John Galt Wrote:Is this a bad joke? Do you really think this doesn't equally apply to plain-old-conservatives, moderates, plain-old-liberals, and "radical-liberals," whatever the heck that means?
Um, it is, by your statement, "rhetoric" so what were you expecting in the category of "sound reasoning"; maybe that pre-eminent logician, Michael Moore?
Tell us about bras and your girlfriend; are you sure you want to set this standard?
A radical conservative is some one like Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush, Cheney, Hastert and Santorum. They are radical in their approach to governing, and radical in their rhetoric. The majority of Americans are more centrist, and the examples above are far, far Right and hence radical conservatives--the authoritarian Right.
No, the post was not a joke and yes, the nature of the beast (a politician) is that they, for the most part, play on the emotions of the American public, refuse to answer reporters' questions and oftentimes attack members of their own party--members who represent the core values of that particular party. It equally applies to most parties, especially the RNC and DNC. I found Hastert's example quite disconcerting because Hastert has been, and is continuing to be, the lap dog of the Bush Administration, oftentimes constructing debate rules in the House that favor the radical conservatives' agenda, thus failing to represent his constituency. He will not, at times, allow fellow Republicans to speak out or to initiate their own legislation that runs counter to the policies of the Bush White House, i.e. Bilirakis-R, Fla. He effectively over-rules the voices of all those on the other side of the aisle, like a good Republican autocrat.
Watch the House on C-SPAN and this is clearly evident, especially when some juicy radical conservative legislation is up for a vote.
Yes, radical liberals are guilty of the same agenda-based governing, and they oftentimes employ lazy and sloppy thinking just like all politicians do, including Ralph Nader, who is perhaps the smartest of all presidential candidates, but represents no particular party. Listening to his public speaking engagements, he continually brings up the fate of our collective children and the fate of elderly who cannot get affordable prescription drugs, thus appealing to the emotions of his audience, and failing to offer an argument.
Party affiliation gets in the way of a politician's leadership abilities, for the most part. McCain recognizes this and has done his best to remain true to core Republican values, core American values and he has always represented his constituency in Arizona--something entirely lost on folks like Hastert in the House and Kennedy in the Senate.
If politicians, or personalities on this forum, utilize sound reasoning when making a point, then it becomes an argument. Because Hastert answered the reporters' question with irrelevancies and logical fallacies, then Hastert's responses constitute rhetoric, not an argument. The reporter's question in the linked story suggests he was seeking an argument from Hastert, specifically relating to taxes, war and sacrifice. Apparently you didn't read the link.
Do you know what an argument is?
Para usted...
<a href='http://polyticks.com/home/LetLexi/fallacy.htm' target='_blank'>Logic 101!</a>
You think Moore is a pre-eminent logician? Man, are you off your rocker! I've doubted that Moore is even capable of his own research.
What standard are you claiming I'm setting or attempting to set? You were very vague.
Do you have an argument to refute my responses on this thread, or do you insist on adding non-sequitors to the topic?
The giant post about bras was a joke, apparently you didn't get it.
And, are you by any chance related to Willie Galt, the former Tennessee Volunteers' star receiver who went on to play for the Chicago Bears?