Republicans -Democrats

Did you copy that out of Chapter 1, in the "How to be a bleeding-heart Liberal : For Dummies" ????

Nope
I didn't copy it from any source. It just popped out of my grey cells. :wink:

Only the grey cells of a pistoff would create such corrosive phrases of our political system. Is there no hope at all?

Looking beyond the corrosive verbiage, why is what Pistoff is saying making sense to me?????

?
I am not an intellectual so please explain what "corrosive verbiage" means.

Try real hard to make the explanation dumbed down so I can understand, K?

pistoff, It just means "uncomplimentary, cutting, or caustic words."

Ahhh...
I was being rather generous, in my view.

I could have said, these scumbag politicians are all gorging themselves from the same public and corp troughs. The only difference between them is the manner of crap the spew to keep their jobs. I will refrain from generalizations though. :wink:

To be fair, Pistoff slams both sides of the spectrum pretty much equally. There's a lot to be said for that approach. Will Rogers did pretty well when he said "While its true we have the best politicians money can buy, we should be eternally grateful we get nowhere near the government we pay for".

He also said "Our government is constantly growing to meet the needs of an ever-expanding government."

Democracy often the choice of the least-objectionable alternative.

The new Will?
I sure am envious of Will Rogers and Bill Mahr. I just can't come up with those witty one liners.

pistoff- Have you noticed that Rogers and Mahr are saying basically the same thing that you are? The difference is that they are not using emotionally charged words.

The problem with using "corrosive verbiage" :wink: is that people react emotionally to the way something is said, rather than hearing the message. So, avoiding flaming language is a much more effective way for a person to get his thoughts across to people!

To peggy-back on Phoenix's post, I agree that emotional statements is not a effective way to communicate ideas. I think the wit used by Rogers and Mahr is the way to go if you want to be heard. The evidence is in the pudding - not many people have visited this forum to post a response.

ah...
My purpose of posting the sentiment was not to persuade people of anything. I was venting. After I wrote the piece I elt better for awhile. Now I am pistoff again.

How's your health, pistoff?

Thanks
Thanks for the concern about my health. I had a check up recently and I'm alright. You concern based on my being pistoff?
If so, I try to channel my anger in postive ways but at times need to vent to let off some steam.

I find that posting is helpful. I really don't feel that minds are changed by what anyone posts. Once in a while I do learn some things that I didn't know before or gain a perspective from what others post. Sometimes I really do wonder why I bother to read and post instead of reading books and being more politically active off the Net. I think it's because I am lazy.

Last week I could've gone to hear a Kucinich speech near my house then I thought why bother to drive over there hatle finding a parking space when I can just catch his speech on TV. or go to his Web Site and read his policies.

I think I read long ago that having negative emotion too often can be bad for our health. There's something to "laughter is the best medicine." Take care of yourself.

I wondered when we'd get around to Bush's communication skills.

Emotions
Anger is not always negative. This criticism of Dean that he seems angry is BS. It's good that he is angry. He has reason to be and so do I. I have also seen him laugh. Of course if he cried in public other than at a funeral then he would be accused of being weak. It's also healthy to be angry. I've even heard that some amount of crying is also healthy. Of course laughter is good med, as well. Hey, I do all of those.

btw my comment on Dean? It doesn't mean that I endorse him as a candidate.

pistoff, It's true; it's better to "let it out" than to keep it in. It would depend on the degree and frequency. If you balance it with laughter and crying, that seems pretty normal to me! G'day mate.

pistoff- From your "handle", your avatar, and the way you express yourself, I have the distinct impression that you perceive things in a negative light, in general, and are characteristically angry.

I think that c.i. is correct that predominantly negative emotions are bad for one's health. You might want to think about that.

There are many things in this world about which an individual has absolutely no control. IMO, it is folly, and ultimately self defeating to become emotionally enmeshed and angry over things that are not in your purview.

Strong feelings, fine. People are entitled to their opinions. I think that it is a matter of degree. There IS a line between dissention and becoming so emotionally involved that one boils over.