5 ms·

Finally somebody I can get behind; we need to get this guy into office. Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today? Is it useful

Finally somebody I can get behind; we need to get this guy into office. Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today? Is it useful for politicians or would it completely backfire, where any opposition would try to say "You are quoted as being pro-alcohol: calling it the philosophic wine" or "anti-alcohol, calling it the devil's brew" and pick the paragraph that suits their needs?

jerf 14y ago
"Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today?" The whole debt debate. If by spending you mean crippling debt being left to our children, interest paid to furreiners, etc etc, it's bad and everyone who supports it is bad. If by spending, you mean the concrete things that we are spending money on, of course this specific thing is so wonderful that it's worth it and anyone who says otherwise is bad, and in fact I may I just go out on a limb and say that we need more of this sort of spending. (Lest you think I'm being partisan here, there's a very clear pattern in the last 20 years on which party in the US wants to spend, and which party wants to cut, and it's not D/R or liberal/conservative in either direction. The pattern is that the majority party wants to spend, and the minority party wants to cut. One can not help but cynically observe that what really bothers the minority party is majority's successful ladling out of the pork for patronage to the other guy's constituents, rather than any sort of real offense about spending. And thus, to be clear, the reason I chose this as my example is that you can find instances of the same individual giving both halves of this speech, playing both sides of the argument, separated by about a decade and one flip of the majority party.)
- twoodfin 14y ago
  The minority party certainly did not want to cut from, say, 2002-2004. If anything, the dynamic was just the opposite: Stimulus bills didn't have enough "state aid". Medicare Part D had a miserly donut hole. Special education was being woefully shortchanged if the Federal government didn't honor its "promise" to pick up 100% of the cost. Oh, and don't forget that we weren't spending enough on body armor and the VA. I think your theory needs tuning.
  - jerf 14y ago
    Pity Google doesn't have a "please just let me search in 2003" mode. Democrats got tons of mileage out of Bush-era deficit complaints, though. I'm pretty comfortable with my general thesis.
    - prattmic 14y ago
      Try the "Custom range..." under "Time". https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2003%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2003&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&#...
thisone 14y ago
You can find some of these types of arguments when reading opinions on the death penalty, gun control, and abortion. The arguments aren't always doublespeak I'd say. You can very well be for something, given a set of circumstances, but against the same thing, given a different set of circumstances. The political problem I'd say, is figuring out how to separate, or even if you can separate, the "bad circumstances" from the "good circumstances"
cabinguy 14y ago
This exactly describes the gun debate going on today. Is it a terrorist or a freedom fighter? = Is it an assault weapon or a rifle?
- chrisrhoden 14y ago
  I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Assault weapon is a strictly legal term which refers to a specific subset of the category we refer to as rifles. The word rifle usually brings to mind a class of weapons that were specifically not covered by the assault weapons ban. A more apt analogy would be Religious Conservative : Taliban :: Rifle : Assault Rifle My point being that, in this case, it's not simply a matter of perspective. Now, if the debate were much more polarized, one could see something like Terrorist : Freedom Fighter :: Murder Machine : 2nd Amendment Rights
  - sp332 14y ago
    Lately, "assault" weapons are (legally) characterized by the amount of ammo they can hold. For example this 30-round magazine is illegal no matter which gun you put it in, whereas the same gun with a different-sized magazine may well be legal. http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-30-round-magazine-on-tv-matter-is-under-investigation-by-police/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-3...
    - AngryParsley 14y ago
      Magazine restrictions are a separate law in most states. California has an assault weapon ban which restricts features such a pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and flash hiders. They have another law restricting the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Old magazines are grandfathered in, so you can use them in legal rifles. It looks like the law is similar in DC. Possession of a magazine with >10 round capacity is a crime. Other firearm laws are irrelevant to the case you linked to.
      - sp332 14y ago
abuiles 14y ago
haha I was wondering about this too, I actually asked in quora http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-of-the-if-by-whiskey-fallacy http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-o...

jerf 14y ago

"Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today?" The whole debt debate. If by spending you mean crippling debt being left to our children, interest paid to furreiners, etc etc, it's bad and everyone who supports it is bad. If by spending, you mean the concrete things that we are spending money on, of course this specific thing is so wonderful that it's worth it and anyone who says otherwise is bad, and in fact I may I just go out on a limb and say that we need more of this sort of spending. (Lest you think I'm being partisan here, there's a very clear pattern in the last 20 years on which party in the US wants to spend, and which party wants to cut, and it's not D/R or liberal/conservative in either direction. The pattern is that the majority party wants to spend, and the minority party wants to cut. One can not help but cynically observe that what really bothers the minority party is majority's successful ladling out of the pork for patronage to the other guy's constituents, rather than any sort of real offense about spending. And thus, to be clear, the reason I chose this as my example is that you can find instances of the same individual giving both halves of this speech, playing both sides of the argument, separated by about a decade and one flip of the majority party.)

twoodfin 14y ago
The minority party certainly did not want to cut from, say, 2002-2004. If anything, the dynamic was just the opposite: Stimulus bills didn't have enough "state aid". Medicare Part D had a miserly donut hole. Special education was being woefully shortchanged if the Federal government didn't honor its "promise" to pick up 100% of the cost. Oh, and don't forget that we weren't spending enough on body armor and the VA. I think your theory needs tuning.
- jerf 14y ago
  Pity Google doesn't have a "please just let me search in 2003" mode. Democrats got tons of mileage out of Bush-era deficit complaints, though. I'm pretty comfortable with my general thesis.
  - prattmic 14y ago
    Try the "Custom range..." under "Time". https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2003%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2003&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&#...

thisone 14y ago

You can find some of these types of arguments when reading opinions on the death penalty, gun control, and abortion. The arguments aren't always doublespeak I'd say. You can very well be for something, given a set of circumstances, but against the same thing, given a different set of circumstances. The political problem I'd say, is figuring out how to separate, or even if you can separate, the "bad circumstances" from the "good circumstances"

cabinguy 14y ago

This exactly describes the gun debate going on today. Is it a terrorist or a freedom fighter? = Is it an assault weapon or a rifle?

chrisrhoden 14y ago
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Assault weapon is a strictly legal term which refers to a specific subset of the category we refer to as rifles. The word rifle usually brings to mind a class of weapons that were specifically not covered by the assault weapons ban. A more apt analogy would be Religious Conservative : Taliban :: Rifle : Assault Rifle My point being that, in this case, it's not simply a matter of perspective. Now, if the debate were much more polarized, one could see something like Terrorist : Freedom Fighter :: Murder Machine : 2nd Amendment Rights
- sp332 14y ago
  Lately, "assault" weapons are (legally) characterized by the amount of ammo they can hold. For example this 30-round magazine is illegal no matter which gun you put it in, whereas the same gun with a different-sized magazine may well be legal. http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-30-round-magazine-on-tv-matter-is-under-investigation-by-police/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-3...
  - AngryParsley 14y ago
    Magazine restrictions are a separate law in most states. California has an assault weapon ban which restricts features such a pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and flash hiders. They have another law restricting the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Old magazines are grandfathered in, so you can use them in legal rifles. It looks like the law is similar in DC. Possession of a magazine with >10 round capacity is a crime. Other firearm laws are irrelevant to the case you linked to.
    - sp332 14y ago

abuiles 14y ago

haha I was wondering about this too, I actually asked in quora http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-of-the-if-by-whiskey-fallacy http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-o...