Posters becoming politicans

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

*bows*  M...a...r...k...d..e..l.lllllll....

hehe - Walter, tell me what you think of my political chances?  I'd like the "outside-the-beltway" view

it's amusing that you all are falling at the feet of markdel...waiting for him to dispense his observations.

get a grip people.

[muon2]

it's amusing that you all are falling at the feet of markdel...waiting for him to dispense his observations.

get a grip people.

It's no different than members of the forum picking The Vorlon's brains about the latest polls. I think many of us here greatly enjoy the wide variety of expertise as well as opinions on the forum. MarkDel has genuine expertise, and I trust that those who ask recognize their request is as good as the limited information he has to work with.

So the fact that posters ask, and he gives his opinion is fine. Of course I should mention that I enjoy the analysis, and reactions.

[WalterMitty]

*bows*  M...a...r...k...d..e..l.lllllll....

hehe - Walter, tell me what you think of my political chances?  I'd like the "outside-the-beltway" view

it's amusing that you all are falling at the feet of markdel...waiting for him to dispense his observations.

get a grip people.

oh, i dont know, don.  im not an expert on these things.  you seem very moderate for a southern republican.  tennessee (or virginia) might be the only two southern states you could get elected in.  you strike me as a lamar alexander type.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

you strike me as a lamar alexander type.

*beams with pride at being compared with the greatest Senator ever!*

[Gustaf]

If I wasn't interested in what other people had to say I wouldn't be on an internet forum at all...

[The Duke]

you strike me as a lamar alexander type.

*beams with pride at being compared with the greatest Senator ever!*

Ever?  Reminds me of when Antowan Walker called Don Nelson the greatest coach in NBA history.  A nice coach, bu the greatest ever?

[WalterMitty]

im a big fan of alexander also.  i supported him in the 96 presidential primaries.

[ilikeverin]

Walter,

I don't think these guys are falling at anybody's feet, I just think they are interested in hearing what I had to say for three key reasons:

1. I used to work on Capitol Hill and might have some insight into what it takes to be a politician.

2.  I'm a little older than these guys and might have some "life" perspective that they may lack at this stage of the game.

3. I'm very clearly known as a person who doesn't "pull any punches" so I'm not gonna tell you what I THINK will make you happy, but wil give you my honest opinion.

And, I think you'll find that my comments on strengths and weaknesses were generally well received, other than Nym90...and I totally predicted his response in my initial assesment of him.

Or it could just because of:

4. You are the only one who is freely offering opinions.



PS I wouldn't say the last paragraph is true; remember, I still haven't responded and generally if someone has 1/2 a paragraph of psuedo-positives and 3-1/2 paragraphs of negatives about them it won't be too well recieved

[MarkDel]

Ilikeverin,

Sorry, I forgot about you...I'm not sure you count...LOL...but you did ask...

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I said ever, I meant ever.  Henry Clay is a close second

you strike me as a lamar alexander type.

*beams with pride at being compared with the greatest Senator ever!*

Ever?  Reminds me of when Antowan Walker called Don Nelson the greatest coach in NBA history.  A nice coach, bu the greatest ever?

[Nym90]

"Everyone else took my comments for what they were...constructive criticism....you instead turn into a referendum on partisanship and MY political beliefs."

You are right, I should not have brought it up in THIS thread. But you have said before that you are ALWAYS objective, and that's clearly not true. No one can be 100% objective about something when they have an opinion about it. The difference is I realize this and admit my partisanship, while you do not, and blindly go on thinking that you are objective when you aren't.

"I said your partisanship would HELP you in the primary and HURT you in a general election...your answer...but you're partisan too...LOL...what the hell does that have to do with the point I made?"

Agreed, it has nothing to do with the point, and I'm sorry if I made it seem like it did. See my comment above.

"You then explain that "truth" and "facts" are different depending on one's political perspective...yeah, that's a really defensible position...proof of what I meant with the 2+2=5 comment. You then ask for examples of where you ignore facts to remain loyal to the Democratic Party....welll..."

I didn't say that truth and facts change due to one's political position. When I said I don't agree with your truth and facts, what I meant is that what you said wasn't a truth or fact at all, and that you are the one making up things. I don't accept that Democrats do the 2+2=5 thing more than Republicans. So, because I fail to accept that Democrats do this more often, this proves your point that Democrats do it more often? You create a "fact" with no proof, and then use my failure to accept your "facts" as "proof" of your facts.

"On numerous occasions you have defended Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and a host of other Democrats who have made outrageous, despicable comments that cannot be proven factually and are clearly poison in the political discourse. Your response? "Ann Coulter is just as bad...Rush Limbaugh is just as bad..." The when I ask you to show me examples of Ann Coulter LYING like Michael Moore did, you clam up and say, "You're clearly partisan..." You did the same thing to John Ford in his rather detailed dissection of Michael Moore...rather than deal with the FACTS posted by Ford, you dismissed him as a legitimate critic because he's a Republican. This is classic Clintonista behavior....your response...Republicans do it too and the fact that MarkDel says it's more prevalent among Democrats means that he's biased, so his criticism can't be taken seriously. Contrast this with John Ford's review of Moore where he mentions Moore's bias, but in no way, shape or form is it central to his overall argument."

I have never defended anything outragous said about Moore, Dean, Gore, or Kucinich. Show me the posts where I did. I said that Dean, Gore, and Kucinich weren't leaders in the party. What I meant was that they DID say outrageous things that weren't true, but that no one, including Democrats, cares, because they are largely irrelevant. All of them are FAILED presidential candidates, and thus no one, including my party, much cares what they have to say anymore. Regarding Moore, I did not defend him at all, I only said that Ford's argument was logically incorrect, based purely on the rules of logic alone. I hadn't seen the movie, so I knew nothing about Ford's assessment of the movie, and thus I wasn't qualified to talk about things that I knew nothing about. I didn't want to assume anything about either John Ford or Moore other than their explicit words, nor did I want to assume anything about the movie, having not seen it. In fact, I'm criticizing the very view that you accuse me of having. I NEVER said that Ford's argument was automatically wrong, just because it wasn't a logically sound argument. I'm just saying that simply because Moore hates Bush doesn't mean that everything that HE says can be dismissed AUTOMATICALLY on this basis. The fact that you say that Democrats equivocate more than Republicans does not make you biased, what makes you biased is that EVERYONE is biased, and some realize this and admit it, while some are able to delude themselves into thinking that they can remain objective. It's not possible to set aside one's personal biases 100%. All one can do is admit to them so that others can take them into account when they read one's posts, and then do one's best to compensate for them, but one can't get rid of them.

Show me where I said anything about Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I never brought them up. Again, you assume things about me with no proof whatsoever, to make me fit your stereotype of a Democrat. So the alleged exchange that you accuse of me of having with you never occured. You are making things up to fit your view of me.

I wasn't assessing all of Ford's review, just that one argument which didn't follow the commonly accepted rules of logic. You assumed much more than what I said.


"And if you notice, I listed you as one of the people who COULD have an actual political career."

I know, and I appreciate that.

"But I'll give you another chance to prove that you are not what I know you are...."

Again, not who you think I am, who you KNOW I am. You've already made up your mind, so there's no point in me even talking. You KNOW who I am, I fit your nice little simple stereotype, which prevents you from having to actually listen to what I say and read the words that I post. That must be nice, but I view the world as being much more complex than that, and assume NOTHING unless it is explicitly stated. That's the key fundamental difference between you and I, and it's why we have such a hard time understanding each other, I think.

"If Sandy Berger actually removed classified records from the National Archives, was he guilty of a felony and should he be prosecuted?"

If someone commits a felony, they should be convicted and prosecuted for it.

So IF it can be proven that Sandy Berger knowingly removed classified records from the National Archives, and thus it wasn't an honest mistake, and if that's a felony (I assume from your statement that it probably is, right?) then he should be found guilty and prosecuted, yes.

[The Duke]

Nym,

My argument was not that Moore hates Bush and is therefore wrong, it was that he will criticize Bush from both sides of the same issue and is therefore not being serious or fair about the issues.

Anyway, have you seen the movie yet and what did you think?

[Nym90]

You are right, he isn't serious or fair about the issues. I agree on that.

Yes, I have seen it. I agree that it was propaganda. It clearly had an agenda. I am very interested into looking into the claims that have been made, though. I'd post a more lengthy analysis now but I really don't have time, sorry. Remind me another day, and I will.

[??????????]

You are right, he isn't serious or fair about the issues. I agree on that.

Yes, I have seen it. I agree that it was propaganda. It clearly had an agenda. I am very interested into looking into the claims that have been made, though. I'd post a more lengthy analysis now but I really don't have time, sorry. Remind me another day, and I will.

We are making progress here Nym! I for one commend you on labeling it for what it is.

[MarkDel]

NYm90,

I know you think you have just given a straight answer about Sandy Berger, but look at your answer carefully...you still qualified it in Clinton fashion. You give Berger, and yourself, the wiggle room that the law does not allow. You say, "if it wasn't just an honest mistake..." But for purposes of the law, it is completely irrelevant if it was an "honest" mistake. If I sleep with a 14 year old girl because she showed me fake ID that says she was 18, that's an honest mistake, but I am still guilty of statutory rape under the law. Ignorance of the actual law (which in Berger's case is a ludicrous claim anyway) is NOT a defense. If I say, "Gee, I didn't know it was against the law to drink and drive" I am still GUILTY of drinking and driving. So what you have done is answered in what you think is a straight forward fashion in order to defeat the point I was making about you, but in reality all that you have done is exposed your need to provide Berger, and yourself, with an out.

As for your overall point about "objectivty" I think we are merely at a philosophical difference there, one that is common disagreement between liberals and non-liberals. You feel that ALL decisions and ALL conclusions are automatically biased, thus the only "unbiased" person is the one right down the middle who takes no "side" in an argument. I strongly disagree. I may reach conclusions that are consistently to the right and center of the political spectrum, but that does not mean that I did not objectively arrive at those conclusions. You're talking about results...I'm talking about process. I can take ANY issue and look at objectively and formulate a fair, honest and objective argument from ALL sides of that issue. If I wanted to, I could kill the poster MarkDel and come back here in six months and argue the LEFT WING perspective just as well as I articulate the right wing perspective. Why? Because my ANALYSIS is objective even if I my conclusions take sides. And that's what you either don't understand, or simply disagree with on a theoretical level. And what seems to be the problem with modern American politics. Most people (leftists are worse than rightists but both are guilty) in this day and age reach a decision FIRST and then formulate their rationale for reaching that decision AFTER they have reached their conclusion. I think this is not only flawed, but a major part of why this nation is so polarized right now. I reflexively take no position on an issue until I analyze the available data and then work through to a conclusion...this is what human beings are SUPPOSED TO DO...it's what separates us from the animals!!! Think like Descartes instead of Ted Kennedy and you'll find your answers.

Remember, taking a subjective position does not mean you arrived at that position subjectively...ask yourself this...for your theory to be right and my theory to be wrong, what horrible implications would that have for society? What implications would it have about the long-standing nature vs. nurture debate? What then would be the origins of our bias and can they ever be altered? And this is what I was driving at when I said that so many Democrats have an issue with "truth" because the next logical progression from your view on the inability of people to be objective is that one's perception must also be biased, hence how can we ever know if ANYTHING is in fact true?

[MarkDel]

By the way, on a completely unrelated issue, I just thought of another poster who could have a potential political career if he wanted one...DAZZLEMAN...he would be a formidable politician if he chose to go in that direction.

[ilikeverin]

Ilikeverin,

Sorry, I forgot about you...I'm not sure you count...LOL...but you did ask...

You have a gift for rubbing people the wrong way.

[MarkDel]

Ilikeverin,

Sorry, I forgot about you...I'm not sure you count...LOL...but you did ask...

You have a gift for rubbing people the wrong way.

Ilikeverin,

Like I said in a thread a few days ago, people either love me or hate me...it's always been that way, but you'll ALWAYS know where you stand with me...no deceptions. Obviously, you fall into the latter category of people, which I completely understand.

[ilikeverin]

Ilikeverin,

Sorry, I forgot about you...I'm not sure you count...LOL...but you did ask...

You have a gift for rubbing people the wrong way.

Ilikeverin,

Like I said in a thread a few days ago, people either love me or hate me...it's always been that way, but you'll ALWAYS know where you stand with me...no deceptions. Obviously, you fall into the latter category of people, which I completely understand.

I'm glad to know you think I'm too young to be considered

[Nym90]

"I know you think you have just given a straight answer about Sandy Berger, but look at your answer carefully...you still qualified it in Clinton fashion. You give Berger, and yourself, the wiggle room that the law does not allow. You say, "if it wasn't just an honest mistake..." But for purposes of the law, it is completely irrelevant if it was an "honest" mistake. If I sleep with a 14 year old girl because she showed me fake ID that says she was 18, that's an honest mistake, but I am still guilty of statutory rape under the law. Ignorance of the actual law (which in Berger's case is a ludicrous claim anyway) is NOT a defense. If I say, "Gee, I didn't know it was against the law to drink and drive" I am still GUILTY of drinking and driving. So what you have done is answered in what you think is a straight forward fashion in order to defeat the point I was making about you, but in reality all that you have done is exposed your need to provide Berger, and yourself, with an out."

Well, first of all, I would have the same standards for a Democrat or a Republican.

Secondly, I'm only going with the hypotheticals you laid out. I don't know enough about the Berger case to say whether he should actually be convicted or not, but if it was indeed an honest mistake that didn't hurt anyone, I don't believe he should be convicted, regardless of what the law says. Having sex with a 14 year old and drunk driving are both things that have great potential to hurt people, thus they should not be allowed under any circumstances.


"As for your overall point about "objectivty" I think we are merely at a philosophical difference there, one that is common disagreement between liberals and non-liberals. You feel that ALL decisions and ALL conclusions are automatically biased, thus the only "unbiased" person is the one right down the middle who takes no "side" in an argument. I strongly disagree. I may reach conclusions that are consistently to the right and center of the political spectrum, but that does not mean that I did not objectively arrive at those conclusions. You're talking about results...I'm talking about process. I can take ANY issue and look at objectively and formulate a fair, honest and objective argument from ALL sides of that issue. If I wanted to, I could kill the poster MarkDel and come back here in six months and argue the LEFT WING perspective just as well as I articulate the right wing perspective. Why? Because my ANALYSIS is objective even if I my conclusions take sides. And that's what you either don't understand, or simply disagree with on a theoretical level. And what seems to be the problem with modern American politics. Most people (leftists are worse than rightists but both are guilty) in this day and age reach a decision FIRST and then formulate their rationale for reaching that decision AFTER they have reached their conclusion. I think this is not only flawed, but a major part of why this nation is so polarized right now. I reflexively take no position on an issue until I analyze the available data and then work through to a conclusion...this is what human beings are SUPPOSED TO DO...it's what separates us from the animals!!! Think like Descartes instead of Ted Kennedy and you'll find your answers."

Well, objective, as I use it, means "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices". That's straight from dictionary.com. I don't think that conclusions are automatically biased, not at all. What I do believe is that once one has come to a conclusion, it is impossible to discuss that issue without your bias creeping in at least a little. Thus, the honest person admits this, and allows others to take their comments for what they are. For you to state that you are always unbiased in your assessments is arrogant at best. Why not let others decide whether or not you are objective? Why do you feel it necessary to say so? Isn't that really something that other people get to decide, not you?

I also have thought long and hard about my positions, logically and rationally, and come to the conclusions that I have after much thought and also assessments of my own personal core values. I, unlike you it would seem, think that logical, rational people can come to different conclusions when presented with the same data and evidence. Much of it is based on personal experiences, of course; I've had many that have shaped and reinforced my beliefs, and I'm sure that you have too. However, I see the world in many shades of gray, while it seems to me that conservatives tend to see it in terms of black and white, good and bad, you're either with us or against us, etc. I feel that's view of the world is waaay too simplistic, and fails to take into account much about the way the world works. If there is a universal truth, I don't know if it is necessarily in our power as humans to discern it, and come to agreement about it, no matter how logical we are. That's not that we shouldn't be logical and try; I'm a very logical person (ask my girlfriend, it drives her a little nuts sometimes, albeit in a good way). Yes, we should do our best to come as close to the truth as possible, but we must also discern the truth from opinions; that's what annoys me about your posts, is that you constantly state that your opinions are not opinions but rather facts and truths. I don't know if you noticed, but I try my best to always say "I think" and "I feel" and "I believe" something is true, rather than something is true, unless I know for sure that it is scientifically proveable to be true. I don't pretend that my opinions are scientific facts.

I, like you, have to my conclusions logically and rationally, in combination with my personal core values and my own life experiences. That is something that I do know to be a fact.