Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

How will the Republicans spin this?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How will the Republicans spin this?

    The race in the 8th district is getting pretty crazy between the incumbent John Hostettler (R) and the challenger Brad Ellsworth (D).

    They have been trying to paint Ellsworth as a liberal and failed. Now there attack ads have gone the other way. They say the election is not about what kind of candidate Ellsworth is, but rather what kind of candidates Hill Clinton and N.Polosi are? Because a vote for Ellsworth is the same as voting for liberal democrats.

    Politics truly is a dirty game. No wonder many Americans are just fed up with them all.


    Waiting to see how the spin machine somehow attacks the Ellsworth pledge.


    http://www.wthitv.com/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=52448

    Ellsworth Pledge

    National debt these days is $8.4 trillion. Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth says it increases over $1.5 billion per day. With the national debt growing, congressional salaries have increased too! The increase in pay is something Ellsworth is willing to forego and donate if elected.

    "I wanna pledge today that I will vote to block any pay raise for the United States Congress until such a time that the budget is balanced," said Brad Ellsworth, (D) Congressional Candidate.

    Ellsworth went on to say if elected and still can't prevent a pay raise, he pledges to donate any pay raise Congress may receive to a deserving charity in the 8th district.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

  • #2
    Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

    I think donating it to charity is the best option.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

      RWB, politics is a dirty game. But the truth is, Ellsworth is running in that (fairly conservative) district not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Thus he has ads I have seen which proclaim that he is pro-life, pro-second amendment and a fiscal conservative. That is fine, he might be every conservative's favorite Democrat based on his views, but it is also true that if he is elected he will be the odd man out in his own party on some very critical issues. Do 8th district voters want to send a guy to Washington who is so out of step with the overwhelming consensus of his own party on such issues?

      Like it or not, it is a fair question for 8th district voters who are conservative to ask the question suggested by those ads: why should we vote for Ellsworth when Hostettler votes the same way, but if I vote for Ellsworth I might also get Pelosi and Conyers and an extremely liberal congress? The 8th district liberals are going Ellsworth's way no matter what, but it is the conservative voter he is trying to pick up. What is wrong with pointing out that, if you want conservative policies nationally, you are taking a huge risk in voting Ellsworth over Hostettler? That part of it isn't dirty politics at all, it is a common sense way of pointing out to people who like but might not love Hostettler that there might be other things at stake too.

      Incidentally, the Dems make such arguments too, and worse -- what was your view of them substituting Lautenberg for the corrupt Torricelli as the Dem senate candidate in NJ a few weeks before the election a few years back, but only after Torricelli's late-exposed corruption resulted in the Republican candidate overtaking him in the polls? Why is that sort of thing -- a naked power grab, illegal under NJ election law, but blessed by a Dem-controlled NJ Supreme Court -- okay for Dems interested in majority control of the Senate, but pointing out not crimes but ideological differences is somehow wrong in a House race in Indiana? I can come up with additional examples if you wish.

      Nor would it be unfair or dirty politics for someone to ask Ellsworth the question the media is giving him a pass on, "if you believe in these things, how can you call yourself a Democrat rather than a Republican?"

      Now, I know there are some Democrats who are pro-life, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but I suspect even they would agree that their party is overwhelmingly in opposition to their views on that topic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

        Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
        Nor would it be unfair or dirty politics for someone to ask Ellsworth the question the media is giving him a pass on, "if you believe in these things, how can you call yourself a Democrat rather than a Republican?"

        Now, I know there are some Democrats who are pro-life, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but I suspect even they would agree that their party is overwhelmingly in opposition to their views on that topic.

        Bat, I have no problem with questions raised about any candidate. For me it becomes a problem when the truth is distorted and that goes for all parties.

        I also really hate that we have become a nation of labels. As you have pointed out the Democrats' platform is on the other side of the abortion issue. Once again because of scare tatics from both sides of the aisle the majority suffer. I have never met a Democrat who liked abortion. I have met a few who are dead set against any kind of control, but know many more who would like a compromise on time. Same as the gun issue with the label that all Republicans want zero restrictions and that everyone should have one. Yep, there are some who's rallying cry "pry it from my old dead cold hand" get the majority of ink, but once again there are more Republicans that do believe there should be some restrictions in Cop Killer bullets and a waiting period to do back ground checks.

        I hate how everything has to be an extreme for both sides. Both sides mess up, they make mistakes, save the *****ing for the important things. And I'm just a guilty, such as complaining about the 7 minute issue with the President in the other thread. On that same note other than a moral issue we didn't really need to know Bill Clinton got something on the side.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

          Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
          RWB, politics is a dirty game. But the truth is, Ellsworth is running in that (fairly conservative) district not as a liberal, but as a conservative. Thus he has ads I have seen which proclaim that he is pro-life, pro-second amendment and a fiscal conservative. That is fine, he might be every conservative's favorite Democrat based on his views, but it is also true that if he is elected he will be the odd man out in his own party on some very critical issues. Do 8th district voters want to send a guy to Washington who is so out of step with the overwhelming consensus of his own party on such issues?

          Like it or not, it is a fair question for 8th district voters who are conservative to ask the question suggested by those ads: why should we vote for Ellsworth when Hostettler votes the same way, but if I vote for Ellsworth I might also get Pelosi and Conyers and an extremely liberal congress? The 8th district liberals are going Ellsworth's way no matter what, but it is the conservative voter he is trying to pick up. What is wrong with pointing out that, if you want conservative policies nationally, you are taking a huge risk in voting Ellsworth over Hostettler? That part of it isn't dirty politics at all, it is a common sense way of pointing out to people who like but might not love Hostettler that there might be other things at stake too.

          Incidentally, the Dems make such arguments too, and worse -- what was your view of them substituting Lautenberg for the corrupt Torricelli as the Dem senate candidate in NJ a few weeks before the election a few years back, but only after Torricelli's late-exposed corruption resulted in the Republican candidate overtaking him in the polls? Why is that sort of thing -- a naked power grab, illegal under NJ election law, but blessed by a Dem-controlled NJ Supreme Court -- okay for Dems interested in majority control of the Senate, but pointing out not crimes but ideological differences is somehow wrong in a House race in Indiana? I can come up with additional examples if you wish.

          Nor would it be unfair or dirty politics for someone to ask Ellsworth the question the media is giving him a pass on, "if you believe in these things, how can you call yourself a Democrat rather than a Republican?"

          Now, I know there are some Democrats who are pro-life, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but I suspect even they would agree that their party is overwhelmingly in opposition to their views on that topic.
          Ahh yes, because we wouldn't want someone thinking they could get elected using a platform that pulls the best elements from both parties, leave all that partisan extremism behind, and in the process represent the core ideals of the majority of Americans now would we?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

            Originally posted by travmil View Post
            Ahh yes, because we wouldn't someone thinking they could get elected using a platform that pulls the best elements from both parties, leave all that partisan extremism behind, and in the process represent the core ideals of the majority of Americans now would we?
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

              In California the ad against Arnold I see the most is one highlighting his speech in Ohio where he campaigned for Bush. As if supporting the canidate in his party made him unfit for office.

              It isn't a dem or rep thing. It is unfortunately an American thing.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                Bat, I have no problem with questions raised about any candidate. For me it becomes a problem when the truth is distorted and that goes for all parties.

                I also really hate that we have become a nation of labels. As you have pointed out the Democrats' platform is on the other side of the abortion issue. Once again because of scare tatics from both sides of the aisle the majority suffer. I have never met a Democrat who liked abortion. I have met a few who are dead set against any kind of control, but know many more who would like a compromise on time. Same as the gun issue with the label that all Republicans want zero restrictions and that everyone should have one. Yep, there are some who's rallying cry "pry it from my old dead cold hand" get the majority of ink, but once again there are more Republicans that do believe there should be some restrictions in Cop Killer bullets and a waiting period to do back ground checks.

                I hate how everything has to be an extreme for both sides. Both sides mess up, they make mistakes, save the *****ing for the important things. And I'm just a guilty, such as complaining about the 7 minute issue with the President in the other thread. On that same note other than a moral issue we didn't really need to know Bill Clinton got something on the side.
                Good points, RWB. I especially agree that, for better or worse, we have become a nation that deals in labels (or in shorthand summarizing of people's beliefs, as if their beliefs are bumper sticker slogans). Alas, the reason that this has occurred is that, even though not 100% accurate, there is nonetheless a great deal of truth in the technique.

                If you are an ambitious young Democrat who wants to run for political office as a Democrat, your chances of getting your party's support are significantly diminished if you do not toe the party's platform on every major issue. In this example, it means that if you do not support abortion rights, or some other controversial issue, you eventually will find yourself unwelcome in your party. At least on the topic of abortion -- recall that Governor Casey of PA, an anti-abortion Dem, was forbidden from speaking at the 1988 National Convention. (The Republicans do the same thing -- liberal Republicans are generally not showcased before conservative audiences on gay rights, pro-abortion and similar positions).

                That is really the point of the Ellsworth ads. If he really is a conservative on those major issues, which is exactly what he is claiming to the fairly conservative electorate, what is he doing running as a Democrat in this day and time, where these very contentious issues are virtually articles of faith. I'm struggling putting my thoughts on this one into print, but I think they include this: I am distrustful of Ellsworth, and of his invoking and wrapping himself in traditionally conservative issues, yet running as a Democrat. If he truly believes what he says, then he is out of step with over 90% of his party. Maybe he truly is a conservative Democrat, but maybe he is truly a liberal who is seeking to defeat a Republican, Hostettler, who is regarded as very weak and a good target for a Democrat who can pick off some of his conservative base. If that is what he is doing, then he is being dishonest about his intentions, and it is certainly fair game to look beyond him to Pelosi, et al in the House leadership.

                Again, the same phenomenon holds for Republicans who buck their party's platform on any number of contentious issues, but I return to the earlier point: labelling is often used because it contains a great deal of truth, and is an effective shorthand in political campaigns.

                You wrote an intriguing statement: "I never met a Democrat who liked abortion." I don't quite know what you mean. Do you mean that everyone, including Democrats, finds the procedure distasteful, perhaps sees it only as a necessary evil but do not literally "like" it? Or do you mean that you never met a Democrat who supports abortion rights? If it is the former, which I suspect you meant, my question is "how does that matter?" If the Democrats ardently support and campaign for and raise money for and render unqualified support for a procedure that, they profess they don't "like," how is that supposed to move me? How does that fact persuade me that I should support them?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  Ahh yes, because we wouldn't want someone thinking they could get elected using a platform that pulls the best elements from both parties, leave all that partisan extremism behind, and in the process represent the core ideals of the majority of Americans now would we?
                  C'mon TM. You can do better than this. "The best elements from both parties?" What does that mean? The parties disagree for serious and profound reasons. You seem to want to believe that there is a magical middle ground of issues, where the "core ideals" of the majority of Americans lay. Name one contentious, "partisan extreme" issue that you contend is suitable for your sanctified middle of the road. I don't see it.

                  We were talking about abortion rights, and Ellsworth claiming he is pro life. Take that example, and tell us where abortion fits in either party's platform, and how you can frame that issue so that it "pulls the best elements from both parties?" It cannot be done for that issue, as it cannot be done for a lot of issues. Ideas are serious things and arguments must be persuasive to succeed. Show me a politician who simply wants to compromise on great moral issues, and I'll show you a politician I will not vote for. Don't take abortion, take something less contentious -- tax policy, social spending, military defense, keep going. These too, sooner or later, are great moral issues.

                  I am not saying there cannot be compromise. Our system is built on compromise. I am saying that there is not -- as you seem to suggest -- some special nobility in the luke warm middle. We can argue about and compromise on budgets, the scope of laws, etc., but we are not more noble for compromising, and we are not less noble for refusing to compromise on great moral issues.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                    Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                    C'mon TM. You can do better than this. "The best elements from both parties?" What does that mean? The parties disagree for serious and profound reasons. You seem to want to believe that there is a magical middle ground of issues, where the "core ideals" of the majority of Americans lay. Name one contentious, "partisan extreme" issue that you contend is suitable for your sanctified middle of the road. I don't see it.

                    We were talking about abortion rights, and Ellsworth claiming he is pro life. Take that example, and tell us where abortion fits in either party's platform, and how you can frame that issue so that it "pulls the best elements from both parties?" It cannot be done for that issue, as it cannot be done for a lot of issues. Ideas are serious things and arguments must be persuasive to succeed. Show me a politician who simply wants to compromise on great moral issues, and I'll show you a politician I will not vote for. Don't take abortion, take something less contentious -- tax policy, social spending, military defense, keep going. These too, sooner or later, are great moral issues.

                    I am not saying there cannot be compromise. Our system is built on compromise. I am saying that there is not -- as you seem to suggest -- some special nobility in the luke warm middle. We can argue about and compromise on budgets, the scope of laws, etc., but we are not more noble for compromising, and we are not less noble for refusing to compromise on great moral issues.
                    Our "system" was built on compromise? What "system"? If you're referring to the two party "system", that's your system, not mine, and not America's. It's a convenient agreement between two fat cat establishments in order to maintain their dominance. It's also the natural evolution when there's no salary cap in place, just ask the Yankess and Nascar.

                    Regardless, don't paint the two party system like it's in the constitution. There was a time when the Whigs were a very powerful political party

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      Our "system" was built on compromise? What "system"? If you're referring to the two party "system", that's your system, not mine, and not America's. It's a convenient agreement between two fat cat establishments in order to maintain their dominance. It's also the natural evolution when there's no salary cap in place, just ask the Yankess and Nascar.

                      Regardless, don't paint the two party system like it's in the constitution. There was a time when the Whigs were a very powerful political party
                      Try to keep up, Eindar. If our constitutional form of government (our "system") was not built on compromise, what exactly ere our Founding Fathers arguing about at the Constitutional Convention? What was the big deal whether the states would remain sovereign or there would be a centralized confederation? What were the Federalist Papers supposed to do? Convince a bunch of fat cats that they had no need for checks and balances? That there was no need for three branches of government? That there was no need for two houses, representing similar but different blocks of constituencies, in congress? Its simple: sharing power means compromising. That is our system, it was explicitly designed that way, and temporary domination by one political faction over another (say, the Democratic Party from the 30s to the 50s, or the Republican Party for much of the last decade) does not in any way suggest that there is no necessity for compromise -- you are confusing the point. The fact that there are different factions, represented by political parties, doesn't eliminate compromise as a necessary means of doing the peoples' business (whether you want to characterize them as fat cats or not).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                        Bat, when you said it looked like Hostettler looked weak it appears you had a direct hit on that one.

                        http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_...269230415.html


                        Hostettler campaign dismisses ISU poll

                        Campaign official notes other polls show slimmer margins in 8th District race

                        By Austin Arceo
                        The Tribune-Star

                        TERRE HAUTE — A member of U.S. Rep. John Hostettler’s re-election campaign dismissed a poll conducted by Indiana State University that showed the Republican incumbent trailing his Democratic challenger by more than 15 points.

                        The poll, commissioned by the Evansville Courier & Press newspaper, indicated that more than 47 percent of 602 registered voters polled within the 8th District preferred Democrat Brad Ellsworth, compared with a reported 31.8 percent for Hostettler.

                        Stan Barringer, the Hostettler campaign’s research director, noted that the Courier & Press refused to release the questions asked to respondents when the poll was conducted between Sept. 6-21. He added that Hostettler’s campaign office has received calls from poll respondents concerned with the questions.

                        “Well, it makes a big difference [in the poll’s viability] because the Courier is claiming this is not a ‘push’ poll, which is a method of polling that [asks] forceful, opinionated questions,” Barringer said, “but stories we’ve heard by people who were polled by Indiana State were that some of the questions were forceful.”

                        But J. Bruce Baumann, editor for the Courier & Press, said that the Evansville newspaper did not release the questions because the newspaper is writing articles on people’s responses all week, and the newspaper did not want to “scoop themselves.”

                        He added that the questions were relatively straightforward. In a question for the poll on people’s responses to terrorism as a political issue, Baumann said that respondents replied to the statement, “A candidate’s view on fighting terrorism at home is:” by choosing one of five answers that ranged from “very important” to “not at all important” as a reason to vote for Ellsworth or Hostettler. Fourteen people out of 602 said they didn’t know or refused to answer, which were not listed options to respondents.

                        Baumann added that another statement poll respondents replied to was, “A candidate’s view on fighting terrorism abroad is:” with five choices ranging from “very important” to “not at all important.”

                        “We’ve got nothing to hide here,” Baumann said. “We’re very concerned about what the voters are thinking about.”

                        While Barringer questioned the methodologies of the ISU poll, he referenced two different polls — a WISH-TV Indiana poll and a poll conducted by Majority Watch — as more “viable” polls, since both polls have released “all the relevant information.” The polls indicated a much smaller lead for Ellsworth, who is Vanderburgh County sheriff.

                        Barringer noted that, in both polls, Ellsworth’s lead was greater than the polls’ margin of error.

                        Matt Weisman, the communications director for Ellsworth’s campaign, said that the campaign does not comment on polls.

                        ISU political science professor James L. McDowell, who was not involved with the poll for the Courier & Press, noted that the margin between the two candidates is larger than expected, but many different things could happen before Election Day.

                        “I think the margin is going to be much closer than the poll indicates,” McDowell said, “but I don’t have a firm grip yet on what’s likely to happen six weeks from now.”
                        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I think donating it to charity is the best option.
                          I would say the best option is no pay raise at all for Congress until a plan is in place to stop the accumulation of more annual debt.

                          Accepting pay raises and then giving them to charity is a tried-and-true political ploy designed to protect individual members of a fiscally irresponsible Congress.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                            Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                            Try to keep up, Eindar. If our constitutional form of government (our "system") was not built on compromise, what exactly ere our Founding Fathers arguing about at the Constitutional Convention? What was the big deal whether the states would remain sovereign or there would be a centralized confederation? What were the Federalist Papers supposed to do? Convince a bunch of fat cats that they had no need for checks and balances? That there was no need for three branches of government? That there was no need for two houses, representing similar but different blocks of constituencies, in congress? Its simple: sharing power means compromising. That is our system, it was explicitly designed that way, and temporary domination by one political faction over another (say, the Democratic Party from the 30s to the 50s, or the Republican Party for much of the last decade) does not in any way suggest that there is no necessity for compromise -- you are confusing the point. The fact that there are different factions, represented by political parties, doesn't eliminate compromise as a necessary means of doing the peoples' business (whether you want to characterize them as fat cats or not).
                            You could have stopped after the first 11 words, the first 5 of which were a personal attack.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: How will the Republicans spin this?

                              Just an update poll by WHTI on the race in the 8th. Yes I know Terre Haute is a democrat town, but I still didn't expect this.

                              http://www.wthitv.com/actvote.cfm

                              QUESTION: Which candidate do you intend to vote for in the 8th Congressional District race in Indiana?

                              876 total votes.

                              ANSWERS:
                              1. John Hostettler (R) 25.23 %
                              2. Brad Ellsworth (D) 74.77 %
                              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X