Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:36:18 -0500, Matthew and Julie Bos
> On 11/30/04 4:34 PM, "William T Goodall" <wtg@...> wrote:5 here. They need more rating variety. I wanna be something like
> >>> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html>
> >> I did, and got.
> >> 16 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
> > I did too!
> > 10 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
> I got a 24 which is also "high-grade non-homophobic"
"über 1337 non-homophobic". :-)
- On Dec 5, 2004, at 3:12 PM, JDG wrote:
> At 09:50 AM 12/3/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:Neither, because those weren't straw men -- those were the content of
>> What John did was a textbook straw man. Easy to knock down, but
>> just as easy to recognize for what it is.
> Tell me Dave, what precisely was the straw man? The part about "so
> begins...."? Or maybe the "payback" part?
the original message in the thread, in which the phrase "So it
begins..." announced the commencement of minority Christian
conservatives' demands for a "payback" for having reportedly swung the
vote in GWB's favor. Let's review... On Thu Dec 2 19:16:14 PST 2004,
> No... but I am also saying that the minority has no right to expectIt was the addition of the *quoted* phrase "the Coming of Shadows" that
> their policies should remain in effect, and that the policies of
> participants in the majority coalition should not be effected. That
> process is not "payback" and it is not "the Coming of Shadows", it is
> natural outcome of the electoral process we just conducted.
had a strawmanly look to it. You used it in a way that both Warren and I
(at minimum) interpreted as an attempt to pose it as a quote from the
earlier discussion with which you disagred. Perhaps I misinterpreted
your intentions. If so, I apologize. If not, I've already called it out
for what it is.
As to the substance of this debate, I disagree with your statement that
"the minority has no right to expect that their policies should remain
We don't overthrow the government every four years. The minority has the
right to expect that their policies will be given the same consideration
as the policies of the majority coalition: if they look like they will
lead to a better, safer life for more Americans than competing policies,
then they should remain in effect. If they look like they will weaken
and impoverish more Americans than competing policies, then they should
be replaced with policies that improve our lot.
Moreover, it's not as though Bush and company won by a landslide. They
achieved the barest majority, which a reasonable person might view as an
opening for reaching out to the minority, in order to widen one's
majority next time out. They have won the privilege of setting the tone
for the coming four years.
Will they choose to reach out and invite the rest of the country to join
them, or will they call them "losers" and toughen their resolve to
become the winners next time? Do they want "one America" or two? Do they
want an environment of conflict and retribution, or one of unity and
I think *that* is the concern of the originally-posted article.