Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Obama is a 'socialist'

[crazy canuck]

I don't believe that some gay people should be allowed to be married, for example.

Lemmie guess - Martinus? 

He said gay people

[DGuller]

Actually, what you said was that I:

"feign objectivity in order to elevate their own opinions" which is accusing my of faking objectivity, ie lying about my positions.

Which is simply a lie, as you well know.

Unlike you, I do not equate objectivity with partisanship or one's stand on positions.  If you support your positions with illogical arguments, you're probably not being objective, and instead coming to conclusion first and then covering it up with reasoning.

Indeed! Since it ballooned BEFORE he took office, why, it is so terribly logical to give him a complete pass on how much it has ballooned ever more AFTER he has taken office!

That's neither here nor there.  The charge I was talking about was blaming Obama for the balloning of the deficit (like topping 1 trillion mark), not for blaming him for further movement.  You really need to pay attention sometimes to what people are saying.

  Likewise, arguing that we should cut taxes and balance the budget is illogical, for obvious reasons.

Of course - anyone who would argue that we should cut taxes OR balance the budget, ever, must be illogical!

Please note that I used "and".  As a programmer, I hope you are aware of the logical difference between "and" and "or".  In the current climate, someone who argues simulatenously for tax cuts and balancing the budget is not being logical, becuase it is obviously an impossible task.  Again, can you please try reading the words before having the righteous fits of hysteria?

[Berkut]

Actually, what you said was that I:

"feign objectivity in order to elevate their own opinions" which is accusing my of faking objectivity, ie lying about my positions.

Which is simply a lie, as you well know.

Unlike you, I do not equate objectivity with partisanship or one's stand on positions.

Actually, that is precisely what you do - you have already told me I am not objective, and in fact I 'Feign objectivity", ie lie about my positions just to appear objective.

And in fact, your examples of NOT being objective are exclusively limited to those dastardly republicans, who have "cornered the market" on illogical thinking.

Which has been my point all along - the humoyur of YOU of all people complaining about tribalism, when you are a case study in the tribes inability to accept anyones position other than their own as haveing even the potential for merit.

If you support your positions with illogical arguments, you're probably not being objective,

If one supports their position with illogical arguments, then they are being illogical - that says nothing about their objectivity. One can be objective and illogical at the same time.

Of course, your definition of "illogical" is "does not agree with me", but that is because of your tribalism.

and instead coming to conclusion first and then covering it up with reasoning.

Or they could just be wrong. Or mistaken. Or *you* could be wrong, and in fact they are not being "illogical" at all.

It is possible you know - you aren't always right.

Indeed! Since it ballooned BEFORE he took office, why, it is so terribly logical to give him a complete pass on how much it has ballooned ever more AFTER he has taken office!

That's neither here nor there.  The charge I was talking about was blaming Obama for the balloning of the deficit (like topping 1 trillion mark), not for blaming him for further movement.  You really need to pay attention sometimes to what people are saying.

I did, and hence the laughing my ass off at your claim that "blaming Obama for the ballooning deficit" is "illogical". It is such a *perfect* example of your definition of "logic".

  Likewise, arguing that we should cut taxes and balance the budget is illogical, for obvious reasons.

Of course - anyone who would argue that we should cut taxes OR balance the budget, ever, must be illogical!

Please note that I used "and".  As a programmer, I hope you are aware of the logical difference between "and" and "or".

Indeed, because one could not possibly cut taxes and balance the budget...why that would involve cutting spending! And we all know how self evidently ridiculous that is!

  In the current climate, someone who argues simulatenously for tax cuts and balancing the budget is not being logical, becuase it is obviously an impossible task.

It isn't a binary argument - one can certainly argue that we should cut taxes and balance the budget, or at least try to come closer to doing that. Only someone being deliberately obtuse would insist that they must be arguing that we should actually achieve both of those things, or not bother even trying.

Indeed, this is a classic example of casting an opposing viewpoint into some extreme position so you don't have to actually think too much about it, and can simply dismiss it as "illogical". Classic tribalism. You show all the traits.

Again, can you please try reading the words before having the righteous fits of hysteria?

Sorry, but your caricature is just too perfect to be real. I suspect you might be pulling my leg at this point.

[DGuller]

Actually, that is precisely what you do - you have already told me I am not objective, and in fact I 'Feign objectivity", ie lie about my positions just to appear objective.

The fallacy is implied in your "ie".  You don't feign your objectivity by lying about your positions, you feign it by pounding your chest and saying "I'm objective".

I did, and hence the laughing my ass off at your claim that "blaming Obama for the ballooning deficit" is "illogical". It is such a *perfect* example of your definition of "logic".

I don't know what to say to that.  Attributing something that literally happened under Bush to Obama does seem illogical.  It's drawing a conclusion that's contrary to undisputed facts.  I wasn't aware that my definition of illogical is so special in that way.

Indeed, because one could not possibly cut taxes and balance the budget...why that would involve cutting spending! And we all know how self evidently ridiculous that is!

Exactly.  A cursory glance at the budget will show even to a layman that there isn't enough spending there to be cut to cover a deficit of well over a trillion as well as the tax cuts, mathematically speaking. 

Speaking of "cutting spending", that's another good example of something said without thinking things through by partisans, and parroted by some people who fancy themselves being objective.  It's related to another one of those idiocies that became part of conventional wisdom, that the deficits are due to lack of control over discretionary spending.  Of course, factually speaking, they're due to fall in tax revenues due to recession, as well as growth in mandatory spending.

[grumbler]

Oh yes, you know me, just regurgitating Republican talking points, like being pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, etc., etc.

You think anyone who does not slavishly wear their purple headband at all times MUST therefore really have a secret hidden green one that they are truly allied to.

*You* however, suffer from no such illusions - you talk, argue, vote, and think straitline party doctrine. And in fact anyone who does not is "stupid and unsophisticated" because of course if they were not, they would have a nice purple headband, like all smart and sophisticated Drazi do.

I think being objective is being objective. Your anger towards towards those who are objective says everything that needs to be said about your own inability to handle a little objectivity. Which is fine - most people are like that after all - but what is hilarious is listening to you then whine about tribalism in the very same post that you exhibit the worst traits of it.

What is especially interesting is how willing you are to simply blatantly lie in order to further your crusade against the heresy of not choosing a color. You have certainly been around long enough to notice that I end up on the Democratic side of plenty of debates (global warming, most social issues, even health care at times) - yet are perfectly willing to make comments like "he debates like a Republican" or "uncritically recites republican talking points" when you know that is simply not true. I thought you were all about integrity and being honest? What happened to that?

I don't know why you bother.  DGuller certainly isn't going to be convinced, and nobody else needs to be.

[garbon]

I don't know why you bother.  DGuller certainly isn't going to be convinced, and nobody else needs to be.

Word.

[Berkut]

Indeed.

[katmai]

Yeah it's a well know fact Berkie drinks from the well of GOP.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it's a well know fact Berkie drinks from the well of GOP.

I think he always wants to vote Republican because he's generally simpatico on the economic stuff and the foreign policy.  But then, every single time, they're either incompetent (Bush), stupid (McCain picking Palin) or just place so much emphasis on the one third of that Reaganite conservative stool that he can't support them.  It's sad really

[Razgovory]

Which is why my position is based on the issues, rather than the parties. This is called "objectivity", Purple.

Does that make you an objectivist?

[Ed Anger]

Yeah it's a well know fact Berkie drinks from the well of GOP.

The well water tastes like tears.

[grumbler]

Yeah it's a well know fact Berkie drinks from the well of GOP.

The well water tastes like tears.

  There's always someone who can be counted on to rub it in!