fayfreethinkers.com

DAR said to DOUG:

You seem to be emotionally stuck in Hillary supporter mode. You're not making any sense. What is the use of trying to reason with you in this state? You don't respond to points and often exaggerate them beyond recognition when you do. You imply others are acting like fundamentalists but ironically it is you who is saying this has to be dealt with as a black or white issue, all or none.

and then went on at great length trying to reason with him. This makes as much sense as arguing with the guys on nwapolitics.com and has gone into Sillytown, because you can't have a reasonable debate with someone who won't be reasonable.

I posted the article about Obama's so-called "flip-flops" and Doug couldn't get past the first paragraph. But even if he'd read the whole thing I doubt he would have given it any consideration, since he's so blatantly looking at everything through bitter-over-Hillary's-loss goggles.

When those goggles wear off, Doug, I hope you'll go back and re-read this thread and you'll see how you're using the traditional republican debate style - twist words, exaggerate, repeat falsehoods over and over until they stick (or you hope they do, anyway), and refuse to open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong. It's really surprising on you, and I hope those goggles fall off soon and you go back to being the Doug we all know and like.

Tony wrote:Another typical American election. And it's just what stupid Americans seem to want and expect. We get what we deserve.

“Every country has the government it deserves.”
Joseph Marie de Maistre quotes (French Diplomat, Writer, Philosopher and Politician, 1753-1821)

DOUG
The longer I live, the more true this seems.

Betsy wrote: and then went on at great length trying to reason with him. This makes as much sense as arguing with the guys on nwapolitics.com and has gone into Sillytown, because you can't have a reasonable debate with someone who won't be reasonable.

DOUG
I gave reasons and supported them with evidence. The nwapolitics guys rarely tried that.

Betsy wrote: I posted the article about Obama's so-called "flip-flops" and Doug couldn't get past the first paragraph. But even if he'd read the whole thing I doubt he would have given it any consideration, since he's so blatantly looking at everything through bitter-over-Hillary's-loss goggles.

DOUG
If I was wrong or mistaken on some point, go ahead and show this. Just because I only quoted the beginning of the article to comment on something does not mean I didn't read past that.

Oh, and don't forget to add that Hillary's a worthless bitch.

Betsy wrote: When those goggles wear off, Doug, I hope you'll go back and re-read this thread and you'll see how you're using the traditional republican debate style - twist words, exaggerate, repeat falsehoods over and over until they stick (or you hope they do, anyway), and refuse to open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong. It's really surprising on you, and I hope those goggles fall off soon and you go back to being the Doug we all know and like.

DOUG
Well, I don't think I did any of that word twisting, repeating falsehoods, etc. If I have, feel free to show this. I'm always open to being shown that I am wrong.

And speaking of goggles falling off, it looks like the media is starting to treat Obama as merely human. Already he is becoming the butt of jokes on late night TV in a way that they haven't done even last week.

Jay Leno: "Barack Obama just had a birthday. He turned...to the right." Later: "His friends brought him their usual gits--gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

McCain seems to be trying to run a campaign mocking Obama in his ads. Obama seems to be responding mostly by mocking how silly McCain is being. But I think Obama's going to have to do more than that soon if he wants to run a successful campaign.

Doug, you'd be right if Obama had changed his mind or his stance. He didn't. What he said was that as a compromise, he could accept offshore drilling under certain environmental circumstances and with the states' permission in a bill that included a solid package of "green" stuff (that actually would work in the mid-run - nothing but decreasing demand (stop driving) will work short-run). He didn't say that drilling is a good idea or that it would lower prices or any or the RW talking points that so sucker the mainstream media watching 80% - just that if the cost of the Rs voting for (or at least not blocking) a good energy package is some strictly regulated offshore drilling, he can accept that.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Doug, you'd be right if Obama had changed his mind or his stance. He didn't. What he said was that as a compromise, he could accept offshore drilling under certain environmental circumstances and with the states' permission in a bill that included a solid package of "green" stuff (that actually would work in the mid-run - nothing but decreasing demand (stop driving) will work short-run). He didn't say that drilling is a good idea or that it would lower prices or any or the RW talking points that so sucker the mainstream media watching 80% - just that if the cost of the Rs voting for (or at least not blocking) a good energy package is some strictly regulated offshore drilling, he can accept that.

DOUG
One needn't say that drilling is a good idea in order to flip on this issue.

No drilling (In currently prohibited areas) ==> some drilling (in currently prohibited areas)

The two are incompatible. Contradictory. Whether he wanted to, or liked it, or put conditions on it, or whatever is not relevant to the issue of whether he flipped on this.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:...as a compromise, he [Obama] could accept offshore drilling under certain environmental circumstances and with the states' permission in a bill that included a solid package of "green" stuff...

DAR
Like if Exxon gets a new little area off of Florida, everybody gets half price on a Prius. That's what I'm talking about.

D.

Darrel wrote:Like if Exxon gets a new little area off of Florida, everybody gets half price on a Prius. That's what I'm talking about.

DOUG
It won't even get us half price on a gallon of gas. For one day. For one gallon!

DAR
No, If Exxon gets the moderately expanded area, with all of the other hoops to jump through, THEY have to pay for half of my Prius. That's the deal I'm offering.
I was going to say "everyone gets a free Prius" but I didn't want to sound ridiculous.

As we know, the government massively subsidized giant SUV's, up to $100,000 per year. These are vehicles that get 12-15 mpg. This helped spur their sales and now tens millions of these vehicles are roaring around on our roads, with one person in them (often people bought them for the huge tax break, not because they needed a big truck). My uncle bought one and got the tax re-write off. Tax incentives work.
If a tiny fraction of that tax incentive were aimed toward a highly efficient vehicle like the Prius (50+ mpg) it certainly could raise the US fleet average and put a big dent in demand. This should affect the price of gas.

In the US, we subsidize inefficiency. Smart countries subsidize efficiency.

D.
----------------------------
"Japan's energy consumption per person is now almost half that of the United States. Conservation fever swept the nation after the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty written in Japan that aims to reduce greenhouse gases. The United States has not ratified the treaty.
Japan now imports 16 percent less oil than it did in 1973, although the economy has more than doubled. Billions of dollars were invested in converting oil-reliant electricity-generation systems into ones powered by natural gas, coal, nuclear energy or alternative fuels. Japan, for instance, now accounts for 48 percent of the globe's solar power generation - compared with 15 percent in the United States."
Link

Darrel wrote:In the US, we subsidize inefficiency. Smart countries subsidize efficiency.

That's true of health care too. Too many tests, too many denials of health care.

Doug wrote:

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Doug, you'd be right if Obama had changed his mind or his stance. He didn't. What he said was that as a compromise, he could accept offshore drilling under certain environmental circumstances and with the states' permission in a bill that included a solid package of "green" stuff (that actually would work in the mid-run - nothing but decreasing demand (stop driving) will work short-run). He didn't say that drilling is a good idea or that it would lower prices or any or the RW talking points that so sucker the mainstream media watching 80% - just that if the cost of the Rs voting for (or at least not blocking) a good energy package is some strictly regulated offshore drilling, he can accept that.

DOUG
One needn't say that drilling is a good idea in order to flip on this issue.

No drilling (In currently prohibited areas) ==> some drilling (in currently prohibited areas)

The two are incompatible. Contradictory. Whether he wanted to, or liked it, or put conditions on it, or whatever is not relevant to the issue of whether he flipped on this.

DAR
It may be useful to calibrate your flip-flop meter to include something beyond two possibilities, either/or. Most folks can see the difference between:

McCain flip-flop: Against drilling to... "DRILL here, DRILL now" (his actual slogan).

v.

Obama: Against drilling to... open to compromise along with a needed energy package.

Politifact.com observes this distinction by adjusting their flip-flop meter to a finer resolution which differentiates between a true "flip flop" (your: "That fits the definition of a flip-flop. It's from P to Not-P") and what Obama has done here. Politifact calls it a "half-flip" which is more charitable than not observing this difference. It's a good blurb on this. Read it here:

More compromise than change of heart.



D.
--------------------------
ps I snooped around their site a little and see that they rate McCain half a flip on this too. While he is a cheerleader for expanded drilling now his record before was mixed. See article here.

Darrel wrote:It may be useful to calibrate your flip-flop meter to include something beyond two possibilities, either/or. Most folks can see the difference between:

McCain flip-flop: Against drilling to... "DRILL here, DRILL now" (his actual slogan).

v.

Obama: Against drilling to... open to compromise along with a needed energy package.

DOUG

Yes, it is a flip-flop of a different sort.

McCain: No drilling ==> Drill!
Obama: No drilling ==> Drill if it will shut you up and get me votes!

Doug wrote:DOUG
Yes, it is a flip-flop of a different sort.

DAR
So it's not really "from P to Not-P" unless you set it up, frame it, in a special uncharitable way.

McCain: No drilling ==> Drill!

DAR
I am not sure that is accurate now. He seemed to be saying throw it back to the states back then. His voting on this is not consistent and probably depended on nuances within the bills. Oh, and he is also against changing the protected status of ANWR (as is Obama of course).

Obama: No drilling ==> Drill if it will shut you up and get me votes!

DAR
That's not accurate. Drill if... as part of a package he can get bipartisan cooperation which:

"...would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers retool, make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels." etc.

Those are his actual words but your caricature is at least shorter!

Did you read the short article?

D.

Darrel wrote:

Doug wrote:DOUG
Yes, it is a flip-flop of a different sort.

DAR
So it's not really "from P to Not-P" unless you set it up, frame it, in a special uncharitable way.

DOUG
Your version is a special "spin" version that brings in irrelevant material, such as the compromise aspect. Whether one allows drilling or not is the contradiction. WHY one flips from one to the other is not a relevant issue with regard to the issue of whether one flips or not.

Doug wrote:

Darrel wrote:

Doug wrote:DOUG
Yes, it is a flip-flop of a different sort.

DAR
So it's not really "from P to Not-P" unless you set it up, frame it, in a special uncharitable way.

DOUG
Your version is a special "spin" version that brings in irrelevant material, such as the compromise aspect.

DAR
So which is it? A flip flop of a different sort, or a full contradicting flip flop? Your philosopher lens has only one setting?

And you would have this apply even if he hasn't yet compromised but just said he is open to it? And this based upon the technicality that he has gone from "no-compromise" to "open to compromise." I see. Even before he has signed on to anything you are determined to frame this in the most negative light. He's giving away ANWR (false), he's doing it only for votes (versus his claim, to get some meaningful energy package passed).

And the fact that he is open to compromise, and the reasons why, is special "spin" that should be considered "irrelevant" to the discussion? If you want to focus solely on the contradiction then I agree. You got him on a technicality regarding, not any action on this issue, but his stance. I am reminded of my discussion with Leonard (fellow philosopher or yours) this weekend. He is still working on that book of his which is about how he thinks philosophy is largely about using word games to support your own biases. Don't you think that is a book with great potential?

Whether one allows drilling or not is the contradiction.

DAR
It is when one sets aside common sense in order to frame it in a black white, up down, two option way. A way destined to create the maximum amount of flip-flops, thus making the term pretty much meaningless after a while. This makes flip-floppers out of everyone, several times a day.

I wonder if I could find examples of Hillary doing this? I wonder if got real picky and put the black/white lens on, how many I could find?

Since all politicians are serial flip floppers, I guess what it comes down to is whether the flip is on an issue that is important to you. Changing a stance on this isn't important to me because I never would have thought, in a $120 a barrel world that this could be anything other than an issue that would have to be compromised on. What will matter more is the deal that is struck. These lines of what is protected and what is not were not handed down from on high. Surely there was a bunch of arbitrary decision making in the process. If some coastal area off of some states now open to drilling, get expanded 10% or 20% or 30%, it will not be likely affect the nation in a way I, or anyone, can notice.

D.

Darrel wrote: So which is it? A flip flop of a different sort, or a full contradicting flip flop? Your philosopher lens has only one setting?

DOUG
That was a joke. A flip is a flip is a flip. Compromise is not the issue. Compromise is just a fancy way of saying "Help me flip."

Darrel wrote: I wonder if I could find examples of Hillary doing this? I wonder if got real picky and put the black/white lens on, how many I could find?

DOUG
Who cares? She's not running anymore. And she didn't pretend to be some new sort of politician.

By the way, Obama is getting ready to flip on 527's, the political groups not officially associated with a campaign that can raise huge amounts of soft money. Obama's campaign has said, and still says, that anyone who wants to help his campaign must work with his official campaign, and part of his "new politics" has been that he denounced 527's and said he wouldn't use them. Recently, reports are that he is getting ready to flip on that and allow the soft money to work for him. I know Darrel will say that it is "smart." I'm not denying that. I won't deny that it may win the election for him. But it is another flip-flop (if it happens), it will show that his being a "new kind of politician" is further in doubt, and it is not the right thing to do to lie to the American people even before being sworn in! I'm sure at least some people voted for Obama in the primaries partly on the belief that he would not use 527's and would try to "clean up" politics in that respect.

======
A spokesman for Obama, Bill Burton, denied that any policy vis-à-vis 527s -- political organizations that can raise unlimited soft money -- and other outside groups had changed.

"Whoever is saying that has no idea what is going on inside our campaign," he said. "Senator Obama has said consistently that if folks want to help this effort, they should do so through our campaign."

But on Monday two reports surfaced suggesting that a softening of Obama's stance may already be taking place. Earlier in the day, Politico's Ben Smith wrote that PowerPAC, a 501c4 that was initiating voter registration efforts primarily in the South and West, was planning to spend $10 million during the election. In the afternoon, FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher reported that "a source close to the Obama campaign," acknowledged their position on independent expenditures was changing.

"Despite actively discouraging donors from giving to groups like Progressive Media at one point, they are now taking the position that it's nothing they have any control over," Hamsher wrote.

See here.

Doug wrote:

Darrel wrote: I wonder if I could find examples of Hillary doing this? I wonder if got real picky and put the black/white lens on, how many I could find?

DOUG
Who cares?

DAR
Talk about bringing in irrelevant material! That's the way to respond to a question of a contradiction? Just say "who cares?" Okay, I can do that. Obama may consider a deal on offshore drilling when earlier he wouldn't? Who cares? I certainly don't.

She's not running anymore.

DAR
So? How does this address the charge of flip flopping and being inconsistent? It doesn't. And when the flips in question occurred, she was. I don't remember you using a black/white flip-flop microscope on her then.

By the way, Obama is getting ready to flip on 527's,...

DAR
Who cares? Not me, that's who.

I know Darrel will say that it is "smart."

DAR
I don't know if that one is smart. I do know I don't care.

D.

DOUG
To bring in Hillary here is to commit the tu quoque fallacy. This is the "you did it too!" fallacy. I claim that Obama flip-flopped. Whether Hillary flip-flopped or not is irrelevant to whether Obama did. It is not the case that Obama can only flip-flop if Hillary does or does not do it too. So whether she flip-flopped is not a relevant consideration in determining whether Obama flip-flopped.

That's why I don't care if she flip-flopped.

Doug wrote:DOUG
To bring in Hillary here is to commit the tu quoque fallacy.

DAR
But as all students of ancient Latin know: "Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge." link

Since I already admitted he has changed his stance on this it should be obvious I am now trying to bring an increase in flipflop awareness. If you use your flipflop measurement device consistently, and look at her record as uncharitably as you do Obama's, you will have no trouble finding many examples. Yet you still supported her with nary a complaint about her changing positions and you didn't call her bad names. Some would consider this inconsistent.

D.

Darrel wrote: Since I already admitted he has changed his stance on this it should be obvious I am now trying to bring an increase in flipflop awareness. If you use your flipflop measurement device consistently, and look at her record as uncharitably as you do Obama's, you will have no trouble finding many examples. Yet you still supported her with nary a complaint about her changing positions and you didn't call her bad names. Some would consider this inconsistent.

DOUG
Again, who cares if she changed her position? She's no longer running. So what is your point? Hillary flip-flops? OK. And..?

Obama has flip-flopped on several major issues now, and he's about to flip on 527's. And appealing to Hillary can't save him from that charge.

Doug wrote:DOUG
Again, who cares if she changed her position?

DAR
I sure don't, I can tell you that. Well, unless it was a biggie. Something substantive.

She's no longer running. So what is your point?

DAR
All politicians, all people, change their minds, for various reasons. Deciding which ones really matter, there's the rub. Someone going from "blanket opposition" to "against it but willing to consider a compromise" would rarely rank as a flip-flop of note. Partly because, as I have said many times now, the flip of substance hasn't really taken place until a deal is or is not struck. The flip of substance may never even take place at all. There is no commitment in saying you will consider the other side's proposal (other than the commitment to consider it of course). Until something substantive happens, it's only a "stance" or even just strategy change. No biggie during the silly season.

D.