For Democrats: What does all this "I'm the change candidate" mean?

[mountainclmbr]

Romney just started saying he is a Washington outsider who is the candidate for change.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Its not the same when Romney says it. He's not a member of the Democrat progressive clique so in all likelihood he's using it in the more benign commonly accepted sense.

However mentioning him is a good opportunity to bring up the concept of shibboleth, which is a word which is used to identify friend from foe. Originally shibboleth meant a military password which could not be pronounced correctly by enemies attempting to infiltrate lines but which could be easily pronounced by friends. The concept later evolved into a word which means two entirely different things to members of varying factions, still most often used to identify friend from foe but also used to fool foes into believing a dangerous thing is harmless.

Imagine the different emotions engendered by the use of the words gun control in two settings, an NRA annual meeting, a casual conversation by two kids in the mall and a MMM protest rally and you'll see what I mean.

 

[mountainclmbr]

This is the king of change I fear we will have forced upon us by those who have the ambition to rule over other people:

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BL5WB1BRBV3BPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/02/nhs202.xml

Plans to eliminate excessive waiting times in the National Health Service stand no chance of succeeding, an independent think-tank claims today.

In a serious blow to Gordon Brown's credibility, Civitas says the target of a maximum 18-week delay from GP referral to treatment by December is an "impossibility".

Its report, Why are we waiting?, comes as the Prime Minister signals his intention to press ahead with a constitution for the NHS.

James Gubb, of Civitas, said this was completely unrealistic. Labour had tried to deal with massive waiting lists by imposing targets on all levels of the service - including a 48-hour maximum wait for a GP appointment by 2004, and a four-hour maximum wait in A&E.

By April 2006, 203,114 people were waiting longer than 13 weeks for a proper diagnosis, of whom 96,416 were waiting longer than 26 weeks.

The figure included 12,648 waiting for longer than 13 weeks for MRI scans and 2,488 for CT scans.

Since then improvements have been made, and virtually no one is waiting longer than 13 weeks for a CT scan and just 169 were waiting longer than this for an MRI scan. But in October 2007, there were still 30,832 patients waiting longer than 26 weeks for diagnostics, of which 16,551 were waiting over a year.

The Government committed itself to reducing the time between seeing the GP and going into hospital to 18 weeks by the end of 2008. There is an interim target of 85 per cent to be achieved by the end of March 2008, but Civitas claims it is "sure to be missed".

From:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/167408.html

Britons wanting to be treated by England's National Health Service may have to qualify to receive free care under a new plan, a report said Tuesday.

Smokers or people who are chronically overweight may have to agree to exercise or to other changes in their lifestyles in return for NHS treatment. Moreover, patients who miss or chronically arrive late for hospital appointments may have penalties imposed on them, The Times of London reported.

 

[Bruxley]

Had to leave suddenly but it appears it didn't matter as my point was made clearly in my absence:

The use of sophistry and seemingly subtle condescension work more against persuading others then toward it. Continued use reflects on the entire ideology and undermines the future ability to influence. A strong, truthful, valid premise needs no such support.

And then this:

So either you were suggesting that popular opinion here should convince me to rethink my positions, or ignoring the fact that it's not nearly as unanimous elsewhere. Either way, more than a little silly.

Sophistry AND condescension WITH some fabrication of assertions not made....

The ACTUAL point made wasn't popular opinion but rather the strong, true, and valid rebuttal. Those silly things that get glossed over and instead addressed with insults and/or veiled condescension such as:

FIFTH GRADE

Did I just go to a particularly fantastic school system or something?

I mean, when I hear short remarks on things like "change," "security," "family values," "the children," or a handful of other popular buzzwords (and again, both sides have them, and they share many of them) I know I can generally just disregard whatever is being said. Not always, of course...there is that rare moment when somebody actually has something of substance to say in regards to one of these. But most of the time.

The point that change is a buzzword was made right off the bat in more colloquial terms. The realization of that in post 70 something isn't a result of a superior education or the more colloquial posts inferior intellect.

Meek and Mild has pinned it down and has done so quite well. Change isn't just what some are saying. They really do intend to implement the changes to try and force people to do what can only be done individually. And to break whatever pillars stand in the way if that's what it takes.

One last point. In the 2004 general election there were 11 separate voter initiatives concerning same sex marriage. They ALL failed soundly. The only place same sex couples can be legally termed as married is in Massachusetts and not by voter mandate, but by political activism via the courts. The REASON for marriage is what has been forgotten. Again post #15 is the rebuttal that has yet to see any solid, true, valid rebuttal because it isn't a legal, political, or fungible issue. The term is a mis-nomer but it is being PUSHED by a small activist group.

 

[JuanCarlos]

The point that change is a buzzword was made right off the bat in more colloquial terms. The realization of that in post 70 something isn't a result of a superior education or the more colloquial posts inferior intellect.

By this point we were talking about the utility of the tactic in fooling the general public, not posters here (this forum, or this thread, even the "colloquial" posters). See ZeroJunks post #75, right above the one you quoted, or my previous post #72 ("the masses"). Try to keep up. I wasn't insulting anybody here, including you, with that post. Though I suppose I am now, though I don't feel so bad since you're being a damned idiot.

And this coming from the guy complaining about having his words misrepresented.

Sophistry AND condescension WITH some fabrication of assertions not made....

The ACTUAL point made wasn't popular opinion but rather the strong, true, and valid rebuttal. Those silly things that get glossed over and instead addressed with insults and/or veiled condescension such as:

Oh really?

Okay, let's take it back again. I'll go ahead and re-quote the portions from before.

I'd say the same goes for the entire suborum. At least anytime any aspect of the Democratic Party/platform is brought up or any Democratic candidates are discussed. I wonder just how far back you'd have to go to find three such threads that didn't turn into a Democrat-bashing circle-jerk within the first ten posts or so.

If Democrat's positions bring such a response there are 2 courses of action. First is of course to re-evaluate honestly and examine if the pre-conceived notion remains valid considering the rebuttal(s). The second would be to present the premise further by expounding on why it IS in fact valid. Responding by fabricating assertions not made, or by simpleton insults instead just re-enforces the weakness of the position and frankly re=enforces the need to re-evaluate the position.

Are you elevating posts 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 in this thread to the status of "rebuttals?" Also you might consider, just for a moment, that rather than the responses here being evidence of some universal truth that perhaps it's just evidence that in some respects and on some issues (aside from guns, which would be expected) that this subforum is often nothing more than an echo chamber. That it has more to do with who frequents this forum than with what's right or true. You know, just maybe.

I went ahead and bolded some portions there, too. Note that when you reply to something (even quoting the original), your reply will generally be interpreted in the context of the statement replied to. So you most definitely did imply that the response that Democratic positions receive here (rather than in general, where they are not nearly as unanimous) actually carries some sense of meaning. Because you ignored the third course of action, which is to dismiss such a reaction as expected given the demographic present. Again, I was referring to the general gnashing of teeth and mindless bashing that occurs towards Democrats here (see all the "Hitlery and Osama" threads), not any specific and decently-argued rebuttals that might get through the wall of wankery (including some of yours, as you'll note that your post #3 was not listed).


Also, I might suggest that your arguments in opposition to allowing gay marriage (or any sort of civil unions carrying the same legal privileges, or really a variety of issues) are only so amazingly valid, and the rebuttals so invalid, when you (or those who agree) get to define "valid."


This may all seem so very off-topic, but I think Tibu hit the nail on the head a while back as far as that's concerned.

 

[Bruxley]

I appreciate both the tone and reasoning in your post.

No actual rebuttal to the assertion made but plenty of emotion. No pointing out any valid rebuttals just sarcasm. No depth just splash.

I believe that is what is referred to when we are discussing "change" as a buzzword. Despite great efforts to masquerade it, the 'selling points' are just hype. An ever more hostile tact gets adopted in lieu of a counter. Eventually it gets interpreted as noise and the discussion gets dismissed.

Short time later the topic comes up again, the lack of standing gets pointed out again, the hostility in lieu of justification and then it's noise and dismissed. And so on............

Change for progress yes. Change at the price of family..no.

Make a counter that simply justifies the change or quietly and anomalously accept that this specific change isn't worth more then political favor. Enough with the round-about, enough with the hostility, what makes monogamous sodomy equate to Marriage? Why is it justified to change this foundation of human society?

 

[ZeroJunk]

Change at the price of family..no.

I am too colloquial to understand how gay marraige became the theme of this thread. If anything the dems are tiptoeing around the issue.

With over 50% divorce rate, doesn't seem like we need gay marriage's help to screw up the family.

 

[JuanCarlos]

No actual rebuttal to the assertion made but plenty of emotion. No pointing out any valid rebuttals just sarcasm. No depth just splash.

Man, what? 99% of my post was entirely off-topic, so I wouldn't rebut any of your assertions. I was just pointing out that A) you appeared to be responding to some phantom-me that doesn't actually exist (first part) and B) you didn't seem to realize that your posts might actually be taken in context (second part). I was discussing neither the OP nor gay marriage.

Unless you're talking about the third part, I suppose. So, back to that...

My reasoning? It comes from a belief to start from that homosexuality is not a choice (committing homosexual acts is, mind you, but that who you are attracted to is not). Followed by the assertion that there are very real and tangible benefits of marriage. Followed by the fact that while yes, marriage is generally the framework for raising families at the same time we do allow the childless (from genetics, choice, or age) to marry. At which point denying this legal status would seem like a violation of the 14th amendment (equal protection), or alternately denying it due to religious concerns (which, I'll assert and you'll likely deny, is the primary motivator) is a violation of the 1st amendment. That, or recognizing marriages of consenting adults from one church and not another (provided homosexuals can find a church to marry them, and they can) is a violation of either or both. Take your pick.

Note that the science is not conclusive on that starting assumption. I'm sure you could find support for it being chosen, and I know I can find support for it not. I have a feeling the entire argument would be entirely masturbatory (not that this necessarily isn't, but whatever).

Anyway, at that point it's justified to me because I have this notion that human beings are entitled to equal treatment and protection under the law. Also that, when speaking about acts which do not have victims, we should probably avoid creating government policies based on religion(s). Note that those aren't compelled by emotion, but rather by how I read the Constitution of this country.

There are four possible solutions, only two of which I think are actually acceptable given the above. One, we allow gay marriages. Two, we allow civil unions (providing all of the same legal benefits/privileges, but simply with a different name) for homosexuals, marriages for hetero. Three, we simply do away with calling it "marriage" legally and move to nothing but civil unions, or four we can simply do away with the legal status entirely and people can simply work it all out with individual contracts (and taxes would be blind to marital status).

From a moral standpoint, I'm okay with either one, three, or four. Two not so much, since we get back into that "separate but equal" thing. From a pragmatic standpoint, though, I'm really fine with one, two, or three. Four is out for reasons I shouldn't have to go into (babies and bathwater and what not), and while I do have some problem with two I think that it'd just be a matter of time before it ended up being remedied anyway. Even if not, I think that any legal framework offering the same legal benefits/privileges would probably meet the requirement of the 14th amendment, though I still would have an issue with it under the first (recognizing one church's marriages but not another).


If, on the other hand, you want a simple emotional response, I have one there as well. I'm mildly disgusted that I live in a country where somebody like Britney Spears can crap all over the institution of marriage (referring to her first marriage, the 55 hour one, which was on the same day as my own, which while I shouldn't care for some reason this irked me to no end) because she chose to do so with somebody of the opposite sex, yet my uncle can't enter into the same legal status (and again, once the government begins granting rights and privileges based on it it does become a legal status) with somebody he has been committed to for two decades. To which, of course, it's easy to argue "necessary evil" and/or "least harm." Which is why it's convenient that I have all those words above as well.


On a side note, you said (correctly) that as of now there is only one state that legally allows "marriage" between homosexual couples. There are, if I remember correctly, at least five more states [EDIT: upon looking it up, seems it's eight] that allow most of the same legal status (under either civil unions or domestic partnerships). Honestly, I'm of the opinion that moving entirely to such would be the best anyway; I don't see why the government needs to be in the business of defining or recognizing "marriage" anyway. What my wife and I did in the church was "marriage," what we did at the courthouse was all just legal paperwork to me.


So, entirely off topic post ahoy!


EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you have an argument why moving away from government-recognized "marriage" and into simple legal status (civil union, domestic partnership, whatever you want to call it) and leaving "marriage" to churches would be a bad thing? Or, in other words, a rational argument as to why heterosexuals have to right to have their "marriage" recognized as such legally, let alone why they ought to have that right exclusively?

 

[MeekAndMild]

All political discussion here needs to avoid hot button non RKBA issues. We have more in common than we have differences and we all stand to lose in common if we don't understand politics as they play out in RKBA. Try to not get lost on pig trails leading off into the woods.

 

[Bruxley]

The institution of marriage is the root and base of solid societies. The real and tangible benefits you acknowledge are more then just a little significant. The whole point of the rest of life is family. That was the jist of my post back at the beginning of the discussion. As goes marriage so goes society regardless of culture.

The question was what makes monogamous sodomy equate to marriage?

The only way, as your post points out, to put monogamous sodomy and marriage on equal footing is to REDUCE marriage to a legal issue. Again, marriage was never established by law, only RECOGNIZED by law. The vast and potent fruits of marriage to society are why it is recognized. It is the base unit of not only of families, but communities, and communities are the first and most local forms of government. As family units they are the most fertile ground for bearing and raising children into ready adults. These are just a few of the reasons that law recognizes marriage. What does monogamous sodomy contribute to warrant such recognition?

As to equal protection under the law, it again takes equating monogamous sodomy with marriage to argue equal protection. And as it isn't nearly the same (again unless marriage is reduced to legal status) so there ain't equals to protect equally.

The First Amendment argument is perilous at best. Unless monogamous sodomy is a religion I don't see the application. I know no religion that doesn't recognize marriage anyway.

As for your question, I believe it has already been answered by this post. It takes presenting attributes of monogamous sodomy that yield the benefits to society that those of marriage contribute to wonder why.

The point about Britney Spears and Zero Junks post go toward the results and consequences of demoting marriage to simple legal status.

Every person of adult age has lied, cheated, AND stolen. Is honesty now less valid a virtue? Every person of adult age has said they would do something and didn't, or did otherwise. Is integrity now no longer of worth? Every person has made a fool of themselves, should we now forget about dignity?

Bring to bear attributes of monogamous sodomy that yield the benefits to society that those of marriage contribute rather then bring down marriage to the level of a driver license.

 

[Bruxley]

I was typing when you posted Meek, the discussion goes to the topic of change. And as you pointed out, some change is just buzzword and some is to actually change the social paradigm in a negative way.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Meek, it's a pissing contest. But, you have to admit they write very well.

 

[JuanCarlos]

As to equal protection under the law, it again takes equating monogamous sodomy with marriage to argue equal protection. And as it isn't nearly the same (again unless marriage is reduced to legal status) so there ain't equals to protect equally.

It isn't equal rights between statuses, it's equal rights between people. And again, if two homosexuals aren't afforded the same rights as two childless heterosexuals, it's an issue. I don't need to equate monogomous sodomy to marriage, I just need to equate a homosexual person to a heterosexual.

I'm not just making this up, either...unless I'm mistaken, in the states in which courts have ruled in favor of marriages/civil unions for gays, it has been on the basis of equal protection. And I'd suggest that the reason Constitutional amendments banning them are such a popular issue (at both state and federal levels) is because it would be the only way to without doubt clear up the Constitutional issue and prevent other courts from deciding the same.

Also, I agree that marriage was not established by law, only recognized by it. And that it has a long standing tradition of being between a man and a woman, and so on, and so forth. I'm not arguing with this. But as soon as the law did recognize it, and grants actual tangible benefits and privileges based on it, then the law must be applied equally. For as long as raising a family is not a requirement of getting married, there is no rational basis for excluding anybody who cannot...including homosexuals.

The First Amendment argument is perilous at best. Unless monogamous sodomy is a religion I don't see the application. I know no religion that doesn't recognize marriage anyway.

The point is not that a religion might exist that doesn't recognize marraiges. The point is that if a church does recognize marriage and (gasp) recognizes marriage between homosexuals, it can become a 1st amendment issue. Or had you not considered this possibility?

I was typing when you posted Meek, the discussion goes to the topic of change. And as you pointed out, some change is just buzzword and some is to actully change the social paradigm in a negative way.

I'd actually like to see a rational argument as to how you can objectively state it is negative. Will people become homosexual just to enter into homosexual marriages? Will it somehow erode marriage in a way that easy divorce and a variety of other issues have not already? Because I've not seen any arguments in regards to this that don't rely on either wild conjecture, religious beliefs, or plain old emotion. Note: you can keep repeating 'til the cows come home the longstanding traditions of marriage, and that this will indeed be a change. I'm not arguing that. But what I'm asking for is a logical/rational basis for stating it's a negative one.

EDIT: Note, too, that I've not asserted that it isn't a change. Nor have I asserted that it's a positive one. You've made the positive assertion (that it will change in a negative way), thus it's on you to argue it if I choose not to accept it. Just as, in theory, it's on me to argue that it's an equal protection issue. Which I've continued to do...unfortunately, I'm neither as eloquent nor as versed in the law as the lawyers in several states that have managed to win on that basis (either actual marriage, or a legal status equivalent to it a la civil unions).

 

[KingofAttendance]

The whole "change" thing started with Barack Obama. After everyone else realized how well he was doing, Hillary, Edwards, and the rest followed riding his sucess. It's no different than the other interchangeable campaign slogans used by every politician: Patriotism/terrorism/faith/liberal/conservative/fair-and-balanced

 

[Bruxley]

The court decisions are activist, not consensus. The amendment proposals are more to stop the end around by activists despite the will of the people as asserted by the 11 soundly failed voter initiatives in the last general election.

I'm still waiting for the attributes of monogamous sodomy that are as beneficial to society as marriage to justify equal recognition.. Activists says it's an inequity that must be rectified by the legal system because the people won't. Where is the equity?

Judicial activism is yet another liberal activity that has done far more harm then good. The favored tool of those MeekandMild referred to. This is not the correct way to make or revise law, that is the job of legislature, not the court.

 

[CDFT]

Bruxely, do you even read your posts before you type out a reply? Because like half the time I'll type something out here (meaning the political forum), read it, sigh to myself, and think "you know what? I'm not even going to bother." Then I don't post it and save myself a lot of grief in the process.

Maybe this is just that relativist drivel from high school coming back to haunt me: I see marriage as a (hopefully) stable relationship between two adults who from then on function as a unit in society. What about the genders being different is so vital to marriage working? If it's kids you're worrying about, there are still lots of kids out there who need adopting.

But then, maybe I shouldn't let you get started about how bad an idea that would be. You know, because this totally hasn't been studied to death already, and they totally haven't found that there aren't any downsides to it.

You see, whenever it comes to denying someone a right someone else has, I prefer to apply a "strict scrutiny" test. That means that somebody doesn't need to give me a good reason they should have a right, that means somebody needs to give me a good reason that they shouldn't. This way it keeps government out of people's business, and stops them from interfering in things with no good reason. So, why shouldn't monogomous sodomy be legally recognized just as much as monogomous vaginal intercourse? (What happens if a heterosexual couple who is really in to sodomy? Like, as in, to the exclusion of vaginal intercourse? Should they be forbidden to marry too?)

 

[JuanCarlos]

I'm still waiting for the attributes of monogamous sodomy that are as beneficial to society as marriage to justify equal recognition.

As CDFT implied, I wasn't aware this was the standard we had to apply on such things.

This is not the correct way to make or revise law, that is the job of legislature, not the court.

Did you feel the same when it came to miscegenation? That was done through the court rather than the legislature as well.

EDIT: Also, I've yet to see that rational (non-emotional, non-religious) argument as to the harm done by granting legal status (marriage or civil union) to "monogamous sodomy." Good catch on the fact that sodomy need not be homosexual as well, CDFT.

 

[Bruxley]

The point you missed (among others) is that it's MORE than the sex. I'ts MORE than the monogomy.

Marriage is ancient. Show me the atributes of monogamous sodomy that bring to humanity/society those of marriage.

If marriage were a civil right, then a divorce would have to be mutually agreed on or it would be a civil rights violation.

Nobody is saying they can't get married BTW. The point is that monogomous sodemy isn't marriage as none of the atributes of marrige that benefit society are present. You can't hit a baseball in your living room and run from your chair to the couch and claim to be playing baseball. The activity lacks the atributes to be that activity. Now if 2 teams play baseball in wheelchairs because they can't walk, the atributes are there but not manifested.

You see the point yet. CALLING it marriage doesn't make it so.

 

[P5 Guy]

They ain't Republicans

 

[nate45]

Ron Paul on Change on the Tonght Show

RON PAUL: You know, I think it's a mixed bag. I

think the American people want change.

And the politicians know that, so everybody gets up and

says, "I'm for change. I'm for change." But the whole

thing is, is what kind of change? You know, right now

whether you like Republicans or Democrats, does foreign

policy change? No. Does monetary policy change, and are

they going to even talk about it? Does fiscal policy

change? No. We elect the conservative Republicans, and

they make the deficit worse than the rest. Yeah, the

American people are tired of that. They want real

change. And to me, that means the only significant

change we ought to have is get enough people in

Washington that read the Constitution, obey the

Constitution, do only the things that we're allowed to
do.