2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I was charmed by the contention about:

McGentrix wrote:

College kids causing trouble, breaking things, looting, and causing fear in the local populations.

Eh ? What ? Looting ? ! ? ! ? Causing fear in the local population ? ! ? ! ? Well, hell, why not rapine and plunder, while we're at it. Why not attempted genocide, if we're going to up the accusatory ante without even a casual nod at the truth.

Is it wrong of me to suggest that more than a little hyperbole, bordering on the hysterical is being introduced here?

McGentrix wrote:

Do you guys even READ other posts and think about them before replying?

Although this quote refers to a contention on the part of McGentrix that Scrat's post had not been read and understood--i was simply at pains here to reassure McGentrix that i had indeed seen McGentrix's post about protestors and understood it before i replied. I can spot hysterical fear-mongering when i see it.

0 Replies

the anti-war, anti-globalization movements and protests may have elements prone to violence against property, but from past history, i would consider most to be due to the external influences of people and organizations like FBI infiltration, COINTERPOL-like involvement, paid informants and provacateurs.

there is too much history in the american intelligence community of it not to presume it.

it's evident even when the government deals with right wing organizations. recall, the weapons charges against randy weaver were for altering a shotgun requested by an fbi operative.

its one thing to pull an ABSCAM with congressmen, but quite another to have the goverment spend tax-payer money to place its law abiding citizens in situations as, as we catholics were raised to fear, "the near occasion of sin."

and i think it is entirely probable that government agents have actively participated in the protest movement to promote violence so the government has cause to shut down the movement.

0 Replies

Possible, Kuvaxz? Demonstrated, shown, and admitted. A very common, very bad habit in what we like to think of as a "free society."

0 Replies

hi kuv...good to see you...and thank you for the reminder which Tartarin acknowledges above.

0 Replies

Have to add that I really love the phrase (and had forgotten it), The Near Occasion of Sin. I'm starting on the great American novel, with appreciation to Kuv for providing the title. It is largely autobiographical...

0 Replies

From ABCNews' The Note:

Quote:

We would love to have dinner with John Kerry and Howard Dean to discuss the last paragraph of E.J. Dionne's unoriginal-but-one-can't-say-it-enough column:

"The contest for the 2004 Democratic nomination cannot be understood apart from two factors. One is the intense opposition to Bush at the Democratic grass roots. The other is the widely held sense that the party's older strategies and internal arguments are inadequate to its current problems. Candidates can't win if they address only one of these concerns. But addressing both at the same time will require a political magic that Democrats haven't seen yet."

The Democrats Scramble

0 Replies

PDiddie -- the only place I've seen some glimmerings of that magic are chez Dean. I think Dionne's comment is a good one. But then I'm a Dionne fan too!

0 Replies

I'd like to apologize to Mama for my episodic outbreak yesterday. It was a bad evening for me and was at the end of my rope over other topics. I shouldn't have let it get the better of me.

That being said, I would like to know why many (Not all, and especially not anyone here...) liberals fail to even try to understand where other people are coming from. I see it on both sides of the fence, so don't get your undies in a bunch, I know conservatives do it too. It just seems that the Liberals are much more vocal about it. Any ideas?

0 Replies

We're just smarter and more articulate, McG.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

We're just smarter and more articulate, McG.

Anyone else?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I'd like to apologize to Mama for my episodic outbreak yesterday. It was a bad evening for me and was at the end of my rope over other topics. I shouldn't have let it get the better of me.

Thanks for that.

McGentrix wrote:

That being said, I would like to know why many (Not all, and especially not anyone here...) liberals fail to even try to understand where other people are coming from. I see it on both sides of the fence, so don't get your undies in a bunch, I know conservatives do it too. It just seems that the Liberals are much more vocal about it. Any ideas?

I don't see it like you see it.

And rather argue that minor point, let me demonstrate some liberal empathy by saying that the least frustrating answer to your question would be that this is one of those 'imponderables', such as 'why can't people with wretched halitosis smell it themselves'.

Another example of your question would be "Is there bias in the media" or "Doesn't al-Qaeda put too much oil on their hummus".

I hope you don't interpret this as my being a smart-ass; it was said that our Founding Fathers, for all their wisdom, would argue for days about how many angels could dance on the head of the pin.

Some things simply serve no purpose being debated.

0 Replies

When it comes to liberals inability to see the other side of the fence and speaking only for myself and not being all that bright, when republicans ask multiple choice questions i tend to get confused when all answers are either correct or wrong. Out of habit i tend to look for the most correct answer. As in the reasons we invaded Iraq. As in the reasons for the tax cut. As in the reasons why its ok to destroy the environment. For me there's just too many other sides of the fences to see.

0 Replies

Is there a word for when we allow a bias to become so pronounced that we refuse to consider information that proves that bias wrong? Because I think that's what we are talking about here.

Those who hate(d) Clinton and those who hate Bush seem(ed) to hold that bias so dearly that it barred consideration of anything that suggested "this guy is just a fallible human being with a different vision for our country than the one I have".

I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether it is more pervasive on one side or the other. I know I notice it more among those on the left, because we tend to disagree on many topics. No doubt those on the left notice this more among those on the right.

But what is "it" called?

0 Replies

So, dyslexia, are you saying you do see more than one side of a question?

So far as McG's plaintive cry - here's one reason. The Times today, in a long report (one of several) on what is happening with reinstating about half those 12 million to a tax credit, had this to say. That in a meeting convened just before the signing of the bill, this was discussed, and it was agreed to exclude that tax credit. Present at the meeting were represenatives, and representatives from the WH. Not one democrat was invited. Maybe one of the reasons liberal and moderate democrats are vocal is that so much republican activity goes on in secret. We still don't know about Cheney's meeting on public energy policies - which were supposed to be open to public debate.

In those places where all sides can be heard, there is at least an exchange of ideas. But for this to take place, there need to be public fora. And many liberal and moderate democrats believe in the policy of public debate, which is vocal.

0 Replies

My previous answer was intended as a joke. This one is serious (and perhaps irritating): Most liberals I have contact with are better educated, more committed, more widely travelled than -- not their conservative counterparts but -- members of the radical right. Liberals DO see both sides (and many more sides) of the issues and are, in fact, often treated scathingly by the radical right for pointing out the complexities of the issues. The Rads prefer easy, black vs. white answers to multiple-choice questions and lose momentum when it comes to answers based on experience and ratiocination.

There are no easy answers. Conservatives understand this. Liberals understand this. For decades and centuries their debates have continued with a certain amount of collegiality. The radical right doesn't like liberals and doesn't much respect conservatives (but doesn't hesitate to hide behind and among conservatives and try to win them over). The sooner conservatives wake up and boot out the little proto-Stalinists -- refusing them shelter -- the better off we'll all be.

0 Replies

Why tart - are you maligning Stalin?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

But what is "it" called?

"Perception".

0 Replies

I meant protoplasms, Mamaj. Apologies!

0 Replies

This thread tends to generate side discussions of some length. If you have something good going, have it transferred to a new interaction. Plllllease.

0 Replies

Why? For all we may like and respect you, ML, we are none of us bound to order our thougths and our speech to suit your notion of proper organization. The major players in this thread have carried on this discussion, which is proving to be very germaine, as it tends toward an establishment of a more civilized discussion. I like you, ML, and have long considered you to be an obsessive control freak.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know