Climategate lolwut?

[mean_liar]

I cannot believe Frank's assertion that American Conservativism - whatever the fuck that is - lacks any non-logical ideas.

Look at Iraq. Invading was a low-odds gamble, at least as far as empire-building and functioning democracy in the Middle East was concerned, but it was still a gamble. If the situation had stabilized quicker or the populace reacted stronger against Al Qaeda's interest in the region rather treat them as just another faction, then all the happy optimism about the war paying for itself and Iraq turning into a bastion of free love or whatever could've happened. It didn't because it was a stupid long shot, but there was at least a logic behind it. The way it was sold was pathetic and pandering bullshit, but pointing that out has more to do with American Democracy than American Conservativism.

Logic implies certainty and I don't think you can leverage that against issues with uncertain results. I don't even know if you can meaningfully define American Conservativism given the Republican party's difficulties in successfully reconciling their various internal factions.

[RobbyPants]

Logic implies certainty and I don't think you can leverage that against issues with uncertain results.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You can use logic regarding uncertainty. There are entire fields, like risk assessment that deal with just that, in a logical fashion.

I used to play quite a bit of poker and read books on it. There's a lot of logic that goes into determining if a particular play is profitable or not in the long run. Sure, playing smart doesn't guarantee what will happen that hand, but it goes a long way to tell you how you'll do over your career.

[Username17]

I cannot believe Frank's assertion that American Conservativism - whatever the fuck that is - lacks any non-logical ideas.

I can't believe that either. I said that the American Conservative Movement has no logical arguments. But if you insist on getting offended at me for saying virtually the opposite of what I demonstrably said, you're again making my point pretty well for me.

Look at Iraq. Invading was a low-odds gamble, at least as far as empire-building and functioning democracy in the Middle East was concerned, but it was still a gamble.

A gamble for what? A gamble that Saddam Hussein might attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction that he did not have in order to make common cause with his own greatest enemies? How does that make any sense?

The Rationale for invasion of Iraq is so obviously bullshit that there's a frickin FAQ On Wikipedia. The official reason was to stop them from harboring terrorists that they were in "reality" fighting against and to keep them from arming terrorists with weapons of mass destruction that in "reality" they did not have. The after-the-fact retcon reason is to deny support for militant Islam by attacking one of the few countries in the Middle East that was actively engaged in fighting militant Islam.

So... what's the logic there? Is it opposite day Logic?

-Username17

[Crissa]

Time enough to post multiple times, but not time enough to think up one non-emotional reason for a conservative position?

Geez. I'm not a conservative and I could do that.

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

With degrading amounts of knowledge you're eventually inevitably engaged in some kind of value judgment that goes beyond facts and quantification.

It's not that you can't make educated guesses about things, but pretending that some non-insane viewpoint cannot come up with just one meaningful educated guess is a stupid thing to say when you can't even define what that viewpoint actually is. If Frank had bothered to identify one tenet to discuss and put forward what he felt like the idiot position was then there'd be a discussion, but this is just pointless U R DUMB stuff.

[Username17]

With degrading amounts of knowledge you're eventually inevitably engaged in some kind of value judgment that goes beyond facts and quantification.

It's not that you can't make educated guesses about things, but pretending that some non-insane viewpoint cannot come up with just one meaningful educated guess is a stupid thing to say when you can't even define what that viewpoint actually is. If Frank had bothered to identify one tenet to discuss and put forward what he felt like the idiot position was then there'd be a discussion, but this is just pointless U R DUMB stuff.

It is not my job to make a case for the Conservative movement. I think that their policies are horrible. However, I already said that I would retract and revise my assessment if the Conservatives put forward one argument with a logical basis for any of their policies. Just one. They can choose one of their choice. It would obviously b unfair of me to select one for them, since I could just pick some clearly destructive one like the Texas death penalty or abstinence-only education.

It's their positions, they can stake them and defend them without me holding their hands. Indeed, it would be clear conflict of interest and blatant straw manning on my part to actually make any of their arguments for them.

If Conservatives object to the characterization that they have no logical arguments, they can make them. And then Kaelik and I will magnanimously change our stance to something like "most (or many) of the Conservative arguments are blatantly illogical." But we don't have to do that until they actually deliver any refutation besides insults, false equivalence, or indignation.



-Username17

[mean_liar]

I cannot believe Frank's assertion that American Conservativism - whatever the fuck that is - lacks any non-logical ideas.

I can't believe that either. I said that the American Conservative Movement has no logical arguments.

Then I have no idea what the fuck you're saying.

Is it that their methods of interacting with the public are based on demagoguery, and avoids entirely their rationales for what they actually attempt to accomplish?

Look at Iraq. Invading was a low-odds gamble, at least as far as empire-building and functioning democracy in the Middle East was concerned, but it was still a gamble.

A gamble for what? A gamble that Saddam Hussein might attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction that he did not have in order to make common cause with his own greatest enemies? How does that make any sense?

My understanding of the PNAC is that Iraq was a target because it was directly challenging American power, and that dissolution of the state and replacing it with a pro-American democratic government would pay large dividends for the American Empire.

Parts of the Wiki-linked rationale are logical as well. There's following up on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the belief that Saddam had WMDs and could possibly consider pawning them off to Al Qaeda. Yes, they hated him and he them. However, what of his successors? There was no certainty that the Iraq of then would be entirely predictable for the future.

It was a gamble. It went wrong. But it wasn't entirely illogical.

[Kaelik]

With degrading amounts of knowledge you're eventually inevitably engaged in some kind of value judgment that goes beyond facts and quantification.

It's not that you can't make educated guesses about things, but pretending that some non-insane viewpoint cannot come up with just one meaningful educated guess is a stupid thing to say when you can't even define what that viewpoint actually is. If Frank had bothered to identify one tenet to discuss and put forward what he felt like the idiot position was then there'd be a discussion, but this is just pointless U R DUMB stuff.

That's probably because you are actually dumb.

The Right wing does not have logical positions.

We actually know who the right wing are, and what their positions are.

Abortions Bad? Right Wing, not logical. Gays can't marry? Right Wing, not logical. Climategate? Right Wing, not logical.

Frank just said "if you disagree with the idea of "every" all you have to do is name one Right Wing Position that has a logical argument for the that position."

What was the response? You complaining about how it's wrong to say every.

But did you point to an actual logical argument for an action? No. You pointed to an illogical argument for a position.

And so here we are. Name a single logic based argument for a Right Wing position (just in case, an American Right Wing, not a Cuban Right Wing) and I will personally amend my statement to replace "every" with "the vast majority of."

[mean_liar]

There's logic to being paranoid about WMDs.

[mean_liar]

The Right wing does not have logical positions.

...

What was the response? You complaining about how it's wrong to say every.

But did you point to an actual logical argument for an action? No. You pointed to an illogical argument for a position.

Look at Iraq. Invading was a low-odds gamble, at least as far as empire-building and functioning democracy in the Middle East was concerned, but it was still a gamble. If the situation had stabilized quicker or the populace reacted stronger against Al Qaeda's interest in the region rather treat them as just another faction, then all the happy optimism about the war paying for itself and Iraq turning into a bastion of free love or whatever could've happened. It didn't because it was a stupid long shot, but there was at least a logic behind it. The way it was sold was pathetic and pandering bullshit, but pointing that out has more to do with American Democracy than American Conservativism.

There's logic there. You disagree with it. But just saying NO U doesn't mean anything. The PNAC had a logic to its agenda - increasing American power through force, mostly - and it followed that logic. It failed to achieve it's objectives but that doesn't make it illogical.


EDIT: Tags.

[Kaelik]

Look at Iraq. Invading was a low-odds gamble, at least as far as empire-building and functioning democracy in the Middle East was concerned, but it was still a gamble. If the situation had stabilized quicker or the populace reacted stronger against Al Qaeda's interest in the region rather treat them as just another faction, then all the happy optimism about the war paying for itself and Iraq turning into a bastion of free love or whatever could've happened. It didn't because it was a stupid long shot, but there was at least a logic behind it. The way it was sold was pathetic and pandering bullshit, but pointing that out has more to do with American Democracy than American Conservativism.

There's logic there. You disagree with it. But just saying NO U doesn't mean anything. The PNAC had a logic to its agenda - increasing American power through force, mostly - and it followed that logic. It failed to achieve it's objectives but that doesn't make it illogical.

The PNAC is not an argument for a position, in the sense that the Right Wing has never made that argument for invading Iraq ever.

The fact that you personally can claim that some people who would deny it in fact have some motive that is based on false premises and illogically went about pursuing that motive in a way that is pretty much exactly the opposite of obtaining that motive doesn't mean anything.

Even if you:

1) Proved that some people making decisions actually had that as a motive.
2) Presented compelling evidence that they logically considered the results of their actions.

It still wouldn't be an argument that the Right Wing has for it's position on the issue, because it would be an motivation they specifically lied about because their supporters (IE, the Right Wing) would disagree with it.

[Username17]

I would dispute that there was any logic to the PNAC, and more importantly I would dispute that it was in any way based on reality, since several of the key premises, such as a link between Islamic militants and Saddam Hussein and Saddam's possession of a long range missile program and nuclear arsenal were objectively false.

But the real kicker is that PNAC isn't even a current American Conservative position. As you say, it's over. Like, years ago. And you will note that neither Kaelik nor I have made the claim that no Conservative in history has ever had a reality-based argument, just as we didn't make the claim that no Conservative in Korea has a reality-based argument.

The claim is and was: The American Conservative Movement HAS no reality based arguments for any of its policies. So stop it with the indignation and find a single platform they have that is in any way reality based. We're still waiting.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your pamphlets.

What is the American Conservative movement?

Ron Paul's pretty conservative. He has a movement. He thinks engaging in foreign wars is stupid unless they somehow demonstrably and directly threaten America.

Done.

[Crissa]

A low odds gamble is when you kill off a few thousand soldiers and a hundred thousand civilians to change a government from one that is stable but bad to one that is unstable and is financially dependent upon you but the largest voting bloc hates your guts.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your pamphlets.

What is the American Conservative movement?

Ron Paul's pretty conservative. He has a movement. He thinks engaging in foreign wars is stupid unless they somehow demonstrably and directly threaten America.

Done.

So just to be really really clear.

Your official counter to the proposition is:

"I, Mean Liar, am too stupid to figure out what the American Right Wing actually is, because I am more retarded than that guy who was an aid for that football team."

[mean_liar]

Even if you:

1) Proved that some people making decisions actually had that as a motive.
2) Presented compelling evidence that they logically considered the results of their actions.

It still wouldn't be an argument that the Right Wing has for it's position on the issue, because it would be an motivation they specifically lied about because their supporters (IE, the Right Wing) would disagree with it.

This goes to what I was asking Frank. Is this discussion about how things are sold to the public or how things are conceptualized by their architects?

If its about how things are sold then I think the larger issue is with American democracy, not any particular political movement. It's not like the American Liberals (whoever the hell they are) sell ideas with nothing but pure sweet rationality either.

[Kaelik]

This goes to what I was asking Frank. Is this discussion about how things are sold to the public or how things are conceptualized by their architects?

If its about how things are sold then I think the larger issue is with American democracy, not any particular political movement. It's not like the American Liberals (whoever the hell they are) sell ideas with nothing but pure sweet rationality either.

No, it's what "The American Right Wing" believes and presents as arguments for positions.

It is not what "Six guys who are hated by 3/4ths of the Right Wing + Dick Cheney" believe but specifically lied to the Right Wing about, because the Right Wing disagrees with them.

[Username17]

Is there a single plank of the American Conservative Movement that one can make a reality based argument for that the American Conservative voter would accept? Yes or no?

-Username17

[mean_liar]

So when I come up with a semi-popular American Conservative movement it's not the right one. Okay.

I keep asking what the American Conservative movement is and no one ever responds, and I'm asking for a reason. I'm curious if you can actually codify it, since so far the representation of it is some kind of inverse No True Scotsman argument that no true American Conservative can be logical, and if they are, then they're not part of the American Conservative movement.

Fiscal conservatives and social conservatives and whoever else, oh my! Should it just be a plank from the Republican party official platform? Because then you're not talking about American Conservatives, you're talking about the GOP. Even the GOP has competing internal factions that make them not monolithic.

[Username17]

I keep asking what the American Conservative movement is and no one ever respond

The ones who show up to vote, self identify as "Conservatives" and have such organizations as the "American Conservative Union." If you keep pretending to be dangerously retarded, I will be forced to conclude that you are perhaps dangerously retarded.

Play stupid long enough, and it stops being a play. You fucking know who the Conservatives are. And people who come out and claim to be "independents" and not Conservatives, hardly qualify.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

The problem with planks is that they're platitudes. They're meaningless without intricate policy and implementation to back them up, and at that point you're deep in the weeds

Here's a planks from http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/issues/

"We believe that maintaining a world-class system of primary and secondary education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential, is critically important to America's future."

It's really code about charter schools.

Considering that some public systems have schools with literacy rates for high schoolers at 70% and worse, I don't see how trying something new that has a decent track record is a bad idea.

http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/projec ... =2&parent=

The data is still being collected and analyzed but charter schools at the least appear to be a viable, logical solution to failing public schools.

[mean_liar]

I keep asking what the American Conservative movement is and no one ever respond

The ones who show up to vote, self identify as "Conservatives" and have such organizations as the "American Conservative Union." If you keep pretending to be dangerously retarded, I will be forced to conclude that you are perhaps dangerously retarded.

Play stupid long enough, and it stops being a play. You fucking know who the Conservatives are. And people who come out and claim to be "independents" and not Conservatives, hardly qualify.

Your dancing around the No True Scotsman thing is pathetic.

Here's Ron Paul speaking at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in 2009. The keynote address was by Rush Limbaugh. The keynote speaker for 2010 is Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_aZn6wqAdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWdtMftHTtQ

[mean_liar]

I'll add that the Wikipedia entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_c ... tive#Types ) lists seven different, currently active strands of self-identifying American Conservative movements.

[Username17]

It's not a No True Scotsman. A Conservative Position, virtually by definition, is one which Conservatives support. This is not fucking rocket science, this is polling data. Find a position, any position, that a majority of self-identified Conservatives support. Any position which is opposed by a majority of Conservatives is by definition not a Conservative position.

You don't have to find a position that all conservatives support. But picking an issue that some Conservative guy takes that gets him flak from the Conservative movement because it is out of step with their ideals is clearly disingenuous on your part.

You can grab minor issues where only 51% support. Whatever. That's shifty, but permissible. Picking a position that Conservatives oppose and presenting it as a Conservative issue is laughable.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

Thank your for finally defining your parameters.

The issue you're looking for is charter schools.