No, you stated that the Progressives were " more hypocritical " and "Democratic partisanship is more unforgivable". And does it matter that the Republicans somehow did more analysis before changing their views (I'm not sure how you quantify that)?
Wow, you are working overtime trying to see some praise for the Republicans in what I wrote. Perhaps I can be more clear: the Republican party has been petty, obstructionists and downright mean not to mention on the wrong side of most social and civil rights issues for the past 50 years or more which is why even though I voted for a couple of Republican presidents over the years, I have never voted for a Republican senator or representative and have never considered myself a Republican. Quite frankly because of their untenable social issue positions, I have completely written them off for the most part for some time. I explained quite clearly why I thought they (progressives) were more hypocritical and more unforgivable imo. However as Richard pointed out semantically and technically it is incorrect because hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Now the unforgivable is my personal opinion and I have quite clearly explained why that is. If you want to think that I am somehow choosing sides in this horrible display of partisan politics from the 2 loser parties, you go right ahead if it makes you feel better. I am merely expressing why I feel the way I do, whether you think it is because I am some kind of closet Republican or not does not change my feelings on this subject instead makes me wonder why it is so important for you to find that somewhere and what you are even trying to argue.
Holy misinterpretation Batman! I clearly state that both Republicans and Democrats are equally hypocritical in this matter, but I expect more from progressives not to be because the issues that progressives usually champion are matters of morality and compassion whereas it is pretty clear that Republicans are usually more analytical and cold hearted in regards to a lot of their positions on issues. I am clearly stating that yes, Virginia it is incredibly stupid to shift your view based on the person in power without question. I am just more surprised, disappointed and quite frankly disgusted with the progressive partisans for changing their opinion on such a basic issue as individual freedoms vs. aggressively pursuing Muslims and the rest of us through increased surveillance. Where you get that I think the Republicans are a "winner" in all this is beyond me. I just think the Democrats are a bigger "loser" in this epic fail loser match because I expected more from progressives on this.
Let me be plain and clear; I expect this from the Republicans, they have not exactly been the party of compromise for the past 30 years or so. I have always thought of Democrat liberal partisans as sometimes naive and misguided, but usually well meaning and voting on principle. I know this is probably silly, but that is how I viewed it and hate to see that myth shattered with stuff like this.
No, you stated that the Progressives were " more hypocritical " and "Democratic partisanship is more unforgivable". And does it matter that the Republicans somehow did more analysis before changing their views (I'm not sure how you quantify that)?
Arguable, for one see Jonathan Haidt's research on "values". I thought "compassion" and "morality" were also "conservative" values. As well as being staunch defendants of "liberty" and small gov. To me there is no real difference in the hypocrisy or opportunism.
As for hawkishness: it would appear (in the current climate) to be a requirement in order to get the power.
Good point, I was actually thinking of all that as I was typing it and yes when it comes down to it, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Isn't it equally stupid to shift your view based on the person in power? And what exactly are the Republicans choosing their opinions on? Both sides here look pretty silly/hypocritical to me, and I think the reason has as much to to with "well it's okay when we do it because we're better/smarter/more responsible... blah, blah, blah" self rationalizing bullshit than any moral/compassionate re-evaluation. Picking a winner in this pig wrestling match says more about your personal alignment.
Holy misinterpretation Batman! I clearly state that both Republicans and Democrats are equally hypocritical in this matter, but I expect more from progressives not to be because the issues that progressives usually champion are matters of morality and compassion whereas it is pretty clear that Republicans are usually more analytical and cold hearted in regards to a lot of their positions on issues. I am clearly stating that yes, Virginia it is incredibly stupid to shift your view based on the person in power without question. I am just more surprised, disappointed and quite frankly disgusted with the progressive partisans for changing their opinion on such a basic issue as individual freedoms vs. aggressively pursuing Muslims and the rest of us through increased surveillance. Where you get that I think the Republicans are a "winner" in all this is beyond me. I just think the Democrats are a bigger "loser" in this epic fail loser match because I expected more from progressives on this.
Let me be plain and clear; I expect this from the Republicans, they have not exactly been the party of compromise for the past 30 years or so. I have always thought of Democrat liberal partisans as sometimes naive and misguided, but usually well meaning and voting on principle. I know this is probably silly, but that is how I viewed it and hate to see that myth shattered with stuff like this.
Yep, that has been getting my goat whenever the privacy issue comes up. It is a pet peeve of mind how partisans can so quickly shift their "values" dependent upon which party is in power. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this as the chart shows, but the so called progressives that turned into terrorist hawks overnight are more hypocritical because they are supposed to be choosing their opinions on issues based on compassion and morality more so than Republicans so imo the Democratic partisanship is more unforgivable.
Arguable, for one see Jonathan Haidt's research on "values". I thought "compassion" and "morality" were also "conservative" values. As well as being staunch defendants of "liberty" and small gov. To me there is no real difference in the hypocrisy or opportunism.
As for hawkishness: it would appear (in the current climate) to be a requirement in order to get the power.
Yep, that has been getting my goat whenever the privacy issue comes up. It is a pet peeve of mind how partisans can so quickly shift their "values" dependent upon which party is in power. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this as the chart shows, but the so called progressives that turned into terrorist hawks overnight are more hypocritical because they are supposed to be choosing their opinions on issues based on compassion and morality more so than Republicans so imo the Democratic partisanship is more unforgivable.
wait, what?
Isn't it equally stupid to shift your view based on the person in power? And what exactly are the Republicans choosing their opinions on? Both sides here look pretty silly/hypocritical to me, and I think the reason has as much to to with "well it's okay when we do it because we're better/smarter/more responsible... blah, blah, blah" self rationalizing bullshit than any moral/compassionate re-evaluation. Picking a winner in this pig wrestling match says more about your personal alignment.
Yep, that has been getting my goat whenever the privacy issue comes up. It is a pet peeve of mind how partisans can so quickly shift their "values" dependent upon which party is in power. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this as the chart shows, but the so called progressives that turned into terrorist hawks overnight are more hypocritical because they are supposed to be choosing their opinions on issues based on compassion and morality more so than Republicans so imo the Democratic partisanship is more unforgivable.
On the Daily Show, John Oliver made a great comment about this. Paraphrasing; "Mr. President, we are not accusing you of breaking any laws, we just think it is strange that you didn't have to!" This sums it up nicely.
Now on a broader note, I would not be concerned so much that the NSA is listening to anything we are saying. They probably are not. They are just compiling mountains and mountains of ALL data having it ready when they need it. If they then have reason to suspect someone, they can then go into the mountain and compile ALL data on that individual they need. Where the real danger lies is the potential for the many nefarious things the Government could do to you if they were so inclined.
That is the heart of the matter. And who will be in charge of what 5, 10 or 20 years from now.
This discussion is more about our future than our present, although the present ain't looking to good either.
They wont get me that way either as I have never owned a cell phone. I also don't leave microphones or webcams hooked up to my computers and I also don't own a laptop. So they will have to use old school tech on me and tap my phone or put a gps locator on my car.
They wont get me that way either as I have never owned a cell phone. I also don't leave microphones or webcams hooked up to my computers and I also don't own a laptop. So they will have to use old school tech on me and tap my phone or put a gps locator on my car.
I just use mine to order a pizza on the road or in case I need to contact EMS for Pops during a power outage. Assuming the cell towers are backed up the the -48 volt or whatever system. I don't know about that though.
Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA Gender:
Posted:
Jun 13, 2013 - 8:30am
They wont get me that way either as I have never owned a cell phone. I also don't leave microphones or webcams hooked up to my computers and I also don't own a laptop. So they will have to use old school tech on me and tap my phone or put a gps locator on my car.
Story on NPR the other day about what the recent whistle blower incident does to the confidence of the "national security leadership" in it's employees. Perhaps it should have been about why people feel a whistle needs blowing. Perhaps because the gubment is overstepping its authority? Maybe? Huh?
On the Daily Show, John Oliver made a great comment about this. Paraphrasing; "Mr. President, we are not accusing you of breaking any laws, we just think it is strange that you didn't have to!" This sums it up nicely.
Now on a broader note, I would not be concerned so much that the NSA is listening to anything we are saying. They probably are not. They are just compiling mountains and mountains of ALL data having it ready when they need it. If they then have reason to suspect someone, they can then go into the mountain and compile ALL data on that individual they need. Where the real danger lies is the potential for the many nefarious things the Government could do to you if they were so inclined.
Story on NPR the other day about what the recent whistle blower incident does to the confidence of the "national security leadership" in it's employees. Perhaps it should have been about why people feel a whistle needs blowing. Perhaps because the gubment is overstepping its authority? Maybe? Huh?
This sums it up nicely. 
