2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Another well-said position.

Italgato, Nobody is saying you don't have a right to your opinions. It's the manner in which you seem to feel that other's opinion must be perfect. These forums are not 'contests' to see who can prove their point by point with background facts. It's somewhat similar to our understanding of religion. We all come with different perspectives and beliefs, and hope through non-aggressive, non-confrontational discourse, to learn something new. It's not necessary for us to agree, but to agree to disagree.

Timber- I would be more than happy to conform with your guidelines.

Both you and CI indicate that I do indeed have a right to an opinion but it is the WAY THAT I SAY IT.

I respectfully request that you indicate SPECIFICALLY what it is about my writing style that is irritating to you. I suspect that some may be irritated by the fact that I give documenation and evidence for my viewpoint and then respectfully ask them to provide the same for their viewpoint.

I certainly hope that is not the writing style you object to since it is not a writing style but rather a matter of substance and referral to debate style.

And, as for CI's excellent comment about the posts not being Contests. I would say that they certainly are not contests. In fact( again quoting the guidelines)they are to give people an"increased appreciation of differing viewpoints"

All well and good, however, an appreciation of differing viewpoints does not mean that one must blithely accept the notion that our country is going to become a theocracy because of the moral majority.

That is an absurd and unsupportable twisting of truth. It is an opinion but one which cannot be shown to have any real basis in fact.

It is, in my opinion, a severe blow to any rational discussion based on reality, to allow such statements to be made without, at least, pointing out that they are groundless.( Using evidence, of course).

Anyone who knows anything about the definition of Theocracy and the existence of the first amendment knows that such a statement - The Moral Majority( which does not exist as an organization anymore) is going to cause our country to become a theccracy.

I am merely pointing out that if we are really going to have good discussions, it is useless to indulge in hysterical hyperbole.

Italgato, These forums are casual communications between the people that wishes to participate. In that respect, it is not necessary to challenge everything somebody opines. If there are failings of facts, don't challenge all of them, and accept it as an individual's perception and belief. Nobody likes to hear that everything we say is wrong. You need to become more sensitive to that fact.

I find myself in the most unsavory position of agreeing with Italgato.

Name-calling goes against the TOS. Period.

And while Italgato's tone has so consistently been sour, calling him a 'troll' is a much more grievous transgression than, say, introducing one's self-admittedly far-fetched conspiracy theory as a vain attempt to rationalize the felonious actions of the politico-Fascists in the Bush administration.

Both, however, are far beneath the standard of someone who wears the hat of forum moderator.

May I request, timber, that you and Italgato work out the terms of suitable expression off this thread?

That little rant of mine aside, and before we leave the digression of the Wilson-Plame affair, let me say that the best and only satisfactory action by this President is to immediately demand that the persons who committed this crime reveal themselves, and then be turned over to the Department of Justice for prosecution--not next week, not sometime in the future as the investigation drags along--now.

Any other action smacks of cover-up, and the political hay to be made will be of his own harvesting.

If Bush were some semblance of a leader he would call the appropriate parties into his office and demand their names--and their heads.

But of course he won't.

Now let's get back on the topic of this thread, please:



Well, when you've ired ol' Jeb, you prolly got a messa trouble on yo' hans...

Allright, I'll get my little furry feet wet.
The following are eamples of rhetoric that lead one to be disinclined (to say the least) to engage in a name calling session with Italgato:
"____'s comments display an obvious lack of understanding of ____"
"As the esteemed Mr. ____ obviously is unaware, having only graduated from the _ best ___ school..."
"As professor ___ is apparently too ignorant to understand...."
"Surely anyone with an ounce of intelligences, as the esteemed and surely wise Mr ____ shows he is not...."
"According to ______, the foremost authority on everything, as he said on page 65:......"
I admit to getting a bit nasty when confronted with this sort of thing, but I don't make every post in a snide, sarcastic tone. I find you tiresome.
To be fair, I was hoping we could all see if you would beat your own record of 11 posts in a row procaliming your superiority and intelligence before anyone broke in. I guess you'll have to try again.

I have a feeling the Bush plan if there can be said to be one, is going to be to hope that the $400x10^6, or however much he has now,will be sufficient to buy him the presidencey.

Italgato,


Will you please site where I used the term "Moral Majority?"

I don't believe I've used this term. Further, as far as I know, there has never been an organization named "The Moral Majority." I did speak, I believe of the Christian Coalition which still does in fact exist, as far as I know. In it's present form however, as an organization, it is no longer used as the powerful instrument of the religious far right-wing as it once was. It was some time ago when Ralph Reed and other influential and identifiable leaders decided their efforts were too visible in this form. They have instead decided to spend their energy on the infiltration of the Republican Party from the bottom up. And you can see how successful they've been. Due primarily to the fact that they are no longer announcing their intentions, they are quietly and with determination going about this task. No one has been looking hard enough, in spite of the fact that, after Bush Senior's loss to Bill Clinton in 1992, there was an attempt made on the part of moderate Republicans to rid the party of this element. The religious right, in it's covert manuevers, are no longer as visible to the average voter or to the press.

The fanatical right wing learned the hard way that they, as a publicly vocal minority, with the fanatical agenda they wish to achieve, can ever, by themselves win an election. They need, or must be powerful in the Republican Party in order to achieve this end. It is my opinion that neither the Republicans nor the religious right-wing can win an election alone. Neither has the constituency to pull it off. Since the economic fiasco we call the "Reagan Years" and in the defeat for the Repub party in 1992, it's been clear to many that the independents and moderates of this country will not elect any candidate who identifies himself with the extreme. The election in 1992 was an illustration of this for the Republicans and the same has been clear for both parties for some time. This phenomenon, which can, I believe, be identified easily by looking back at Presidential and Congressional candidates and when and why they were defeated, has time and again provided hope for me that we are a nation of primarily rational, reasonable people.

Unfortunately, instead of getting rid of the religious radicals, the moderates in the Republican party have closed their eyes to the fact that, quietly the fanatics are now taking over the Republican Party. Indeed, this minority (we can call them the Moralistic Minority, if you please) are those holding powerful positions in the Republican Party. How long has it been, according to anyone's memory, since we saw Ralph Reed making a extreme public statement as a spokesman for the religious right? As a matter of fact, all of them, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, included, have been very little in the news, given that they were so often in the news prior to the 1992 defeat of Bush Senior. Where are they now? They are in the WH now. And in the Congress now. And in the Defense Department now. And next, they intend to dominate the Judiciary. And if they achieve this goal, we are doomed, as Blatham so often says with such eloquence.

P.S. As a matter of fact, for an illustration of the fact that moderates of both parties will not tolerate an extreme position, we can observe the process of our own a2k threads. Each one of us can identify for ourselves who are the extreme voices. And then we can observe how much respect these voices are given on these political threads. Very little, IMO. Maybe I'm finally seeing the wisdom of the moderators in their attempts to bend over backwards to allow those participants who are the voices of the extreme to continue to post here. The extremists, those mean spirited voices, do actually further the goals of the moderate voices. And, in this light, the extremists can be seen as powerfully useful. They cause the rest of us to see that we must be able to negotiate, i.e., to listen and study the perspective of each other in order to survive.

All of the above is my opinion, and I could be wrong.

To address PDiddie's recent appraisal of "the Bush Plan"; I have a feeling not only that one exists, but that it is most pragmatically structured, and that, if at all, it as yet is barely engaged. I suspect the ultimate, and relatively soon-to-be-reached, resolutions of both the Kay Report and The Plame Game will far less inconvenience The Current Aministration than is fervently, even desparately, hoped by The Opposition. I imagine it will be quite evident when the real '04 "Bush Offensive" actually begins. Remember, its producers, writers, and cast are the same folks who brought you "Shock and Awe". Stay tuned; there's lots of excitment ahead.

Oh, and Lola, glad to see you're not wrong about everything

Note: the following should be ignored by those disinterested in the recent digression.

Sorry, folks ... I'm gonna shut up on-thread about the recent digression right after this, but first:

Look, I have no desire to pick a fight with you, Italgato. In as much as it is entirely within my power to remove your interactions from the field, while you have no similar means of redress, it would be pointless to begin the contest, or even to consider it could be called a contest.
Bluntly put, your manner of interaction generates a stream of complaints, both on-thread and via PM, coming from among a broadly inclusive sampling of the ideologic positions and interaction styles of the members of this website. Even folks who agree with you object frequently to the manner in which you make your points. Saying such things as "It is obvious (member x) has no understanding of (issue y)" or "I am afraid (member x) is this-or-that" is perjoratively argumentive, and you know that. Cheapshotting, inuendo, ridicule, and one-upsmanship are not substantive discourse. It is entirely possible to press vigorously and effectively a viewpoint contrary to majority opinion without doing so in objectionable manner. I surmise it evident you have the intellectual capacity to do so. It would be appreciated broadly were you to do so. Now, as a closing note, if you, Italgato, or anyone else for that matter, wish to carry on further discussion of this issue, please do so by Private Message directly with me ... timberlandko, and if you have a concern with my position on this or any other matter concerning this website and/or its administration, please fell free to bring it to the attention of Moderator and/or myself, as you deem appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, this digression merits no further address on this thread.
End of rant.
.

I'm continually amused by the radicals on the left and right -- there's always that seething beneath the surface that they can't get their way. A very good reason why the framers created a government of advise and consent. My problems is always with personalities, not ideas. There's always an idea that can be expressed in a clear and concise manner without any reference to any outside opinion. Those confusing guildlines with the TOS are playing an endless game of bait and switch. That can really make me snooze.

Amusing indeed, LW. Interesting too, from my perspective, is that humorists and polemicists are notable among the most popular and financially succesful champions for The Left. The radicals of opposing extremes, however, expend significant energy confronting one another in outrage over shared tactics of confrontation. That does become tedious.

Selling ideas isn't much different than selling anything else. That hard close only works on the ignorant and unsuspecting push over. Smart people will reject the approach and considering the perpetrator as just another garden variety huckster. In here, it's not kicking the tires, however -- it's too often kicking the opponent.

Big of you, Timber, to point out how right I am much of the time. :wink:

i guess being a raging lefty leaves out the possibility of ever being right.

Current sidebar digression aside, I had to snicker inwardly at the obvious familial resemblance between GW and Jeb: both have problems with the English language.

In the quoted material above, if quoted correctly, Jeb said people that, whereas it should obviously be people who.....

Dunno as I'd look for a "Hard Close", LW, as an extremely polished one. The hard close does not encourage repeat or referral business, which I sense to be significant marketing considerations of The Current Administration. Customer Relationship Management is really catching on.

The hard close can be as slick and deceptive, and as difficult to learn as the ethical persuasion technique. Seperating the two is where it counts -- the hard close can be made to seem like ethical persuasion. Some know a lot about their subject and yet not be able to close the deal. Facts can be used as a weapon to deceive and cojole someone into buying into the something objectively worthless. An arrangement of facts isn't always the truth. The psychology of sales is an enthraling subject and politicians attempt to use it to their advantage with a consistency that is sometimes remarkable. So do preachers and pundits.

The world's oldest profession isn't prostitution, it's sales. Hookers just happen to be selling something everybody wants but some are afraid to admit it. Or perhaps the price is too high? Politics is effecitvely full of prositutes but not necessarily selling their bodies.

Paul Johnson, as an instance, has just written an art coffee table book that attempts to pimp for some art that is by all standards cloyingly mediocre. It rather taints everything else he has written.

Timber- I do know that you have the power to terminate me but somehow I do not think that you will unless I become egregiously out of line.

You will, I think, not go beyond your basic nature- that of allowing contrary opinions to survive.

However, I have viewed your post and I will STRIVE TO CONFORM TO YOUR GUIDELINES.

WITH THE FOLLOWING EMANDATIONS.

Please let me know if these do not meet your requirements.

l. I will streneously, BUT POLITELY, point out where a poster has made an error of fact in statement or when a poster( according to the guidelines )has posted an opinion without giving documentation.

I do believe I am following the guidelines by doing so. Guidelines say: If you cannot refer to proof, be sure you state it is your opinion( Did I get that right?)

2. I will continue to post, POLITELY OF COURSE, any evidence which I find to buttress my opinion.
When I note that the evidence I use has not been rebutted, or has been overlooked, I will restate my evidence( POLITELY, OF COURSE.)

It has been my experience that some posters do not realize that they have overlooked evidence which rebutted their statements unless they were reminded that..e.g. Mr. X does not seem to be aware that....."

However, I will not utilize such approaches again.

And as for the PM's you received, I must be allowed to say that I am very much afraid that some of the PM's are not from people who do not agree with my approach but rather from people who are chagrined since they cannot rebut my positions.

The latter may be a self-serving statement, nevertheless, I have found it to be true.

Cheers- Timber.

Lola- I hope that you will not feel that I am being unfair to you if I search these posts to find where you used the term Moral Majority. I am not attempting to wound you personally in doing so. I am just going to try to jog your memory. After all, we all forget once in a while.

Did you forget that you quoted a Republican Operative from San Francisco who opined that we were headed for a theocracy because of the moral majority?

Did you forget that I pointed the definition of theocracy to you and that I referred you to the first amendment of the Constitution which forbids an establishment of religion?

It is MY OPINION, dear lady, that given the definition of theocracy and the fact that the first amendment has not been repealed that the person you quoted is in error.

However, Lola, I know you have superb skills in logic and persuasion and will be happy to hear your defense of such a statement about theocracy.

I am sure that I do not have the background in Psychology that you have. That may be why I don't understand those comments.

Please enlighten me. If you will. If you choose not to, I will understand.

Thank you, Lola.

I'm impressed. In one post he says "I will not do it again," then in the very next one he proceeds to return to his old methods. Reminds me of a ten year old white belt I taught once...