Support NeoGAF

[thekad]

I find this a cop-out for any substantive answer.

That would be an accurate descriptor for the average BigSicily post, but no, actually it is the reason that this has been pushed back to the very end - eight months later. Dishonest and unprincipled Republicans can only bring themselves to do the right thing when their holidays are threatened by actual legislative work :lol

Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and his shills on message boards now need another eight months to decide whether or not they feel like reading the bill.

 

[BigSicily]

Lies, Statistics, etc

It shows something. Unfortunately, just not what you think it does. It demonstrates how broken Washington has become due to the virtual arms-race of procedural and structural maneuvering to subvert the process. This is seen on both side of the isle.

Ask yourself what a Republican in the 103rd would have said. My hunch is something amazingly similar to what you're saying. Yet, the beat-goes-on.

Pretend you have no a priori knowledge of what's to come (why it's boxed out), what would a democratic Senator say about republican obstructionism?

That's it's increased!

What would a republican senator say as time went on? (look up to previous graph) That the democrats were forcing ever more cloture votes and being obstructionists!​

The constant (light blue trend) is the increase in procedural tactics that both sides are utilizing: thus, to say that one party is fully to blame or that it's 'record breaking' is something of a matter of perspective: yet, work still gets done, START could still be reworked to be better and passed in the new congress.

 

[thekad]

Ironically, you're really bad at reading graphs.

 

[Dude Abides]

A graph appears!

 

[scorcho]

i'm stunned that BS actually tried to defend the last two years of obstructionism as a natural rate of progression. it works when you cover it, i suppose.

 

[BigSicily]

thekad, do you actually post anything substantive or more than these one-line ad-hominem attacks?

Ironically, you're really bad at reading graphs.

Really? We're using cloture votes as a proxie for filibuster and other judicary tactics to slow down legislation's mobility. The # of times cloture votes was invoked has been steadily inclining. My quick trendline is somewhat median and approximates the # of votes.

i'm stunned that BS actually tried to defend the last two years of obstructionism as a natural rate of progression. it works when you cover it, i suppose.

You make it sound like I'm endorsing it! Hardly, when I claim that it's a virtual arms-race, I mean it. It's a 'natural rate of progression' only in the abstract game theory way in which each side tries to move to gain the advantage by moving more to a more extreme position.

 

[scorcho]

Really? We're using cloture votes as a proxie for filibuster and other judicary tactics to slow down legislation's mobility. The # of times cloture votes was invoked has been steadily inclining. My quick trendline is somewhat median and approximates the # of votes.

odd, since the trendline from the 104-109 would roughly be negative till you get to the glorious 110 and 111.

Do you actually post anything substantive or more than these one-line ad-hominem attacks?

where's the ad-hominem?

 

[thekad]

^Like most of conservaGAF, BS isn't very accepting of dissenting arguments.

i'm stunned that BS actually tried to defend the last two years of obstructionism as a natural rate of progression. it works when you cover it, i suppose.

Even the uncovered part tells the story. Democrats keep cloture motions level, then Republicans double it :lol

Really? We're using cloture votes as a proxie for filibuster and other judicary tactics to slow down legislation's mobility. The # of times cloture votes was invoked has been steadily inclining. My quick trendline is somewhat median and approximates the # of votes.

Cloture votes have not been steadily inclining. The graph originally posted and the graph you posted both show that cloture motions stay level (or go down) and then take a huge jump at convenient spots. Your "trendline" is laughable even when you omit the record-shattering obstruction of the most recent Republican crew and the shills that love them :lol

 

[scorcho]

You make it sound like I'm endorsing it! Hardly, when I claim that it's a virtual arms-race, I mean it. It's a 'natural rate of progression' only in the abstract game theory way in which each side tries to move to gain the advantage by moving more to a more extreme position.

i wouldn't say endorsing, but dismissing the amount of obstructionism the last two congresses as more of the same is a bit disingenuous. the use and motion to a filibusterer remained roughly static between the 103-108th Congress.

i'll concede that the numbers reflect the growing political polarization of both the parties and the country, but the swing between the 108th and 109th is a dramatic anomaly.

 

[S1lent]

It shows something. Unfortunately, just not what you think it does. It demonstrates how broken Washington has become due to the virtual arms-race of procedural and structural maneuvering to subvert the process. This is seen on both side of the isle.

Ask yourself what a Republican in the 103rd would have said. My hunch is something amazingly similar to what you're saying. Yet, the beat-goes-on:

Of all the intellectual dishonesty I've seen from you, that graph has to take the cake. :lol

"See! It's just an upward trend line

Spoiler

once you block the huge aberration in the data

!"

You've got to be trolling at this point.

 

[BigSicily]

odd, since the trendline from the 104-109 would roughly be negative till you get to the glorious 110 and 111.

That's not really true. If you're just looking at the # of motions filed, but why is that the best metric?

The # of times cloture was actually invoked is up during that period you cite (104-109). Similarly, the # of times that cloture was voted on (perhaps a proxy for lets call it the 'opposition stubbornness variable') was up and has been inclining significantly over the full time.

See, I feel there is too much politics and not enough thinking these issues through. To me, this is very strong data in support of the position that Washington is broken and that the rules have either been corrupted, due to internal strife or external corruption -- this can be from the effects of corporations, to media and internet causing a feedback loop on selecting for extreme positions.

I'm not sure, but this isn't a a problem of one political party, to claim anything different is indicative of you own preconceived notions.

 

[Leunam]

omg :lol

 

[BigSicily]

Of all the intellectual dishonesty I've seen from you, that graph has to take the cake. :lol

"See! It's just an upward trend line once you block the huge aberration in the data!"

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. I stated just proceeding that:

Ask yourself what a Republican in the 103rd would have said. My hunch is something amazingly similar to what you're saying. Yet, the beat-goes-on:

See the colon and how the picture was indented? It's demonstrating what the perspective would have been like from a person at that point-in-time. Thanks though, I'll go back and clarify more.


Although, I think it was pretty clear, so in your words, 'of all the inferior thinking I've seen from you....'

 

[RustyNails]

It shows something. Unfortunately, just not what you think it does. It demonstrates how broken Washington has become due to the virtual arms-race of procedural and structural maneuvering to subvert the process. This is seen on both side of the isle.

Ask yourself what a Republican in the 103rd would have said. My hunch is something amazingly similar to what you're saying. Yet, the beat-goes-on:

Here's a better graph:

The way I see it, only Republicans are responsible for making the arrow go up!

 

[thekad]

omg :lol

I know, right. I love it.

*right-click/save-as.

Thanks for the memories, Sicily :lol

 

[BigSicily]

Classy as always around here.

A select few hyenas start a frenzy over their mistake, the frenzy becomes the event. Typical Americans, likely typical lives... perceived eliteness.

 

[S1lent]

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. I stated just proceeding that:

​

See the colon and how the picture was indented? It's demonstrating what the perspective would have been like from a person at that point-in-time. Thanks though, I'll go back and clarify more.


Although, I think it was pretty clear, so in your words, 'of all the inferior thinking I've seen from you....'

Oh, so that graph wasn't an attempt to down play the record breaking obstructionism of one party by taking the incredibly nuanced "Warshington's just broken!" stance? Could've fooled me. Here's a hint: We all know that our polity has serious problems, and that these problems extend to both sides of the aisle. However, that doesn't mean there is equivalency between the two parties, especially on this particular issue at this point in time. How about instead of paying lip service to nuance, you actually show some?

Anyway, since I've apparently misunderstood you, do you admit that Republican obstructionism is at an unprecedented level, disproportionate to historical trends?

 

[Bishman]

What is the functional reason the new START must be ratified today, as opposed from in the new Congress? Outside of political considerations, that is.

The last I read... if it doesn't pass right now in the lame duck, it would have to go through committees and a very length process which will delay it coming to the floor for a vote.

 

[scorcho]

That's not really true. If you're just looking at the # of motions filed, but why is that the best metric?

The # of times cloture was actually invoked is up during that period you cite (104-109). Similarly, the # of times that cloture was voted on (perhaps a proxy for lets call it the 'opposition stubbornness variable') was up and has been inclining significantly over the full time.

it's a small dataset, but that would only be true if one were to disregard the 108th and 109th Senate, which are completely out of line to the rate of increase between 104-107 and 110. disregarding the last two Congresses, one could've also assumed that, though these numbers have increased since the mid 90s, the use or abuse of the filibuster was in relative stasis before Democrats took control of the Senate with a sliver-thin majority that practically begged for obstruction from the opposition party.

See, I feel there is too much politics and not enough thinking these issues through. To me, this is very strong data in support of the position that Washington is broken and that the rules have either been corrupted, due to internal strife or external corruption -- this can be from the effects of corporations, to media and internet causing a feedback loop on selecting for extreme positions.

I'm not sure, but this isn't a a problem of one political party, to claim anything different is indicative of you own preconceived notions.

oh, i won't disagree that there is widespread perversion of procedural rules and a broken government, but i don't believe it's wrong to posit that, of late, Republicans have been more apt to grind government down to a halt for a political agenda.

 

[RustyNails]

Classy as always around here.

A select few hyenas start a frenzy over their mistake, the frenzy becomes the event. Typical Americans, likely typical lives.

Its because your graph is just as biased as yourself. Dont you think the obstructionism by minority party remained at normal levels when Republicans controlled the Senate, yet shot rocket high whenever Democrats controlled them? Check out my trollgraph.

Look at it. Republicans increase the obstructionism and make it the new normal. Democrats almost maintain that "normal" level and during the next cycle, the Republicans increase the obstruction to an even higher new normal. Your shitty graph hides that fact.

 

[Leunam]

Classy as always around here.

You blocked off a chunk of a graph to try and prove your point. This is like the time some gaffer tried to prove that the WTC couldn't have collapsed by omitting a key part of a sentence he quoted from an article I posted.

I lurk this thread all the time but when I see something as awesome as your graph, I'm compelled to post because dumbassery rarely reaches such grotesque levels.

And then you have the nerve to edit your graph even further just to try and slight me and S1lent. :lol

 

[speculawyer]

Of all the intellectual dishonesty I've seen from you, that graph has to take the cake. :lol

"See! It's just an upward trend line

Spoiler

once you block the huge aberration in the data

!"

You've got to be trolling at this point.

Yeah, it is pretty fucking amazing. He always has some excuse for throwing out the data that doesn't fit his point. Unreal.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Here's a better graph:

The way I see it, only Republicans are responsible for making the arrow go up!

:lol @ Troll Statistics

 

[thekad]

Look at it. Republicans increase the obstructionism and make it the new normal. Democrats almost maintain that "normal" level and during the next cycle, the Republicans increase the obstruction to an even higher new normal. Your shitty graph hides that fact.

Actually, his graph doesn't even hide that fact. That's the most embarrassing part.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Say you work with someone you know is gay. He's at working talking with the dudes, some ignorant language flies around ("that's gay/stop acting like a fag bro/etc"), typical douche bag conversation shit. Maybe you have to work with him on a project and ask him if he can meet you after work, and he says something like "sure but it's not a date." That type of stuff

Oh sure, that's easy. I'd do nothing the first time it happened. Then I'd pull him aside and tell him that if I ever hear him say anything like that again that I'd have to let everyone know he's gay. If he just kept to himself and/ or wasn't openly homophobic then I'd do nothing.

Right. Personal lives should be off limits.

But they're OK to legislate against? Because that's what Graham and his ilk do. Target and attack people based on their personal lives.

All bets are off when it's your political opponent. Got it.

I don't give a fuck if it's a Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise. If the politician is working against gay people yet secretly gay, they deserve to be outed.

The point boils down to "Lindsay Graham is a monster so it's justifiable to engage in gutter politics against him." It doesn't even seem to relate to the hypocrisy angle, at least for MF.

Your ability to miss the point is truly dazzling.

 

[RustyNails]

:lol @ Troll Statistics

Troll Statistics can be used to prove anything you want. Just ask bigsicily.

 

[RustyNails]

Actually, his graph doesn't even hide that fact. That's the most embarrassing part.

Yeah I think I gave him a little too much credit there.

 

[speculawyer]

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. I stated just proceeding that:

​

See the colon and how the picture was indented? It's demonstrating what the perspective would have been like from a person at that point-in-time. Thanks though, I'll go back and clarify more.


Although, I think it was pretty clear, so in your words, 'of all the inferior thinking I've seen from you....'

Even your back-up argument fails.

First of all, that line you drew was completely bogus. It went up & down. It did have a big jump at the end . . . but that jump was when the Democrats took over and Republicans acted obstructionist. The point you are supposedly trying to counter? Whoops.


And even if we accept the line . . . what does it show? Oh, the number of cloture motions has gone up . . . so we should keep pushing it every higher! Why? Because of some trend that means it is OK? More people are murdered . . well, I guess that means murder is OK now! Weeee!

 

[BigSicily]

it's a small dataset, but that would only be true if one were to disregard the 108th and 109th Senate, which are completely out of line to the rate of increase between 104-107 and 110. disregarding the last two Congresses, one could've also assumed that, though these numbers have increased since the mid 90s, the use or abuse of the filibuster was in relative stasis before Democrats took control of the Senate with a sliver-thin majority that practically begged for obstruction from the opposition party.

Well, a few things. You never answered my question of:

If you're just looking at the # of motions filed, but why is that the best metric.​

There is a problem with quantifying this, namely that just pointing out motions filed might not tell us anything. If we look at the other two, they don't show the same democratic "statis" that you've coined.

There appears to be less difference between the 100-103 & 104-109 congress than between those and the 97-99th in terms of voted. As for clotures passed, they are basically increasing regularly (which is alarming).

oh, i won't disagree that there is widespread perversion of procedural rules and a broken government, but i don't believe it's wrong to posit that, of late, Republicans have been more apt to grind government down to a halt for a political agenda.

It's easy to say this now, but my point with the previous graph was to show that someone in the previous cycle, standing in their time, would have been able to make the inverse argument against democrats. The linkage that requires some thought (which I won't assume again) is that since this is increasing, there will likely be another point in the not so distant future where the Republicans are again making this argument.

 

[BigSicily]

Even your back-up argument fails.

Alright, lets discuss what you're saying.

First of all, that line you drew was completely bogus. It went up & down. It did have a big jump at the end . . . but that jump was when the Republicans took over and acted obstructionist. The point you are supposedly trying to counter? Whoops.

All real-world data fluctuates, this is derivable from the dynamics of many variable systems.

Yes, all variables increased at the end, but given one point we can't really say much. There is an overall trend upwards, which many here seem to neglect and instead attack the republicans first and foremost over one data point.

This type of analysis you're doing isn't productive. It's not starting with blank data and then arriving at a conclusion: you're starting at the conclusion and then cut and pasting your mechanism to get you there.


The point I was trying to make is if we could erase your memory and plop you back in the 103/104 divide, what would you be saying as your term unfolded? Well, that the number of clotures invoked increased, that the number voted on increased, etc. You could be making a very similar argument. Perspective is important.

If I took away all the political labels and you naively saw this, what could you say about it? Would the supportable conclusion be closer to mine or yours?

And even if we accept the line . . . what does it show? Oh, the number of cloture motions has gone up . . . so we should keep pushing it every higher! Why? Because of some trend that means it is OK? More people are murdered . . well, I guess that means murder is OK now! Weeee!

I never said these things! I just said it was scary how the trend in procedural motions is moving and at what pace. Why must people diminish things and turn everything into a cesspool.

 

[thekad]

If I took away all the political labels and you naively saw this, what could you say about it?

There are moments when the velocity of minority party obstructionism is stilted or reversed and moments when it increases drastically.

That these moments coincide with the changing of a Republican majority to a Democratic majority and vice versa tells the entire story. That you can't admit that fact makes these last two pages unbelievably enjoyable.

 

[scorcho]

Well, a few things. You never answered my question of:

If you're just looking at the # of motions filed, but why is that the best metric.​

There is a problem with quantifying this, namely that just pointing out motions filed might not tell us anything. If we look at the other two, they don't show the same democratic "statis" that you've coined.

There appears to be less difference between the 100-103 & 104-109 congress than between those and the 97-99th in terms of voted. As for clotures passed, they are basically increasing regularly (which is alarming).

i believe you have "statis" in quotes because that word doesn't exist. i typed stasis.

cloture votes actually invoked while Democrats held minority status in the Senate with 43 in the office -

34 - 2005-2006
12 - 2003-2004
34 - 2001-2002
28 - 1999-2000

those numbers don't show a wild swing or jump, hence my view of them in a state of relative equilibrium. but for added fun, here's where it was during Clinton's final term with Democrats still the minority in the Senate -

18 - 1997-1998

you're right on the larger point - all this navel gazing at these numbers obscures the underlying dynamic/context behind them. that said, i still don't see how you could sensibly argue that the last two years aren't outside the norm of the previous decade regardless of the metric.

 

[BigSicily]

There are moments when the velocity of minority party obstructionism is stilted or reversed and moments when it increases drastically.

That these moments coincide with the changing of a Republican majority to a Democratic majority and vice versa tells the entire story. That you can't admit that fact makes these last two pages unbelievably enjoyable.

On what variable? And what does that mean? You're trying to draw general conclusions from data that just doesn't support it. I still haven't seen this answered despite being answered twice:

"If you're just looking at the # of motions filed, but why is that the best metric?"

The last few pages have been "enjoyable" as, and I'm not trying to be patronizing, but the level of analysis from many - not all - is abysmal. You can't just cherry pick your data and go with it: then you're doing what speculawyer sorta did: you're working backwards from a preordained conclusion to a set of initial conditions by pasting in your own logic.

I've asked twice now why Motions Filed is the right variable to look at and for what reason? Why is it superior to the # of times cloture was invoked or #/times it was voted on?

I've offered up something:

The # of times cloture was actually invoked is up during that period you cite (104-109). Similarly, the # of times that cloture was voted on (perhaps a proxy for lets call it the 'opposition stubbornness variable') was up and has been inclining significantly over the full time.

Otherwise, no responses, save scorchio's nice posts. But we have plenty of shit from the usual suspects: RustyNails and you would sure make Wittgenstein proud! :lol :lol

PS. Leunam, if you want I can try again to explain it. PM me.

 

[ViperVisor]

I have a larger problem with the obstructionism being unprincipled. START is an example. A more important example as it was defeated the Dream Act and Orrin Hatch.

Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - August 3, 2001

Hatch goal: Give illegal immigrants a DREAM, Act would help with college and residency

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, wants to help illegal immigrant children attend college in America -- and to earn permanent U.S. residency if they graduate.He introduced this week what he calls the DREAM Act

Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - October 24, 2007

Senate to consider DREAM Act again

Supported it for years, but not now?

Hatch was also on board with diet Obamacare aka what the GOP counter plan was in 1993 but now it is unacceptable.

 

[thekad]

You don't know what cloture is, do you?

 

[speculawyer]

All real-world data fluctuates, this is derivable from the dynamics of many variable systems.
Yes, all variables increased at the end, but given one point we can't really say much. There is an overall trend upwards, which many here seem to neglect and instead attack the republicans first and foremost over one data point.

1) This is not random data with measurement error bars. These are integer counts of things done by humans. The humans have the ability to look at what they are doing and change their behavior based on the data.
2) I disagree. It is not just an upward trend.

This type of analysis you're doing isn't productive. It's not starting with blank data and then arriving at a conclusion: you're starting at the conclusion and then cut and pasting your mechanism to get you there.

Wat? No, I'm just looking at the data and stating conclusions from the data. And the R & D is part of the data. Just because you seem to want to ignore that data doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

The point I was trying to make is if we could erase your memory and plop you back in the 103rd congress, what would you be saying as your term unfolded? Well, that the number of clotures invoked increased, that the number voted on increased, etc. You could be making a very similar argument. Perspective is important.

Well, it would depend if you were in the majority or not. Apparently if you were a Republican in the minority, you'd say "Hey . . . let's keep being obstructionist dicks! No one is complaining." If you were in the Dem majority, you'd say . . . "what obstructionist dicks they are being.

If I took away all the political labels and you naively saw this, what could you say about it? Would the supportable conclusion be closer to mine or yours?

So we are back to deleting the data we don't like. :lol

I never said these things! I just said it was scary how the trend in procedural motions is moving and at what pace. Why must people diminish things and turn everything into a cesspool.

Yes . . . it is fucked up. But you are being willfully blind if you are going to just spread the blame evenly as you seem to want to. There is only a single time when the Dems exceeded a previous GOP high . . . and they went lower in later years.

 

[leroy hacker]

Why are people still talking to BigSicily as though he is anything more than a troll after he posted that graph? Could he have been any more explicit that he's not interested in a serious debate? If you give someone like him attention it will only encourage him. Arguing that he's wrong obviously won't move him, since if he cared about facts he wouldn't use such a graph as evidence. Just ignore him.

 

[BigSicily]

you're right on the larger point - all this navel gazing at these numbers obscures the underlying dynamic/context behind them. that said, i still don't see how you could sensibly argue that the last two years aren't outside the norm of the previous decade regardless of the metric.

Ohh, no. I'm not disagreeing that the numbers are increasing! Of course they are. See, my point is that they're increasing and that it's part of a system that is broken, has been broken and will only get worse. That at any point (more-or-less) one could reflect and note that it's getting worse and make the same types of arguments being made now about how bad it is.

Given this, I was hoping some would note the general trend, use some predictive power to make the logical jump that it will likely continue to be this bad and that comment like this one that I replied to, setting this off:

Record-breaking Republican obstructionism.

Really aren't new and won't be the last time it's said (by either party!). Yet, work gets done and the band-plays-on.

 

[WickedAngel]

I find this a cop-out for any substantive answer. It's the left's default boogieman answer: When unsure, check here []

As opposed to the Right's "When cornered, pretend the obstructionism isn't happening."

 

[BigSicily]

As opposed to the Right's "When cornered, pretend the obstructionism isn't happening."

You're absolutely right. Don't assume I'm defending Republicans actions. Plenty of blame for the last 50 years to go around.

So we are back to deleting the data we don't like. :lol

This is annoying. I wasn't deleting data, I clearly stated that it was to show the perspective of that a person following the 103/104th congressional turn-over with no a priori knowledge about what's to come.

1) This is not random data with measurement error bars. These are integer counts of things done by humans. The humans have the ability to look at what they are doing and change their behavior based on the data.
2) I disagree. It is not just an upward trend.

(1) Err. Think about it, the sample size changes per congress (# of bills), thus the # cloture fluctuates assuming a constant proportion. Data needs to be massaged, sans ability to normalize, we talk in generalities about the fluctuating data set.
(2) Ok, good opinion?! haha

Well, it would depend if you were in the majority or not. Apparently if you were a Republican in the minority, you'd say "Hey . . . let's keep being obstructionist dicks! No one is complaining." If you were in the Dem majority, you'd say . . . "what obstructionist dicks they are being.

That's partially my point. And as the congress went on, the Republican would see the democrats forcing even more cloture votes! So the roles reverse!

The point is that given the steady and underlying rate-of-change, both sides can play the game of saying it's an unprecedented # of cloture votes they're forced to endure, etc.

Why are people still talking to BigSicily as though he is anything more than a troll after he posted that graph? Could he have been more explicit that he's not interested in a serious debate? If you give someone like him attention it will only encourage him.

Uh, I'm not. If you need help in understanding why I posted it like that (also explained in 2nd reply here), please PM me before making such statements.

 

[kkaabboomm]

Republicans in the Senate have filed an amendment to a sweeping defense authorization bill that would require the four military service chiefs to be part of the certification process called for in the bill that repeals the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ove-to-block-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?hp

silly GOP...

update: blocked. silly NYT, not being completely up to date...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1210/Lastditch_McConnell_dont_ask_amendment_blocked.html#

A last-ditch effort by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to complicate the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was blocked Tuesday night after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) objected, Senate aides said.

 

[rohlfinator]

 

[Dude Abides]

But they're OK to legislate against? Because that's what Graham and his ilk do. Target and attack people based on their personal lives.

No they aren't ok to legislate against. They're disgusting. But why is it ok to out people who have disgusting politics? I don't recall Graham outing anyone. You're drawing an equivalence between bigoted legislation and playing dirty pool about a particular politician's sex life that I disagree with and you simply haven't justified.

I don't give a fuck if it's a Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise. If the politician is working against gay people yet secretly gay, they deserve to be outed.

So I've characterized your position accurately. Against those who oppose gay equality (i.e. your political opponents), it's ok to engage in gutter politics. I'm trying to find out why you think that's in-bounds but I suspect you haven't thought about it any more deeply based on your apparent inability to grasp the question.

Your ability to miss the point is truly dazzling.

Yours isn't.

 

[Ember128]

This is annoying. I wasn't deleting data, I clearly stated that it was to show the perspective of that a person following the 103/104th congressional turn-over with no a priori knowledge about what's to come.

The point is that given the steady and underlying rate-of-change, both sides can play the game of saying it's an unprecedented # of cloture votes they're forced to endure, etc.



Uh, I'm not. If you need help in understanding why I posted it like that (also explained in 2nd reply here), please PM me before making such statements.

Red Herring.

If you were at a certain point in time? Yea. However, when not used in such a selective manner as you did, it shows otherwise.

We are in 2010 now, but someone with no a priori knowledge of budget deficits in 2000 would show that the economy was improving vastly, and that the deficit was eliminated under Clinton!

But if the subject is how the budget deficit and the debt is doing over time, selectively using data like that at best deceptive.

 

[Mercury Fred]

No they aren't ok to legislate against. They're disgusting. But why is it ok to out people who have disgusting politics? I don't recall Graham outing anyone. You're drawing an equivalence between bigoted legislation and playing dirty pool about a particular politician's sex life that I disagree with and you simply haven't justified.

Wow, really?

Someone legislates "morality" yet they engage in the behavior that they demonize people for because it violates their purported ethical code and you don't see the problem with it?

Graham voted to deny gay people the right to adopt. To simply build a fucking family. And he's going to go and suck cock on the side and get his ass fucked and then stand in front of cameras and talk about how gay people don't deserve to raise kids and then vote that way. And you don't see the problem? And you're calling outing gutter politics?

 

[mckmas8808]

No they aren't ok to legislate against. They're disgusting. But why is it ok to out people who have disgusting politics? I don't recall Graham outing anyone. You're drawing an equivalence between bigoted legislation and playing dirty pool about a particular politician's sex life that I disagree with and you simply haven't justified.



So I've characterized your position accurately. Against those who oppose gay equality (i.e. your political opponents), it's ok to engage in gutter politics. I'm trying to find out why you think that's in-bounds but I suspect you haven't thought about it any more deeply based on your apparent inability to grasp the question.



Yours isn't.

I guess point Mercury might be making is that it's not gutter politics if you just tell the truth about an individual. And I agree with him. If Lindsay is so anti-gay about policy issues, yet is gay himself then why is it bad to let the truth be known about him.

 

[Dude Abides]

Wow, really?

Someone legislates "morality" yet they engage in the behavior that they demonize people for because it violates their purported ethical code and you don't see the problem with it?

Graham voted to deny gay people the right to adopt. To simply build a fucking family. And he's going to go and suck cock on the side and get his ass fucked and then stand in front of cameras and talk about how gay people don't deserve to raise kids and then vote that way. And you don't see the problem? And you're calling outing gutter politics?

I think there is a distinction between attacking a politician's public life and his/her private life, and the former is fair game while the latter is generally not, at least as far as sexual orientation goes. I don't know how I can explain it any clearer to you.

 

[BigSicily]

Red Herring.

If you were at a certain point in time? Yea. However, when not used in such a selective manner as you did, it shows otherwise.

We are in 2010 now, but someone with no a priori knowledge of budget deficits in 2000 would show that the economy was improving vastly, and that the deficit was eliminated under Clinton!

But if the subject is how the budget deficit and the debt is doing over time, selectively using data like that at best deceptive.

Hmm. Let me explain it like this:

A persons biological age is always increasing. Your 40, wake up on your birthday, roll over to your wife and comment on how f-in old you are, you don't know how you'll be able to get any work done over the next year. She reminds you that back when you were 25 and first met, you looked back on your age said the exact same thing to her: yet work still got done. The inferred message that she needs to explain out is that you maybe getting physiologically older faster relative to the chronological years, but you'll still get some work done for awhile longer yet.


Now, we replace [work] with [START], birthday's with congressional flips, and the typical dumb american TV show husband with neogaf. My contention is also that both parties are at fault, which is true from the data and true from a more logical PoV: the global number is increasing because bothsides are increasing the # of cloture votes needed (or at best stabilizing their usage of other variables [ie. dems in filed motions/recent period]). This is, as I stated, a virtual-arms race which will result in gridlock or reform.


Your comment on the use of a priori knowledge puzzles me. I'm sorry, but I'm not 100% sure how you're trying to utilize it: the point of blocking out or erasing the data was to clarify what it would be like for a person at that time. It's analogous to us, here, today. It just makes it easier to visualize: but people are more interested in attacking and making stupid jokes than trying to understand and forwarding the discussion.

The budget deficit example is confusing as you wouldn't do that in analysis. It would be used as a component in counterfactual work on what lead one to make a decision or line-of-thinking at that time: which is broadly similar to what I was trying to accomplish.

 

[Byakuya769]

I think there is a distinction between attacking a politician's public life and his/her private life, and the former is fair game while the latter is generally not, at least as far as sexual orientation goes. I don't know how I can explain it any clearer to you.

If some morality warrior was talking about the evils of extra-marital sex while fucking off on his wife on a Bill Clinton level, would that be fair game?

 

[Mercury Fred]

I think there is a distinction between attacking a politician's public life and his/her private life, and the former is fair game while the latter is generally not, at least as far as sexual orientation goes. I don't know how I can explain it any clearer to you.

It becomes fair game the moment the politician legislates "morality." And since there's no logical or reasonable reason to deny gay people equality, people like Graham fall back on some kind of elusive concept of morality as their excuse to fuck over gay people. And yet we see that the only reason they have doesn't even exist. So, why should we support their closet again?

Side note, outed anti-gay California state senator Roy Ashburn has slowly been coming around to supporting gay equality since being outed.