No, it's the other way around, Tom. I read what was written. You made out it was "mentioning how bad the Republicans were throughout"

What part of...

"The two party system, the reliance on huge finances to be able to run politically, and therefore the reliance on corporate funding, and the system of primaries all contribute to the circumstance..
But primaries, and the ability of small energized extreme groups to dominate in primaries, is probably the greatest contributor." is slamming the Republicans?

You did say he was doing so in his "entire post", after all.

You and Brad are accusing ricky based on what he did not say - in that he was not also saying things specifically about the Democratic Party. That, Tom, is 'reading between the lines'.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:Interesting guy Ray. Red the last line and tell me how that will appeal to republican tea party types..

we can talk about it or just wait till the primaries on April 30th.

Hmm. So a Republican who wants to stand in one of the most liberal states in the US is not as right wing as many of the already elected members in Congress?

Big whoop. I think we can all realise that there are different positions across the states within the parties, and that just as there are Republicans in some places who would be seen as 'liberal' in Red states, there are Democrats who stand in some places who would be to the left of them.

Talk about reading what people write. In my original post, I did write:

I realize that Massachusetts is not representative of the country,

Sure, I read it. I read the whole thing, including the full sentence you quoted from, which continued: "but I'm sure this candidate is more moderate than his Democratic counterparts."

I am sure he will be more 'moderate' than his opponent, who is likely to be a solid liberal Democrat. And I also suggest that in heavily conservative areas, the Democrats will often be more 'moderate' then their opponents, solid conservative Republicans.

Wow, Danivon. You gave both sides of a story. Perhaps you could give lessons to some others? That was all I was asking.

Otherwise you begin to look like a mouthpiece of bias to one side or the other.

danivon wrote: (although it was the first post on the page where you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm not sure why).

I didn't see it because ricky's posts do not show up on my screen. I switched him over to the ignore function a while ago. If I was incorrect in what he was saying. Mea Culpa. However, considering his usual methodology, I figured I was on pretty solid ground.

bbauska wrote:Wow, Danivon. You gave both sides of a story. Perhaps you could give lessons to some others? That was all I was asking.

Not my intention to give lessons. I was giving my opinion, which is that the parties (that is the active members, the candidates and the elected representatives as opposed to the voters who support them) seem to be moving away from each other.

I tend to think, personally, that the Republicans are moving further and faster than the Democrats. From my perspective, the Democrats are not all that left wing, although some of them (what you guys might think of as the lunatic fringe, perhaps) get close. The bulk were centre-right, and now I'd say they were more 'centrist'. It's just that your 'middle' is some way to the right of the global norm.

Otherwise you begin to look like a mouthpiece of bias to one side or the other.

Can we be grown ups and accept that none of us is truly objective, and so can't be expected to be even-handed.

The subject of this thread was Republican action to stop a former Republican Senator from taking up a post, and why they may want to do that. Sure, it's interesting to compare with another party, but it's not an obligation.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote: (although it was the first post on the page where you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm not sure why).

I didn't see it because ricky's posts do not show up on my screen. I switched him over to the ignore function a while ago. If I was incorrect in what he was saying. Mea Culpa. However, considering his usual methodology, I figured I was on pretty solid ground.

Have you now read it? What you you now think - and would mean removing that 'If' from sentence 3?

danivon wrote:Have you now read it? What you you now think - and would mean removing that 'If' from sentence 3?

I skimmed it and honestly, I don' think I was incorrect. Perhaps I was "reading between the lines" but it was clear to me that what he was saying is the Republicans have become more extreme then the Democrats. He then gives his two-penny analysis of why that is. This is pretty much a complete contrary to what the artilce was saying.

Honestly, I think this is ricky following his typical methodology of paying lip service to neutrality while slamming the right.

Since when was ricky (or anyone else here) supposed to be neutral? I think we know where he stands. Equally we know where you stand, where Tom and bbauska stand, where I stand etc.

He was indeed saying that the Republicans (as in the party as represented by candidates and representatives and activists, rather than just the voters) have become more extreme. In that, he appeared to be agreeing with you.

He did not mention the Democrats in that post, so how was he making a comparison to them? It is only by reading between the lines, or assuming what is in the omission that you can possibly come to that conclusion.

If you are going to ignore him, do it properly. If you see him as a troll, then don't feed him. If you are going to respond, then it would indeed help to be clearer in your own mind about what you are responding to.

He then gives his two-penny analysis of why that is.

Yep, and yet what is so poor about it? The two party system, the need for funding to compete, the primary systems that mean to stand a candidate has to first win over the 'base'.

I would add the adversarial way that politics operates in your country (as well as many others) does not help. I know you guys see the media as biased, but for me the main contribution is that the media loves to tell a story about an issue in terms of pro v anti. Every debate has two sides, only two sides, and no middle. It makes for a more dramatic narrative, and it rallies people to one side or the other, but what it means is that compromise and collaboration are not as big a 'story'. That is going to have a knock on effect on how politicians use the media, and then on how the public perceive politicians.

Archduke you won't read this unless someone quotes me and it gets through your filter.
However, people who are involved in politics who close themselves off to critical comment, to opposing or alternative points of view, and who won't engage in a discussion of ideas without setting aside ideological blinders are incapable politicians. Why? Because they have willfully stopped learning. You don't learn from listening to an echo chamber of people with similar ideas or thought. (Its why American media fails its populace, when it becomes

I think what pisses you off about some of the things I contribute is that you recognize a lot of the truth. For instance, I merely expanded upon what you said and you've haven't offered any evidence or argument to contradict that expansion. I started from a point of complete agreement.
Now, since I culled my comment primarily from a recent reading of "The Future of Freedom" I'm not going to claim any particular intellectual prowess, so you can describe the analysis as "two penny" if you want. But that isn't rebuttal. I'll stand by Zakkaria's conclusions...
You have become a know nothing... Someone wilfully unable to engage because the party to which you belong has become a disappointment to you, And you'd rather not admit that, so ignoring debate that confirms that the moderate republican party you are comfortable with has been high jacked by the extreme right, who used the system that is the primary system to their advantage, is easier than living with that reality.

Ricky:

However, people who are involved in politics who close themselves off to critical comment, to opposing or alternative points of view, and who won't engage in a discussion of ideas without setting aside ideological blinders are incapable politicians.

Since ARJ hasn't cut himself off from other opinions as far as we know, Occam's Razor suggests that this is not the reason.

ray

Since ARJ hasn't cut himself off from other opinions as far as we know

well, he's cut himself off from mine. Which is fine...
But then he's assumed what I've said and responded based on his assumptions. Or rather his assumption that Toms interpretation was accurate.
If he chose not to read, and also chose not to respond I get it. But if he wants to simply respond to what he prefers was written... then he's willfully fabricating. Because it feels better than confronting the idea head on. An idea which, by the way, was only expansive on what he'd offered, but which drew conclusions from facts in evidence that he finds uncomfortable. He dismisses the conclusions out of hand, rather than offers correcting evidence ... and one ca only assume that he does so because he has a habit of avoiding the uncomfortable.

That's akin to taking Sean Hannity's edited version of an interview as an honest account of what was actually said. (I think we've all seen enough of these revelations on Daily Show ...)
Or like politicians who know that Obama was born in Hawaii but don't have the courage to stand up to the nuts and tell them the truth.
(Extreme examples on the spectrum...)
Its this kind of disengagement and acceptance of demagoguery from the TP extreme that has brought the republican brand to where it is... And it starts by refusing to deal with a reasoned arguement directly.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is a parallel to the TP on the Democratic side of the equation ...if someone can provide some evidence that it exists... What I've read suggests that there is no such thing as a sizable organized extreme left (for the US) movement like the TP. And even less evidence that they've forced the Democratic Party towards extreme views.
The recent Pew research on American attitudes towards Obama's positions as espoused in his
second inaugural speech indicate that if anything, they have moved to reflect the views of most Americans.
There may be a better summary of that then the following link, but its what i could find quickly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... 51614.html

It is reported that Obama is now taking aim at the Congressional elections in 2014 in order to turn the tabl on republicans . If Republicans persist in their defence of the extreme positions in Congress, they may soon be in a position where their ability to influence the course of action has been greatly limited.

RickyP,
I have a question for you as to what the reason ARJ would feel the need to cut only you from his vision. What do you think the reason is?

danivon wrote:If you are going to ignore him, do it properly. If you see him as a troll, then don't feed him.

You are absolutely correct. That is the reason that I put him on the ignore function in the first place. Origingally, I just didn't read what he wrote. However, often something would catch my eye as I was scrolling past and against my better judgment I would respond. And, just as usual, I would find myself ending up in the rabbit hole conversations with ricky often respond to. So about 6 months or so ago, I decided to set him to ignore. I should have just stuck with that.

Having said that, some one emailed me his last post. Because he called me a name in it, I will respond to it. After that I promise I will do it properly.

Ok, I am responding to this post only because Ricky called me a Know Nothing. There is one thing from your post I want to comment on.

However, people who are involved in politics who close themselves off to critical comment, to opposing or alternative points of view, and who won't engage in a discussion of ideas without setting aside ideological blinders are incapable politicians.

I didn't cut you off because I oppose your ideological positions. I engage with Danivon who is probably as far on the ideological spectrum from me as you can get. I engage Freeman, Geojanes and Purple even though I disagree with them more often then not.

The reasons I refuse to engage you any more are manyfold. Your arguments are oft time poorly constructed. You seem to often purposely misconstrue what others are saying and then criticizing the thing they didn't say. Further, your typographical and grammatical mistakes are so excessive that it makes your post oft times unreadable. Quite honestly, for the longest time I thought you were a teenager. I just found it wasn't worth the effort to engage. As I mentioned above, I tried to just not read what you wrote but that didn't always works. I found it was easier for me to just not see your posts.