It must be the vulgarity of the term "scum bag", and not the name-calling per se which has offended the above commentators. A quick scan of the last 5 or 10 pages of the Iraq thread will reveal quite a bit of name-calling directed at Bush and others in the current administration -terms like liar, bully, and much worse - by many of the same commentators.
My use of the epithet was directed at tort lawyers generally. It expressed my hope (and belief) that Edwards does not posess Clinton's political savvy.
The smug piety and self-satisfaction of the true believers of the left is impressive indeed.
I watched Lt. Gen. McKiernan as he sat there, looking very grave, and made his pronouncement. I also read in the Times about "enforcing the peace." And then tonight, on the PBS Newshour, I watched Richard Perle squirm as a panel was kicking around questions about who was responsible for what intelligence. Heard the next rationale - it was the fault of the CIA, because they doubted the intelligence, but did or didn't do something about it. Then Schlessinger, who looks mummified, kept defending the CIA without exactly leaping to a defense of the WH Iraq strategy.
As I remember the sequence, Richard Perle, Rummie, et al preferred the information they were getting from the INC over what they were getting from the CIA, because that's what they wanted to hear. It was the Iraqi exiles who said Iraq was waiting to be liberated, that they would throw roses at the feet of the Americans. And, of course, these same Iraqis saw themselves coming into powerful positions with American backing. The CIA had doubts about a lot of the information.
What was interesting was that the Newshour presented a discussion about the doubts and expression of the Iraqi solution.
Maybe the big caveat here is - beware of the Bush doctrine of loyalty. It's one-sided, as so many are learning.
Hey, georgeob - I was doing fine until your last sentence. True believers of the left are impressive, indeed.
But the smug piety and self satisfaction really belong more to the true believers of the right. There is where we find proclamations of faith, of having found a true path, of trying to put prayers, ten commandment tablets, and more into the path of every school child. Of backing judges who condone cross burnings - why, piety doesn't even begin to cover it.
And names for Bush and company? My goodness, we haven't even come close to the zipper epithets.
We haven't hit the zipper yet, Mamajuana, but there was that wonderful piece about Bush and his Knoxville (m.) lover necessitating that anthrax attack on the file room of the National Enquirer. Al Gore managed to get copies of the file -- paid $1,500 for them and is holding onto them. So they say. Don't ask me who "they" are -- can't remember!!
george
The point, and it is a very very simple one, is so continually missed by yourself that one is at a loss to understand exactly how you can keep driving along with your tires flat and yet thinking you are on a marvellous holiday tour.
It isn't rudeness (calling a sitting pres a jerk or a liar or immoral), it is the mindless idiocy of using generalized statements to indict classes of people (torte lawyers).
Torte Lawyers ? ! ? ! ? Ohmigod, they're going to take over the pastry industry too ? ? ? ?
(Sorry, Boss, i can't resist a cheap joke--no offense intended.)
Oh, and by the by, in view of the vile, scurrilous abuse heaped on Clinton, there is a certain lingering stench that abuses one's nostrils when conservatives begin to decry verbal abuse of the Shrub and his Shrubbery.
sentanta
That was funny...didn't even notice it.
Re the last post...it is not to be believed how utterly scurrilous and alcoholic-level dull headed is the contention one ought not to demean this president after the campaign against Clinton. If Democrats ever got as nasty-minded as the Republicans have been since Nixon, they would simply become...more Republicans.
That is true Blatham, but the temptation remains!! But even as we worry that too many Dems are caving in to the Reps, a real difference remains: the Dems are by and large decent folk.
Now, a word from my next-door big city right-wing radio -- on this morning's talk show -- the host is a mostly Libertarian and the rest Republican. Audience largely Republican. An even tempered discussion with a guest (don't know who -- he has a Noo Yawk accent), about making it possible for Clinton to come back. I kid you not. This is not a bait and insult program -- it seems as though the Libertarian host doesn't reject the notion, is quite open to it. Haven't heard the callers -- will tune in again later.
Anything else about the Democratic candidates? :wink:
blatham wrote:george
It isn't rudeness (calling a sitting pres a jerk or a liar or immoral), it is the mindless idiocy of using generalized statements to indict classes of people (torte lawyers).
It is clear that I have violated one of the sacred principles of political correctitude - I have applied a vulgar characterization to a group of people. Never mind the obvious and - dare I say it - lighthearted context which, in my view, made the meaning quite clear. This is, of course, necessarily a far worse assault on the quality of our discourse than very serious claims to know the unknowable inner motives and intent of political leaders.
george - The only error you made is to use inflamatory language while expressing a conservative point of view. Using inflamatory language while expressing a liberal point of view passes for appropriate behavior here. It is only when a conservative becomes uncivil that civility suddenly seems to matter so much and to so many.
You guys aren't conservatives. I don't always agree with conservatives, but I respect them. You all talk like paper thin radicals of small intellect and much anger.
Yes, and we're the only ones who throw around insults here, too.
On that note:
Scroll, everybody, scroll . . .
Scroll. Keep reminding me!!
scroll scroll scroll our boat gently over the rapids
Only damn rapids I know that keep flowing over the same rocks, over and over again, Dys!
To most of the above: I would add, scroll when convenient or desireable for us; say something when the urge is overpowering. It's not like we're dealing with comprehension, here.
