0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 02:18 pm
blatham wrote:
One might argue that the notion which you and craven have protested (finding and using a catchy derogation, eg slick willy) ought more prudently to have been hatched and communicated ought of sight. But covert machination is what she did not do - she openly and bluntly proposed it. That honesty and forthrightness is one of the rather many reasons I respect this voice.

As to insults...I suggest each one of us has been guilty, though you do this less frequently than any of the other names noted in this post or among those who brave this subject area.


What I decry is that the employment of certain rhetoric ("Bushy-poo" et al.) is an embarassment to many on the left. Kinda like having a drunk and vociferating uncle who has fixated on somthing he thinks is clever.

Blatham, I begin to wonder if you support the criteria for debate that you've touted in the past. If the fallacies you posted in the debate guidelines mean anything to you.

"Catchy" barbs aren't so much the point as an obsessive penchant for playground tactics are.

When the moniker is simply icing on the cake of a well proportioned thought I don't mind. But when there are one's stock and store it's Beavis-esque.

"Huh huh, Bush SUCKS.. huh huh huh.. .. bungholio"

It goes both ways of course, the ones whose only stock and store is "Liberuls SUCK.. huh huh huh" are equally embarassing to the right.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 06:27 pm
BillW wrote:
The Right Wing in America has developed a complete industry out of the action you are so adament about - the perpatrators being Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Horowitz, Coulter, Savage etc and was originated by Rove, Atwater and Bush Jr.


You left out Fox, The Washington Times, NewsMax.com, Boortz, Scarborough, Matthews, Novak, Krauthammer, Medved, North, Liddy, et cetera ad nauseum.

All of whom employ the same scorched-earth philosophy.

Quote:
"Stories reminding the public that the grandfather of George W. Bush and his United Trust Bank were cited by the US government in 1942 for helping Hitler under the Trading With the Enemies Act have now spread widely through the major media.

What's going on here? Are these stories linking Team Bush to the Nazis irrelevant? Mere partisan politics? Or do they indicate a growing public concern with what is actually happening in Washington? ...

Bush supporters deny his Nazi family ties have anything to do with Republican policies. Visiting the "sins of the father" (or grandfather) on an offspring has not been considered fair game in US politics.

But after eight years of total assault on Bill Clinton and his family, one can only imagine the media frenzy had Clinton's grandparents been linked to the Soviet Union. Would Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove have found such ties 'irrelevant'"?


freepress.org
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:05 pm
Things will turn eventually and the right will be a dim memory. It seems only logical based on the history of this country.

Since 1968 there have been only three Dems as President and they were only in office for 12 of those 33 years. That means to me at least the GOP is responsible for this mess having been in power for 21 years.

Why is it always either President Carter or Clinton that are blamed for what Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and now Bush Jr. have done to this country.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:13 pm
Wasn't congress dominated by democrats for around 30 or 40 of those years?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:14 pm
Exactly, PDiddie. Craven -- keep in mind that the darn "liberals" here are dealing with a bunch of yakkers who, no matter what evidence is produced, return to the faulty report, the disproven theories and lies, the Foxy cant, to bolster their arguments -- as PDiddie and BillW have already pointed out. In addition to being wrong, they're being dangerously stupid. Sometimes one jollies them along, sometimes one has to -- has to -- confront them. At which point they squeal, No fair! no fair!

You come on as though this were an equal contest between honest good ol' conservatives and the rest of us lefties. It's not. By any standards, we (centrists, left of center, and more circumspect Republicans) are trying to deal with tagalong reactionaries, tied pathetically to a tagalong media. You can censor me right off A2K if you like, but I'm not going to pretend either their bombast or their aggrieved posts have intellectual or political merit. Whether it's distilled Limbaugh or refried Hannity or odiferous O'Reilly, it's based on the worst (and most destructive) "lowest common denominator" our culture has produced in my lifetime.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:18 pm
Hear hear tartarin!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:33 pm
*crash*
*bam*
*tinkle*
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:36 pm
Craven,

I think you and NIMH, as much as I love you, bend way too far over to be fair. You bend so far over to do it, you look a little strained and it doesn't help your argument, IMHO. Why don't we leave each other's styles alone unless it gets really extreme? There is a very big difference between calling politicians various names in the name of good self expression and calling each other names, whether we are living by the letter of the law or not. I think calling each other names, especially if done chronically, no matter how well or slimly disguised, should not be tolerated for long. But other than that, we should all be more tolerant of other's self expression.

This site would be a lot more polite if we did as you seem to wish (of course your advise is a lot more rigid than your actions usually are) but it sure would be boring.

I don't object if a right leaning person, no matter how fanatical, calls Clinton a name. It happens all the time. I don't agree with it. But I can stand it fine and I don't get my feelings all hurt. And I don't feel the least bit embarrassed by it, no matter who does it. Let's not go up censorship row, ok?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:38 pm
Yes, hear hear...........very well said, Tart.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 09:45 pm
nimh said
Quote:
Where in heaven's name did I write ANYthing, whatsoever, that suggested ANYthing of any such kind?
If you didn't write that, you should have...it's well worded.

Look, there is some talking past each other here, and ambiguity of meanings and intentions. Perhaps to be expected with verbitude types like some of us here.

But...don't go taking ownership of all the shrugs...it's unseemly in a centrist.

Look, let me answer craven's question about my present stance on the guidelines. Craven....I want them adhered to in both specific and in spirit, by everyone at all times. I also want people to read widely and deeply on the matters relevant to the subject at hand. I also want everyone to get familiar with fundamental philosophic protocols, and to have fully grasped what the **** Orwell is talking about in "Politics and the English Language". And, where appropriate, to send me photos of themselves naked.

I desire the luxuries of such discourse as would result. I also desire the luxury of there being no particularly pressing real matters in the area of our personal day to day political lives. But neither are the case.

So, debate here is a lot messier, in bunch of ways, than I'd like. Now, a bit later I'll go on to prescribe exactly how we all must behave as a consequence of the above, but I've just smoked a bowl and am heading for the Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:03 pm
Might I add (this is VERY good ice cream by the way) that if one looks at the writing of Mark Twain when he got going on America, and politics, and religion...sparks are just a'flyin. But he's worth listening to.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:06 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Exactly, PDiddie. Craven -- keep in mind that the darn "liberals" here are dealing with a bunch of yakkers who, no matter what evidence is produced, return to the faulty report, the disproven theories and lies, the Foxy cant, to bolster their arguments -- as PDiddie and BillW have already pointed out. In addition to being wrong, they're being dangerously stupid. Sometimes one jollies them along, sometimes one has to -- has to -- confront them. At which point they squeal, No fair! no fair!

You come on as though this were an equal contest between honest good ol' conservatives and the rest of us lefties. It's not. By any standards, we (centrists, left of center, and more circumspect Republicans) are trying to deal with tagalong reactionaries, tied pathetically to a tagalong media. You can censor me right off A2K if you like, but I'm not going to pretend either their bombast or their aggrieved posts have intellectual or political merit. Whether it's distilled Limbaugh or refried Hannity or odiferous O'Reilly, it's based on the worst (and most destructive) "lowest common denominator" our culture has produced in my lifetime.



It seems to me Tartarin that your posts here are, like the one quoted above, comprised of about 80% name-calling and epithets directed at "the right" and others who may disagree with you, and 20% self serving compliments and rationalizations for yourself and those who agree. Doesn't leave much room for interesting discussion.

The mini tempest with Nimh was the result of his terrible behavior in suggesting that perhaps your loud call for others to join you in shouting down anyone who disagrees was somehow not in the best spirit of fair discussion and the values of A2K. Craven reinforced the point and you responded as above. I guess your meaning is that your enemy is so bad that anything you may wish to do is justified. Where does that lead ? Not particularly adult behavior.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:14 pm
You know nimh, I should say that your line:

Quote:
who are obviously at a total loss in this here 2-stepping andromorphic post-Iliescuan age that belongs to people like me, who are - in fact - destined to establish and take up world government any time now.


is a little premature..........this is the babyboomers prime and we have a good long way to go before we're done, so don't get your bloomers in a wad about taking over just right yet. You'll get your turn, but no pushin!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:17 pm
geroge,

Tartarin didn't call you a name. She's talking politics. Next you're going to want to band the cigars around here in the name of clean air.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:30 pm
Lola,

I don't agree, but do concede that I am a bit annoyed. (Is my sense of humor failing me when I need it most ?)

Talking politics in the sense of really discussing it and exchanging ideas, and even disagreeing about them is fine with me. Its the epithets and shouting down bit I don't like. Odd that so much of it comes from those who accuse others of the same thing.

No ban on cigars ! I have a well cared for stash of smuggled Cohibas that go marvellously with the third glass of wine after a good meal. Like to join me?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:42 pm
george,

Here I am, sitting with my little short legs crossed and a lighted match...........
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:42 pm
GEORGE HAS ILLEGAL CUBAN CIGARS AT HOME!!!!

Now the question is...which is worse...Bill getting a blow job and lying to folks who were trying to stage a coup, or george, trading with cuba?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:45 pm
How about trading with Lola? Light er up, george, and now about that glass of wine, did you say it was your third?

Blatham, here, I'll give you every other toke on this hugeo monstrosity.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:57 pm
I love girls who use expressions like "hugeo monstrosity"
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2003 10:58 pm
giggle, I knew I could distract y'all...... a time out is in order.......
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 03:07:27