Jim wrote: > Julio, please don't attribute opinions to me > that I don't have.
And where exactly did I say that you made claims that you didn't make? > In my experience, it's best to be skeptical > about "direct, raw, undigested experience." Well, I'm skeptical about your experience. > Now _there's_ a argumentation technique that's > guaranteed to promote rational discussion: make > it personal! (irony intended.) By the way, such > personal attacks simply cause flame wars. I'm > not interested in one of those. I'm not criticizing who you are as a person. I'm criticizing your views (as stated or implied), which are your *personal* views. So, it's personal. You sign what you write. It's funny when people feign innocence. We're not talking philosophy of science here. Your references to sticking pencils into glasses with water, etc. are not less tedious and patronizing than my rants. We are discussing *the judgment of the unions in supporting Democratic presidential candidates*. You interjected yourself in that discussion with, inter alia, the claim that Clinton's record on employment (and equity, but I'll leave that alone) didn't have to do with his being a Democratic administration. If you meant something else, then you should have clarified it. Since you didn't, then an interpretation based on context is not unreasonable. Now, I don't need or want to argue that Clinton's record in employment has everything or much to do with his being a Democratic administration or with his specific policies. If you read the exchange between Doug and I, those weren't the issues. For all I care here, it could have been sheer coincidence, just like the Reagan and Bushes' records on employment or union busting could have nothing to do with theirs being Republican administrations. The point, in case I need to make it clearer, is that the judgment of the unions to support Clinton could *not* be based on ex post evidence of Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof. The unions had to make their decision a priori, on the basis of their previous experience with the Democrats (and with the Republicans). It's really tired and disingenuous to argue that you "_never_ said that DP administrations were as anti-union as GOP ones and I don't think that's true." Well, what do you imply then, that the unions make their political choices in a laboratory vacuum where the historically concrete Republican party doesn't exist? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
