Romney: 47% of Americans are losers, don't care about 'em

[Razgovory]

Hans bashes Republicans as well.

Find me a post where Hans says Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans and you can have that point.

That's a little vague (I could find a quote where Hans says that Democrats aren't as bad at making coffee as Republicans are), and I fail to see why it's relevant.  I didn't say "Hans was a democrat.".

[Berkut]

Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.

Yes.  You've just highlighted the core of the "pox on both houses" thinking:  that the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side.

That is a whopper of a strawman there DG - do you know anyone who would claim "...the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side."

I don't.

  If you want to punish radicalism, punish the side that pushes radicalism, don't vote for a third party (which is almost surely guaranteed to be even more radical, just out of power).

I agree with this.

[Eddie Teach]

I fail to see why it's relevant.

Of course you do.

[DGuller]

Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.  Ultimately the point of condemning radicals is not just to resolve the present conflict, but to dissuade future radical solutions to problems, and blaming both children for fighting is always a retarded way to apportion blame.

It is perfectly rational to respond to radicalism with radicalism on your own;  that doesn't mean that you've now become just as bad.  If your start off protesting peacefully, and your opponents brings out machine guns and artillery to mow you down, you have no choice but to resort to guerrilla warfare (which is always nasty and brutal).  That doesn't mean that people like Assad are just as bad as people like Syrian rebels.

[DGuller]

That is a whopper of a strawman there DG - do you know anyone who would claim "...the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side."

I don't.

Valmy's first reaction betrayed that very mode of thought.  Sure, he tempered it somewhat later on, but his first reaction was "LOL, blaming one side only is not radical?" 

[Razgovory]

I fail to see why it's relevant.

Of course you do.

Nope.

[MadImmortalMan]

Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.

Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.

[Razgovory]

Then the same guy will who started it will start the same problem next week.

[DGuller]

Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.

Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.

I just said in the next sentence why it's important.  The current problem is not the last problem we'll face.  There will be more problems later on.  If there is a culture instilled that radicalism and lack of compromise will be identified and punished, next time there is more incentive to do things sensibly.  Blaming both kids for fighting doesn't dissuade fighting as much as punishing the kid who threw the first punch (but of course it's harder to allocate blame that way).

[Valmy]

Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.

Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.

Well yes I think ultimately what you want to do is behave politically in such a way that it will solve problems.  But at the same time you have to learn from experience.  If a political organization has a repeated pattern of behavior you have to take that into account.

[Valmy]

Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.

Yes.  You've just highlighted the core of the "pox on both houses" thinking:  that the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side.  If you want to punish radicalism, punish the side that pushes radicalism, don't vote for a third party (which is almost surely guaranteed to be even more radical, just out of power).

I do do that.  That is why I almost always vote Democrat for national and statewide elections these days.  I only vote for third parties if I feel like it would be a great thing if that third party candidate won.  Which I have only ever done in State and Local elections where every once in awhile a person like this shows up.

But I am certainly not happy with being forced to vote for the Democrats.  But, you know, I can hope maybe someday the Republicans will shape up.  But it sorta feels hopeless.  The standard is just be less bad than the other party which seems to me to guarantee bad government.  But that is the system and I am not able or willing to do anything about that...at least not yet.  I am not even sure what to do about it.

[Berkut]

That is a whopper of a strawman there DG - do you know anyone who would claim "...the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side."

I don't.

Valmy's first reaction betrayed that very mode of thought.  Sure, he tempered it somewhat later on, but his first reaction was "LOL, blaming one side only is not radical?" 

But that doesn't follow.

Saying that only blaming one side is evidence of radicalism does not equate to claiming that the ONLY criteria for rationality is how you apportion blame.

It is perfectly reasonable to note that in a dispute where it is clear to a observer that there is blame to be spread on both sides, someone claiming all the blame is on one side is likely pretty radical.

That is not at all the same as saying that the only way to measure the reasonableness of a position is the ability to blame both sides by any means.

For example, I could say that the current inability of the government to address our financial issues is largely the blame of the Republicans. In fact, I would say exactly that. If I had to put a ratio of blame, it would be something like 70/30 Republicans douchebags.

But the Dems did their part to create this mess. And someone who says "ZOMG THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMPLETELY TO BLAME IT IS ALL THEIR FAULT 100%!!!" I would think "Nutbar!". That hardly means the only measure of rationality is ability to assign blame - it is just noting that generally on radicals say extreme things like "It is all the other guys fault!" without any ability to see how their own side contributed to the problem, even if it is largely accurate to note that the current problem is mostly one sided.

So no - he is NOT claiming that at all. It is not a general principle, but a specific response to a specific piece of data.

And that desire to paint others into positions they don't hold, and you know they don't hold...well, you know where that is going.

[Ed Anger]

I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.

If I wasn't on my iPad, a pic of Vigo would be here.

[DGuller]

Ok, the "solely" part was overstating it.

[merithyn]

I do do that.  That is why I almost always vote Democrat for national and statewide elections these days.  I only vote for third parties if I feel like it would be a great thing if that third party candidate won.  Which I have only ever done in State and Local elections where every once in awhile a person like this shows up.

But I am certainly not happy with being forced to vote for the Democrats.  But, you know, I can hope maybe someday the Republicans will shape up.  But it sorta feels hopeless.  The standard is just be less bad than the other party which seems to me to guarantee bad government.  But that is the system and I am not able or willing to do anything about that...at least not yet.  I am not even sure what to do about it.

This is exactly why I will vote third party for the Presidential elections this year. I believe in the concept of a strong third or fourth party, and I believe that lending the support of a throw-away vote will do something toward helping us get there. If the Green Party gets 10-15% of the vote, it's going to start to get some legs under it, forcing both the Democrats and the Republicans to start to look at things differently, or at least to start acting a little differently.

Do I think that my one vote will get them to the 10-15%? Of course not. But if enough people stop supporting the other two parties because they're both so damn broken, then maybe a true shift will occur.