Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I found this article interesting as regards the typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.

I find it more interesting that you have confused the Lounge with your personal blog, and posted a source from an extremist site to rail up essentially a discussion for you to espouse your personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

Then again, that's pretty much all you've ever used the Lounge for, so we'll move on to the place you linked. (But unlike others -- Eelco for example -- you're a productive member in other ways and I do want to make that clear before moving on to be quite insulting.)

Oh man, I think I havnt posted here in years; it warms my heart that im still remembered.

Yeah, that reminds me, we used to have interesting discussions in this place. The GDnet lounge has been invaluable in my formative years (I remember my first post in the lounge being about me siding with lessbread against felisandra (sp?); I used to be such a well educated european). Indeed, I found the discussions in the lounge with people of a similar background and way of thinking to be interesting for a far longer time than answering the same questions about matrix transforms over and over again; sue me.

Yup, those days are gone. Cant have people disagreeing over stuff, we have to think of the children.

Agreed.

A valuable lesson I've learned over the years is that there is really no difference between leftist moonbats and right-wing wingnuts. Their differing beliefs are inconsequential because they are near perfectly balanced. It's their commonality that matters because it makes things worse for everyone: a closed-minded attitude toward opposing viewpoints.

That's a false equivalence. See Conservative Hatred vs. Liberal Hatred for a more detailed analysis. See also The unconscious of a conservative and Conservative movement shifts toward demagoguery and hucksterism.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That's a false equivalence. See Conservative Hatred vs. Liberal Hatred for a more detailed analysis.

A poor analysis. Democrats are comprised of a wider cross-section of American society and hence represent no clear platform. As expected, the views of Democratic respondents appear moderate.

It is unclear precisely what constitutes liberalism and conservatism. Ask a self-proclaimed "liberal" what the term means and they will invariably mention open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation, and a preference for personal liberty, but in reality possess these qualities in no more abundance than a "conservative". They simply worship different gods, have different priorities, and different taboos.

Quote:
See also The unconscious of a conservative and Conservative movement shifts toward demagoguery and hucksterism.

If anything, these prove my point. "Conservatives are demagogues and hucksters; our ideas are inherently more liberal and progressive." Unsurprisingly, you will see conservatives making the same statements about liberals. This does not advance the level of discourse. Neither side is willing to concede that the other side has valid beliefs.

All the while, the elites utilize both the Democrats and the Republicans to achieve their aims. The mindless expansion of government always favored by Democrats directly benefits the elites just as much as the curious pro-business "deregulation" and supply-side policies of the Republicans.

Best of all, the elites have managed to trick the die-hard believers and well-intentioned political activists themselves into doing their bidding. The system perpetuates itself not only from the top-down, but from the bottom-up as well. It's like quicksand.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That's a false equivalence. See Conservative Hatred vs. Liberal Hatred for a more detailed analysis.

A poor analysis. Democrats are comprised of a wider cross-section of American society and hence represent no clear platform. As expected, the views of Democratic respondents appear moderate.

That analysis beats the hell out of the stereotypes you're attempting to perpetuate. What evidence do you have to support your claim of equivalence?

Quote: Original post by trzy
It is unclear precisely what constitutes liberalism and conservatism. Ask a self-proclaimed "liberal" what the term means and they will invariably mention open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation, and a preference for personal liberty, but in reality possess these qualities in no more abundance than a "conservative". They simply worship different gods, have different priorities, and different taboos.

Do you seriously believe that conservatives value open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation?

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
See also The unconscious of a conservative and Conservative movement shifts toward demagoguery and hucksterism.

If anything, these prove my point. "Conservatives are demagogues and hucksters; our ideas are inherently more liberal and progressive." Unsurprisingly, you will see conservatives making the same statements about liberals. This does not advance the level of discourse. Neither side is willing to concede that the other side has valid beliefs.

You clearly read the title but not the article. That was a lament by a conservative.

Quote: Original post by trzy
All the while, the elites utilize both the Democrats and the Republicans to achieve their aims. The mindless expansion of government always favored by Democrats directly benefits the elites just as much as the curious pro-business "deregulation" and supply-side policies of the Republicans.

Don't kid yourself. Republicans favor mindless expansion of government too. Look at DHS and the national security state.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Best of all, the elites have managed to trick the die-hard believers and well-intentioned political activists themselves into doing their bidding. The system perpetuates itself not only from the top-down, but from the bottom-up as well. It's like quicksand.

That's what systems do, so there's no point in crying about it. And if you think about it, cynicism only serves to perpetuate the status quo.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That analysis beats the hell out of the stereotypes you're attempting to perpetuate. What evidence do you have to support your claim of equivalence?

The very fact that you insist on polarizing this debate by lumping people into "liberal" and "conservative" camps speaks volumes.

Take any contentious social or economic issue:

1. Gay marriage is a human rights issue and the government has no place in using marriage as a social policy tool. Gay marriage is about re-defining marriage, an institution primarily concerned with child bearing, a minority of voters has no right to turn this into a rights issue.

2. The right to bear arms is antiquated and results in increased violent crime, only the government can be trusted to use lethal force. The right to bear arms is not antiquated and does not necessarily lead to violent crime, the government should not have the power to strip citizens of their guns.

3. Compulsory education is responsible for producing the society we want, more resources should be expended on it. Compulsory education is responsible for producing a society we do not want, we should spend less money on it.

4. We firmly believe that FDR's Keynesian policies spurred the US recovery from the Depression. We firmly believe FDR's Keynesian policies delayed a US recovery from the Depression.

5. Multiculturalism is good. Multiculturalism is bad.

6. If you do not support policy X, you are a racist. If you do support policy X, you are racist.

7. Our values and beliefs stem from a reasoned analysis of empirical evidence. Our values and beliefs stem from a reasoned analysis of empirical evidence.

7. Shut up. No, you shut up.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Quote:
Do you seriously believe that conservatives value open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation?

Most definitely. Many ideas that are labeled "conservative" would require radical reform and experimentation. All of a sudden, some progressive groups would find themselves fighting for their lives attempting to "conserve" the status quo. In fact, this is already happening.

Quote: You clearly read the title but not the article. That was a lament by a conservative.

You took a critical assessment of the conservative movement, written by a conservative, to bolster a very different argument: that conservatives and liberals are essentially different. Much of that article could be recycled and used against the American left. I don't think that article was conceding that the US conservative movement is more "wrong" than the liberal movement, only that it had lost its way.

The "conservatism is dead" stuff is hilariously funny as Democrats head into a spectacular defeat this November, one which they proudly denied would happen altogether only months ago and which they are now downplaying. Surely any speed bump in the path of the glorious eternal liberal victory must be due to a nefarious combination of disinformation, racism, and vote-rigging.

Quote: Don't kid yourself. Republicans favor mindless expansion of government too. Look at DHS and the national security state.

Yes, they do. Congratulations for noticing that. "The Republicans want to do it, too, but we're better." What a fantastic argument. Regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats expand the government, and regardless of what programs they choose to funnel money into, you won't get the results you want and the same group of people will largely benefit.

Quote: That's what systems do, so there's no point in crying about it. And if you think about it, cynicism only serves to perpetuate the status quo.

Blind idealism and partisan politics accelerate it.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That analysis beats the hell out of the stereotypes you're attempting to perpetuate. What evidence do you have to support your claim of equivalence?

The very fact that you insist on polarizing this debate by lumping people into "liberal" and "conservative" camps speaks volumes.

Sorry but you don't have a leg to stand on there. You polarized the debate with your first post: "A valuable lesson I've learned over the years is that there is really no difference between leftist moonbats and right-wing wingnuts." And then you went on to claim "Their differing beliefs are inconsequential because they are near perfectly balanced." I rejected all of that and pointed to an analysis that refutes your unsubstantiated claim. Rather than casting vague aspersions, how about owning up to what you started?

Quote: Original post by trzy
Take any contentious social or economic issue:

1. Gay marriage is a human rights issue and the government has no place in using marriage as a social policy tool. Gay marriage is about re-defining marriage, an institution primarily concerned with child bearing, a minority of voters has no right to turn this into a rights issue.

2. The right to bear arms is antiquated and results in increased violent crime, only the government can be trusted to use lethal force. The right to bear arms is not antiquated and does not necessarily lead to violent crime, the government should not have the power to strip citizens of their guns.

3. Compulsory education is responsible for producing the society we want, more resources should be expended on it. Compulsory education is responsible for producing a society we do not want, we should spend less money on it.

4. We firmly believe that FDR's Keynesian policies spurred the US recovery from the Depression. We firmly believe FDR's Keynesian policies delayed a US recovery from the Depression.

5. Multiculturalism is good. Multiculturalism is bad.

6. If you do not support policy X, you are a racist. If you do support policy X, you are racist.

7. Our values and beliefs stem from a reasoned analysis of empirical evidence. Our values and beliefs stem from a reasoned analysis of empirical evidence.

7. Shut up. No, you shut up.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Those characterizations are flawed. They caricature the arguments made by either side, right down to "Shut up. No, you shut up." (which should be #8 btw). They appear "near perfectly balanced" because you've crafted them to appear that way.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
Do you seriously believe that conservatives value open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation?

Most definitely. Many ideas that are labeled "conservative" would require radical reform and experimentation. All of a sudden, some progressive groups would find themselves fighting for their lives attempting to "conserve" the status quo. In fact, this is already happening.

That doesn't show that conservatives value open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation. It shows they want to exercise power to shape the world to their liking. As for the "conservative" impulse in progressive groups, that may be so but the question wasn't about them. How about answering the question instead of dodging it with deflections?

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: You clearly read the title but not the article. That was a lament by a conservative.

You took a critical assessment of the conservative movement, written by a conservative, to bolster a very different argument: that conservatives and liberals are essentially different. Much of that article could be recycled and used against the American left. I don't think that article was conceding that the US conservative movement is more "wrong" than the liberal movement, only that it had lost its way.

You have yet to show that each group isn't essentially different.

You're making another unsubstantiated claim. Point to examples from the article that could by recycled and used against the American left.

The article, essay really, shows that the wingnuts are far crazier than the moonbats.

Quote: Original post by trzy
The "conservatism is dead" stuff is hilariously funny as Democrats head into a spectacular defeat this November, one which they proudly denied would happen altogether only months ago and which they are now downplaying. Surely any speed bump in the path of the glorious eternal liberal victory must be due to a nefarious combination of disinformation, racism, and vote-rigging.

You're confusing conservatism with Republican and missing the point of the lament. What passes as conservative today is really proto-fascist, complete with disinformation, racism and a stubborn refusal to participate in governance. Don't forget to include the stupidity of the American voter in your litany.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Don't kid yourself. Republicans favor mindless expansion of government too. Look at DHS and the national security state.

Yes, they do. Congratulations for noticing that. "The Republicans want to do it, too, but we're better." What a fantastic argument. Regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats expand the government, and regardless of what programs they choose to funnel money into, you won't get the results you want and the same group of people will largely benefit.

Please don't agree with me and contradict your earlier statement and then offer snarky congratulations. Government expansion isn't automatically mindless and doesn't benefit the same group of people regardless. Attitude is no substitute for evidence.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: That's what systems do, so there's no point in crying about it. And if you think about it, cynicism only serves to perpetuate the status quo.

Blind idealism and partisan politics accelerate it.

Accelerate the status quo? That's metaphorical nonsense.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Those characterizations are flawed. They caricature the arguments made by either side, right down to "Shut up. No, you shut up." (which should be #8 btw). They appear "near perfectly balanced" because you've crafted them to appear that way.

How are they caricatured? Particularly with regards to the social issues, any viewpoint could be argued as valid, but few are willing to concede that the opposite side has legitimate concerns. Debates become especially rancorous when the minority tries to strong-arm the majority through mudslinging and circumvention of the democratic process. See the perpetual abortion debate (where the wingnuts refuse to stop agitating the majority of the population that accepts legalized abortion) and the same-sex marriage debate (where moonbats are tripping over themselves to attempt to ram it through the court system prematurely before solidifying public support).

Quote:
That doesn't show that conservatives value open-mindedness, receptiveness to new ideas and experimentation. It shows they want to exercise power to shape the world to their liking. As for the "conservative" impulse in progressive groups, that may be so but the question wasn't about them. How about answering the question instead of dodging it with deflections?

I think most self-identified conservatives are receptive to new ideas but typically have a less pliable worldview. The burden of proof is higher for the conservative to accept radical alterations to the status quo. I also think it depends on what precisely is being changed. Sadly, neither side is any more pragmatic than the other.

Quote: You have yet to show that each group isn't essentially different.

You're making another unsubstantiated claim. Point to examples from the article that could by recycled and used against the American left.

The article, essay really, shows that the wingnuts are far crazier than the moonbats.

The article demonstrates no such thing. If anything, the only point you're proving is that the left is just as paranoid, blowing things wildly out of proportion. Why are the wingnuts crazier? Because they are more "shrill", whatever that means? Because they write op-eds you disagree with? Because of peaceful protests? I'll point out that presently smug leftists were screaming bloody murder during the Bush administration. Remember when President Bush's Secret Service was going to knock down our doors for criticizing him? Or when he was going to cancel the elections and install himself as a dictator? When Karl Rove's "October Surprise" was code for a planned terrorist attack? Or when your neighbors were going to be turned into the Gestapo? When the Bush administration might have willingly allowed September 11th to occur? Seems silly now, but I remember the atmosphere. One can dig through former Lounge threads for verification.

Yet now that the wingnuts are having their go at it, things are somehow different, you're telling us. Saying that Obama is a socialist spendthrift is somehow far crazier than claiming Bush is a fascist taking marching orders from a shadowy cabal bent on total US domination of global resources. Speculating wildly on the consequences of Obama's directive to assassinate US citizens is somehow far crazier than speculating wildly on where extrajudicial detention of foreign terror suspects might lead.

Riiight.

The only thing that has remained consistent is your dislike of the right rather than reasoned skepticism of authority.

Quote:
You're confusing conservatism with Republican and missing the point of the lament. What passes as conservative today is really proto-fascist, complete with disinformation, racism and a stubborn refusal to participate in governance. Don't forget to include the stupidity of the American voter in your litany.

And what passes for liberalism in the US is elitist chauvinism, race-baiting, and socialism. That was easy. Fascism is a pretty meaningless term. Care to offer a definition?

Quote:

Quote: Blind idealism and partisan politics accelerate it.

Accelerate the status quo? That's metaphorical nonsense.

The real status quo is a declining US economy and political system, not any particular step along the way. It is this that I am referring to, and it can definitely be accelerated.

I feel sort of like this has gone off topic from the original problem (the FDA) and extended way too far into polarized partisan bashing.

I'm gonna close this; if you want to start a politics discussion limited to a specific topic I'd be happy to keep it alive. I appreciate that these topics are coming up, but we should focus on the issues rather than the participants.