2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Sofia, That's not what I learned in botany about 50 years ago.

Italgato--
You misunderestimated my comment.

I don't mind a sprinkling of BS and unsubstantiated opinion amid the meat on a thread. I may as well not mind, because plenty of people do it, and not much if anything is said about it.

However, when a non-liberal dares to stoop to everyone else's standards, you've got the Usual Suspects running out with their spelling and thread morality lectures.

I'm with you about fairness, and Quid Pro Quo, an' all. Nothing chafes my butt more than someone enforcing rules they don't follow. Hmph.

sofia- I quite understand. I will attempt to document my statements as frequently as possible. I do hope, however, as I mentioned to Mr. Blatham, that I will not be alone in this effort to avoid meaningless Cliches.

Thank You.

Italgato,

President Bush is incompetent and under-educated. What's to challenge?

And perhaps one person's idiocy is another person's celling (or would that be floor?)

Dear Lola:

I would be ever so grateful to you if you could provide some documentation for your statement.

As you may have found, some people on these threads excoriate Cliches. I agree. Cliches are meaningless. I find that your statements qualify as cliches since you bring no proof to back them up.

Would you be able to document your statements?

If not, would you agree that you should follow the guidelines as listed on this venue which say that if you cannot bring evidence to bear, you should state that your comment is merely your opinion?

Thank you.

"They all want to be like Christ- they turn the other cheek,but none of them believe in Him.

How ironic."

Is it those liberal left wing professors to whom you are referring when you say "they all want to be like Christ- they turn the other cheek, but none of them believe in Him?"

If so, I presume they have ascertained that Christ, and the ideas of Christ as written have much merit regardless of "belief in Him." Many have based their academic careers treating these writings. Religious belief is not a process of academic discourse.

What, then, was meant when the Christos says in Matthew, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also;" and the Christos in Luke says, "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also?"

Is it just a bunch of fluff?

"Fiction is fiction, whether speculative or perjorative, on the mark or off."

That is exactly why these writings must continue to be treated, exposing them to the highest intellectual discourse. Only then have we been able to judge which fictions are speculative or pejorative, on the mark or off. Look at the Christ stories, and the propaganda thereof. Does one have to believe religiously in Christ to have ascertained that the ideas expressed in these "good news" texts are powerful ideas indeed? Are these stories speculative? Pejorative? On the mark? Off? The process is quite separated from that of belief.

In Matthew, is it speculative to say, "for all who take up the sword shall perish/die by the sword"? Of course! Sometimes, those who take up the sword perish not by the sword, but by heart attacks, the cancers, etc. etc. Is it pejorative, and if so, against whom? Is it on the mark or off?

"I think it unfortunate that the US has really but two organized parties, which tends to polarize folks and to perhaps more easily foment cliches and simplicities of thought. For sure, the language of American politics reflects such a bi-polar opposition."

Excellent, excellent observation, Blatham. An American could not have said it better. American Manichianism exemplified.

Exellent application of Orwell, Tartarin.

I've got to re-read Orwell's essay. I had been contemplating re-reading 1984, just for its deftness of writing, and conciseness of though, but a re-read of the essay would be outstanding for those purposes. I think I'll re-read them both.

Orwell's essay... http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

dys
You've caught me up on a bit of inexcuseable phrasing (false idiocies). I would apologize to you personally for this offence, were it not that I've heard you speak.

Italgato (and Sofia)
First, let's note the differences between my statement that 'Bush is incompetent' and your statement about university professors.

Mine points to an individual in a job and makes a value-claim about his performance at that job. I'm sure we'll all agree that such a claim about any office-holder's performance is allowable in reasoned political discourse because the claim is potentially true.

Your statement generalizes an entire set of people and then attributes a set of mental processes (and statements) to them which is, almost to a certainty, not true even in one case.

You've graciously taken back that statement, to your credit. But let's not pretend there is some sort of even-steven in the failings of these two statements.

As to Bush's incompetence...I'm afraid I haven't had a lot of time (nor much inclination) to post recently, but your request for some sort of specifics to back up that statement was entirely reasonable. I apologize for not answering.

What sphere do you want to measure? Economics? Employment? International relations? Internal harmony? Honesty/consistency in policy and goals? Transparency in governance, or broad trust in governance? Civil rights and liberties? The health of the nation's infrastructure and matters of ecology? His personal intellectual grasp of world or internal affairs and government/constitution matters? Effective and helpful speeches? It is difficult to find any criterion by which we might credibly claim this fellow is doing a good job.

Better security is claimed by some. But even this is entirely questionable at best and is seen to be a matter of much (and often, completely non-partisan) debate. There are certain predictable steps any sitting president would have taken after a 9-11 event, focusing on airports and sea ports and flying schools and mid east immigrants - all the FBI and CIA, etc machinery would have clicked into place. We might attribute to Bush three particular unique responses - appearing/being resolute, attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, and unilateralism.

Here in Canada, the drug trade is pretty much controlled by the Hell's Angels. They've managed, over a couple of decades, to fight off competition from Asian and Russian groups and from other motorcycle gangs as well. They have been, in a word, 'resolute'. Showing resolve is itself valueless. It depends upon what one is resolved about.

Time will tell whether the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq, done when they were done and in the way they were done, will prove prudent or imprudent. And I wish it were not so, but I'm afraid it is so, that Bush has placed America and Americans squarely into a religious war that could have very ugly consequences lasting past our lifetimes.

As to unilateralism...as I and so many others have been arguing for nearly two years, this strategy was driven much less by necessity than by hubris, and that the consequence would be a less secure America and a less secure world.

I think Mr. Blatham mentioned Mr. Orwell, not Mr. Tartarin. Mr. Blatham and Mr. Tartarin have in common the color of avatar. Mr. Tartarin will gitround to switching oneofthesedays in order to avoid confusion. Mr. Tartarin isn't and will ne'er be a Mountie.

Strange bedfellows, sofia, often make cold comfort.

By God, Lola, you've made the grade! Perhaps you could document your opinion?

LOL, Mamaj..............good point. Are opinions documentable? Well, I don't think so. But if it's truly necessary, I'll bow to Mr. Blatham's documentation sources. Just watch the man (GW), Italgato. And read his history. GW is lacking in the gray matter department. If your opinion differs, please document your opinion, if you know how.

Mamaj.......I just love making the grade.

So much of one's time and efforts in A2K are spent arguing with those who haven't done their homework (and damn well don't wanna). And so many think that if they just keep on pledging allegiance, their jobs as citizens are done.

This morning I went into town to vote and on the sidewalk outside were several people -- obviously newcomers to the area -- looking puzzled as to where in the Lutheran Church area the voting took place. They asked an older woman where the entrance was and she glared at them and said, "Where it always is." Now there's a citizen for you...

I would submit, tartarin, that reading and quoting opinion pieces congruent with partisan agenda, left or right, does not constitute "homework". I submit also that I find it disingenuous of The Left to characterize The Right as stupid, venal, scurrilous types worthy only of contempt while The Right has shown steady gains in the electoral arena for over a decade ... by their own protestations, The Left maintains it is being downtrodden by a lesser class, a proposition I find not only baseless but silly. As I mentioned elsewhere, I take great comfort, as a member of The Right, from the track record of the doomsayers of The Left.

you are so correct about this, Mr. Tartarin.

Mr. Timber, in terms of track records, I think you are wearing blinders or have developed a skill in selective noticing of records. I know, you can say the same of me.........so I'll save you the trouble and admit that it may be somewhat true.

But for the record, I would like to point out that I haven't characterized "the right" as anything. Nor would I generalize in this way (but if I forget and do it anyway, please remind me, I don't like to do it). You're not stupid........very far from it, I would say. And you're a self declared righty (one of my favorites). What I said is that GW is a big, fat cat idiot. And that's specifically him. His advisors and backers (handlers) I think are lying, cheating creeps and should be tarred and feathered and left to clean themselves up and lick their wounds. Left to return to church to express their religious views, not imposing them on the rest of us through government by stealth. I'm not including all Republicans in that. Some of my best friends are Republicans :wink: GW is an idiot, but that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. (sorry, dys for coopting your disclaimer, but it's so good and I couldn't help myself.)

LOL, Lola ... I kinda like this "Mr." thing ... specialy as applied to folks of Tartarin's gender persuasion ... :wink:

I'll admit to using a broad brush once in a while ... maybe more than once in a while. I respect you and your viewpoints as well ... whether or not I share them, and I greatly value your respect. Thanks.

Mr. Lola -- We agree. Where did you find tights to fit those hairy, muscled legs? Target's plus department?

Ms. Timber -- Gains in the electoral arena in a country which has a very low voter turn-out and (because of/in spite of) mainstream information sources is not well-informed? That's not something I'd want to use to bolster the ego of the collective right. Why do you suppose so many Republicans (as distinct from the "right") are drifting away from the current regime -- recoiling, one might say?

I'm in total agreement with Lola. I don't criticize the republicans enmass. Only those that seem to do things that must be challenged by everybody. On the same token, I don't criticize democrats enmass. Only those that deserve criticism from my view point. I don't agree with many extreme right or left political issues, so I have many things to complain about. I have criticized Gray Davis, our democratic governer of California, and GWBush for his lying and conniving.

Thank you, God.

Dean lifted that zinger from the television show he cameoed in. It wasn't written by him. Then, after stealing it as his own--he lied about it.

Getting to know Dean....