MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Saturday, April 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 61.0° F  Partly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby Bland » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:48 pm

Meade wrote:The answers were more honest than the question.
What, pray tell, was dishonest about the question?
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby Meade » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:00 pm

The first line.

Btw, here is the latest entitled Kennedy behaving with entitlement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... uVWoIs_kDA
Do you think Douglass Kennedy's proclivity for kicking hospital nurses will hinder his chances for election?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby TheBookPolice » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:16 pm

It's unfortunate that you assume the least in people, but it was an honest question. You answered with equivocation and thinly-veiled talking points.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8317
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby rabble » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:26 pm

The first line? That was dishonest?

Okay I really hate it when I can't help but feed the trolls but I'm genuinely curious about how one makes the case that the first line was a misrepresentation of something.

Pejorative, yes. But false?
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby Meade » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:26 pm

TheBookPolice wrote:It's unfortunate that you assume the least in people

Your judgement of me is incorrect. I assume the best in people. I didn't call you dishonest. I called your question dishonest. There's a difference.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby lukpac » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:32 pm

Meade wrote:Your judgement of me is incorrect.


Doubtful.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby TheBookPolice » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:05 pm

Meade wrote:Your judgement of me is incorrect. I assume the best in people. I didn't call you dishonest. I called your question dishonest. There's a difference.

Okay, so are you calling me too stupid to know what constitutes an honest question, or are you just calling me a liar?
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8317
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby snoqueen » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:21 am

From what I can tell, this was the original question:

Do you think that the two Democrats pictured above would be elected today if their proclivities or scandals were out there for people to talk about?


I think that question is honest (that is, seeking a real answer or some real discussion) and is insightful as well.

Dishonest questions are not seeking an honest answer (though the questioner will deny it) but instead are intended to:

(a) distract or divert the conversation away from something the questioner prefers not to discuss; or

(b) impart information in a deniable way; or

(c) make just about any possible reply look foolish; or

(d) turn attention away from the matter in question itself to some person; or

(e) create a big smokescreen of confusion and annoyance behind which the original topic of discussion, or the whole possibility of having a discussion at all, is purposely lost; or

(f) try to make the questioner look more erudite than he actually is.

So, do I think the two politicians in the question could be elected today?

Possibly not elected for the first time, but if running for re-election possibly yes.

The right-wing screaming section does not control all elections, in all states, all the time. Sometimes a candidate's record of actual performance as a legislator counts for something with his constituents. And it is quite possible for someone to perform well as a legislator without being a person you'd want to spend all your time with. It's a public service job, not a referendum on somebody's life.

And sometimes you vote for the best available candidate for the job realizing no candidate in the race is perfect. If you think of it, an election is like hiring somebody, and all the applicants have strengths and weaknesses.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10939
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby bdog » Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:30 am

snoqueen wrote: It's a public service job, not a referendum on somebody's life.

I think that was Bookie's point - in our new media age it IS a referundum on somebody's life. Did you ever think you would know or care that Paul Ryan had a black girlfriend in college?

But...they may not pass the referendum and you still have to suck it up and "Fred Clark" it anyway.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby rabble » Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:34 am

I think it's interesting that Meade is still harping about dishonest questions and still not saying what the hell is dishonest about it.

Jeez Meade. You're here to bring us poor morons into the light. I want to learn from you but you've got to explain it to me a little more plainly. Go ahead. Use small words so I'll understand gooder.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby Meade » Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:41 am

TheBookPolice wrote:Okay, so are you calling me too stupid to know what constitutes an honest question, or are you just calling me a liar?

No.

Here are a few honest questions for supporters of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy: In your opinion, was Bill Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, innocent of sexually harassing Paula Jones and was Ted Kennedy, at Chappaquiddick, guilty of nothing more than leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury?

If Republicans committed the exact same actions as Clinton and Kennedy, re Jones and Kopechne, would you regard those actions as examples of a Republican war against women?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby pjbogart » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:01 am

I saw an article making its way around the web yesterday concerning the Democratic "War on Women" and using specific examples of women that Democrats love to hate as evidence. But it's a false equivalency to compare Democratic gripes about Ann Coulter to Republicans' published opposition to abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. Saying that I dislike women because I dislike Ann Coulter is like saying I dislike men because I dislike Jerry Sandusky. It's an "If A, then B, B therefore A" logical fallacy. This has always been a popular rhetorical tool among Republicans.

How I feel about Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy is largely irrelevant because the Democratic Party didn't put sexual harassment or negligent homicide in their party platform.

The Republican "War on Women" is about ideas, not individuals. Rush Limbaugh may have offended women by ridiculing Sandra Fluke, but it was his broader assertions about contraception and sexual politics that qualified as a "War on Women". The fact that he put a face on his tirade simply makes him a bully.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6019
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby rabble » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:02 am

Sorry. I still don't understand. What exactly was dishonest about the question?

All I see from your examples is you replacing one honest question with three more on an entirely different subject.

And you haven't answered any of them.

I'll answer them all, if you answer the first one. Or at least explain why it's dishonest. Because I think you're defining "dishonest" as "something I don't want to answer."
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby Meade » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:05 am

So it isn't really a war, is it? Thank you.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Wisconsin GOP and violence against women

Postby rabble » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:09 am

Meade wrote:So it isn't really a war, is it? Thank you.

Um. That's what was dishonest about it? It isn't really a war?

That's it? That's really all you got?
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: timby and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar