even have left the Republican party. You aren't the only one. Thousands have fled that sinking ship.

I'm not going to say that all Republicans are evil but it's worth noting that the only ones with any power pretty much fit the bill perfectly, so maybe it's time to get out while you still can?

[Kim]

Fuck the divide. Making nice at the expense of progress is bullshit, and since Conservative philosphy according to the only Conservatives with the power to matter is about actively opposing change, bipartisanship can die in a goddamn ditch.

EDIT: I was probably out of line with the whole "You're saying mean things about my grandma!" "Okay. Sounds good to me." bit, and I apologize, but you know what Snake? The personalizing thing was a complete and utter bullshit move. It's a shitty attempt at trying to manipulate people into feeling guilty and backing out of what they said, and I'm not in the mood to play that game.

Your whole argument boils down to "Anything mean you say about the Republican party is invalid because of these people I know who aren't the way you say!" and that's not how it works. A party is nothing more than the people in charge, when all is said and done, like it or not, Glenn Beck and the people who are everything bad I say about the Republican party are in charge. That's who the political party is and those are the beliefs that the Republican party currently supports. Unless I've heard wrong, not one Republican voted in favor of the health care bill, and I cannot respect a party that walks the party line so blindly. You want to bring the people you know into this? Don't. They aren't the people who matter. The Republican party actively opposes everything I am in favor of and doesn't seem to question any of it. I don't think any party like that is worth working with or trying to compromise with, and the President should not be pandering to the people who support such a party, regardless of reason.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Your whole argument boils down to "Anything mean you say about the Republican party is invalid because of these people I know who aren't the way you say!" and that's not how it works.

You know what, you're...just completely not even reading what I'm writing.

I mean, because if you think the point I'm trying to make is that criticism of the Republican party is invalid, then yeah, you've missed my point by a fairly wide margin. Whether that's my fault (for advocating bad arguments to attempt to make the points) or yours is up for debate, that I'll readily concede, but it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to transform my argument into something it's not.

First: I wish I hadn't used the grandparents analogy because it's thrown you off-track under an assumption that I was using it to personalize the narrative. That wasn't the intent. Frankly, if I knew of any John Q. Friend or Jane Q. Acquaintance who fit the bill better than my grandparents, I would've used them. My intent was simply to reference the existence of regular, common people who watched Glenn Beck and weren't as outrageously extremist as you've labeled them. I used my grandparents because they're the ones I actually know. I can't use another, less personalized example without delving into fiction. (Though I'm sure many such examples exist.)

But strangely enough, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was offended by your decision to label my grandparents as stupid -- far from it! If I was trying to personalize the argument in an attempt to diffuse any counterargument you could make, your point regarding illicit motives would be accurate, but that wasn't my intent at all, and nothing better expresses that fact than...well, just read my edit above: I wasn't offended by your comments about my grandparents. I practically agreed with you, there! I'm not sure how more obvious I could have been in establishing that I wasn't trying to use my grandparents as a convenient shield.

As for your characterization of my arguments: The first thing you miss is that it applies only to individual citizens who perceive themselves as falling into those party lines for a wide variety of disparate reasons. That argument isn't the same as defending the Republican party or its leadership figures. Furthermore, my argument works both ways, a fact you conveniently omit in an attempt to paint me as an illogical defender of the Republican party. I have no interest, in fact, in defending the Republican party's often untenable official positions. I've abandoned my ex-political party a few years ago, and I don't intend to return to the fold. A characterization that "everything (you) say about the Republican party is invalid!" misses the point. For one, I'm saying the same exact thing about the Democratic party, and I'm chastising Republican critics and talking heads for the exact same grotesque errors. In that sense, I'm defending...both political parties? Except not really, because I'm not defending the leadership figures that de facto constitute said parties.

My point is simple: that the sinister objectives of fringe groups and ideological lobbyists on both political extremes benefit immensely from heightening a political divide by demonizing everyone and anyone who happens to find themselves on the opposite side of the fence. I've been fairly clear about the fact that the Republicans have done this more (and have mastered the trade far better) than Democrats. If anything, my argument thus puts a preponderance of the blame on Republicans. But merely ascribing a preponderance of the blame to them does not mask the fact that a great deal of Democrats, including some of you, have fallen into virtually identical traps in your arguments.

...You know, maybe I should just give up. It's late, and I've really run out of anything new or intelligent to add. At this point I could just keep repeating myself, but that would be more annoying than insightful.

[Kim]

And my argument is that working with the Republican party as it exists now is bad for the country and is a thing we really should not do. Bipartisanship will have no benefits in the long run because the Republicans will twist anything the Democrats say or do, even if it was originally a Republican idea, against them. This is a thing they have actually been doing. You can't work with a party like that, yet you keep arguing in favor of this love and peace teamwork yeah philosophy that just doesn't work, because at this point the only thing the Republican party is is the party that hates the Democrats. Trying to work with a party like that only holds the country back, and no matter how much you seem to think that if Obama just tries one more time to do the right thing (right by your standards, at least) then suddenly the political parties will be able to work together to achieve peace and harmony, when it is very and absolutely clear that the Republican party wants anything but that. Obama should put a liberal judge in because honestly the more that can be done to cockblock the Republicans the better. The Republican party should have as absolutely little power as possible because they aren't remotely interested in using that power to do the right thing, even according to their beliefs.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

The Republicans you rightfully despise are hoping you call their actions as obstructionist partisanship and decry their outright petty and childish behavior!

They benefit from your doing so!

But they benefit even more from our not doing so!

And I don't think you understand me here. I don't hate them. I am just really really pissed off at them, and exasperated at them as I would a child throwing a temper tantrum, because that's what they're acting like right now. And you know what? When you've got a kid that's kicking and screaming and crying because he doesn't want to go to school but, of course, he has to fucking go to school, you have to show him whose boss or he's just going to keep doing it.

What Obama has currently been doing is giving the screaming brat candy and video games and then asking nicely if the Republicans would like to go to school now and getting, "NO!! I DON'T WANNA GO TO SCHOOL! AND I DON'T LIKE THESE GAMES AND CANDY ANYMORE! I WANT THAT CANDY!" and Obama just sorta sighs and goes out to the store with the candy the Republicans are now demanding and will invariably throw on the floor upon receipt.

There's more to being the bigger person than patience and compromise. Sometimes you really do have to be the grownup and spank your stupid kid so he'll stop being so stupid.

[CABAL49]

This popped up while I was reading. Thought it was relevant.


Snake. I really do like your outlook on this issue, but Noncon is right on a lot of the issues here. One of the biggest problems right now, is that there are not any Republican/Conservative leaders who are actually trying to reach out to the Democratic Party. Democrats who want bipartisanship are being snuffed out because of others who say, "well we tried, they don't want to play with us." In many respects, that is not wrong. We have Republican representatives and senators talking about how Democrats are going to kill our grandmothers in their sleep. Then we had then a few Democrats started doing it.

I also have to disagree with you on your idea on who Obama should appoint to the Supreme Court. The Democratic party support is wanning now, and seeing Obama appointing a conservative would not help that. But I do agree that a straight up left-winger would not help his situation. I think the better compromise would be a slightly left moderate. It would consolidate power with progressives and show moderates that the Democrats care about them. Obama could then talk nice about Roberts and Alito, leaving the door open for conservatives.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by CABAL49

I also have to disagree with you on your idea on who Obama should appoint to the Supreme Court. The Democratic party support is wanning now, and seeing Obama appointing a conservative would not help that. But I do agree that a straight up left-winger would not help his situation. I think the better compromise would be a slightly left moderate. It would consolidate power with progressives and show moderates that the Democrats care about them. Obama could then talk nice about Roberts and Alito, leaving the door open for conservatives.

Well, if you're talking about who should replace Stevens, the answer actually is a committed left-wing progressive. Anything less would shift the balance of power in entirely the wrong direction.

For replacing the likes of Scalia and Thomas...that's where it gets more difficult for me (and more difficult for Obama.) As I said long before the Supreme Court conservation got derailed into a discussion about the American electorate, it's a lose-lose proposition for him, at least until after 2012. He probably ultimately finds a moderate replacement (I wouldn't want another Scalia to replace Scalia. Thomas is another matter; I'm just crazy libertarian enough to enjoy several of his opinions, but my personal preferences don't effect the objective view that Obama would be best off replacing him with someone less on the fringe.)

Finally, I'll try clarifying this one last time: When I'm speaking about Democrats and/or Obama "reaching out to" or "being patient with" conservatives and/or Republicans, I'm speaking about the everyday citizens who happen to perceive themselves as conservatives or Republicans. I do not expect, nor do I want, Obama to show the same level of "respect" or "courtesy" (or whatever you want to call it) for Republican politicians and members of the Fox News media (the Palins, Hannitys and Becks of the world.) They deserve nothing less than unequivocal condemnation (even moreso from intelligent conservatives than liberals, but that's another point entirely.)

I'll try to make my point in one more unique way one last time before hanging up my cleats: The difference is that I think most everyday people who presently associate themselves with the Republican or conservative parties are not actually batshit crazy like the people in the media and Congress that they follow. Those people in power are feeding them canned lines, and they're being deceived. It's not always as simple as labeling the deception a matter of blind stupidity, sinister intolerance or ignorance; the majority simply aren't "politics-smart," but that doesn't translate into their worth as human beings.

So when people try to generalize or stereotype the entire Tea Party movement into a bunch of Neanderthals, I become slightly concerned. Their policy positions are barbaric, to be sure. But that's precisely the thing: their policy positions are so barbaric that if most Tea Partiers truly understood the ramifications of the arguments made by their "superiors," they'd run the hell away.

I strongly believe that most human beings are not, in fact, genuinely evil people. So when I see the Tea Party do it what does, my response is that a number of varying factors have come into play that go well beyond sinister intentions of the masses.

It's partially political ignorance. A lot of supporters of the Republican party presently are 'common folk' who haven't gotten the educations most of us have enjoyed. They're plenty skilled and intelligent in other facets of life, but they're likely to be manipulated by savvy politicians with clever talking points that mask the true intentions of their platforms.

It's also a number of other factors. Some associate themselves with Republicans out of loyalty instilled through their parents and close friends when they were young; that factor explains my own political convictions way back in '04 and '05, when you all hated my stinkin' guts. That's not stupidity or pure unadulterated evil talking, it's just a strong sense of (in a twisted sense, almost admirable) loyalty applied for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals vote Republican simply because their parents or others around them did, and they lack the curiosity or insight into politics to make independent determinations. We're all intelligent in some facets of life and mediocre or worse than others. (Don't expect me to make adequate nutritional or exercise-related decisions, or to understand the complexities of biochemistry or physics.)

Additionally, there's the appeal of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as sheer entertainment figures. Yes, their approach is lost on us, but not on many, apparently. Just look at how Fox News is creaming the competition. Some of it does have to do with individuals genuinely believing terrible things, but much of it is simply that Fox News dumbs down news into a flashy, extravagant, notoriously generalized series of formulas that's easy and intuitive to understand (Us v. Them! Look at all the pretty graphics! Hot blondes reporting the news!) Fox News is popular for its entertainment value as much as anything else.

Hell, I even have a Facebook friend who's attended Tea Party rallies and gotten involved because a girl he has a crush on apparently is a huge libertarian. I thought that was hysterical. (Sad, too. Also hysterical.)

You can weaken the Republican party tremendously by simply reaching out to those everyday people who have been deceived. Don't forget they're real people, struggling with real everyday problems, and don't forget that most (though admittingly, not all) of them are not barbaric monsters hellbent on watching people suffer. People just aren't like that. We can say they're wrong. But you're hurting the efficacy of the Democratic Party's ability to win converts that will establish their future dominance for generations to come by antagonizing them needlessly. Antagonize their leaders, and rightfully so, for misleading them onto a path to oblivion.

I may no longer be a Republican, but I'm naive enough to believe that most current Republicans are just like I was five years ago. And if that's the case, they can be saved. Maybe not brought into full-blown Democrats. Many of them, like me, might be drawn to new interpretations of libertarianism or even simply a more respectful, less jingoistic or socially suppressive version of conservatism (like Republicans in the 1970s.) Maybe a new political party will be born.

But we can at least restore some degree of dignity to this country. We won't if the Democrats respond to the inflammatory comments of Republican leaders by falling into their trap and dehumanizing the masses in the Tea Party. That just strengthens the horde. And it ultimately leaves the Dems looking nearly as bad as the Reps they're holding themselves out to be better than.

[MFD]

This whole argument is really weird. I thought that, for the most part, justices just wait until someone ideologically similar is in the Oval, and then they retire. As in, they don't actually trust the President to not pack the Court with justices he agrees with.

And of course Obama is going to appoint someone whose beliefs are close to his own to the court. It's not the Stevens seat, it's a freaking Supreme Court nominee. Obama will appoint whoever the hell he wants. It's why we have the Senate to confirm (which is going to be a circus in and of itself, but that's another story).

Hee, remember Harriet Miers?

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Finally, I'll try clarifying this one last time: When I'm speaking about Democrats and/or Obama "reaching out to" or "being patient with" conservatives and/or Republicans, I'm speaking about the everyday citizens who happen to perceive themselves as conservatives or Republicans.

Then those people need to step up and get their party back on track, or at least prove they exist to the public at large, because as it stands all they're doing is supporting the loud crazies because they still share more the same opinion on more issues with the Republican leaders than they do the Democrats. It's up to the Republicans to fix the GOP, not the Democrats.

[Kepor]

Just for the record, I pretty much agree with Snake here.

For potential nominees, I'm kinda leaning towards Diane Wood.