tartarin
I never listen to Limbaugh. My opinions are strictly my own. You may not agree, that of course is your perogative, however that makes them no less valid than yours. Just remember an opinion is just that an opinion and nothing more.
Tartarin
I'm afraid that news item was taken from the Vancouver Sun (yesterday) which does not have a great web site. I'll give you two links, one to a speech by Celucci (US ambassador to Canada) from May 2, and coverage from today of a right wing MP's response to Murray (this guy is a bit of a lone wolf), but there is other data in it too.
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=b8b10125-5e0b-4c3b-bdc4-2affb08b052d
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=8320C657-A2DB-4F1E-B236-4E327F329A00
au
serious questions put to you explicitly by Tartarin and myself... what criticism is allowable, by whom, and where not, why not?
Tartarin
I believe that there are no restrictions the opinions expressed here. I also believe that there are no restrictions placed on people who disagree. However, as I stated before we must remember the definition of opinion. Nobodies opinion has exclusivity.
I would add at this time if I have stepped on anyone's toes in the heat of "battle" I apologize.
I'd like to throw an odd element into the discussion and hope I'll be forgiven -- it's the sociologist in me which provokes this! I noticed that when I first joined A2K and was believed to be male, my Here's What I Think posts were taken quite well. The trouble -- the anger -- started when I said, in response to something or other -- that in fact I'm a woman. Au and Blatham -- you are good people to ask this question of: Is it substantially more irritating to have an opinionated woman disagreeing with you than an opinionated man?
Tartarin
Irritating is irritating man or women
Tartarin
Quick answer (must run)... I don't think it is for me, certainly hope not. But I've talked to enough women to know your question is rather meritorious than au's little graphic addition implies.
Au -- That's good to hear!
One of the things I noticed coming back to the States (speaking of being opinionated and saying things which irritate) is the limitation of freedom. Yes. I mean it. Quite apart from the Ashcrofting of an former democracy, whole ideas have been ruled out of general conversation. I'll give obvious ones: socialism, communism, liberalism, intellectuality. They are dismissed out of hand -- and shouldn't be. Then there are the more subtle forms of social suffocation: idealizing the American Family is one of those as is its gruesome opposite, suspicion of other groupings and sexualities. As it happens, I'm pretty conventional both in my thinking and sexuality but it's not hard to see how really difficult it would be to live in a country where people have already made up their minds about "different" people and often caricature them in art, literature and the movies. So I am on a personal crusade: I stare at people rudely and accusingly who try to rein in others for any reason short of criminal behavior. People who try that Mom, Family, God, Apple Pie stuff on me leave with the pie on their faces!
As far as I'm concerned, no American institution is worth having if it can't be challenged. Democracy doesn't mean settling into a life halfway between WalMart and the TV. The America I left was diverse, challenging, feisty, and interesting. The America I returned to is alienated, scared, self-limiting, angry, and conformist to an extent we never saw in the reputedly conformist '50's.
Thanks, Blatham. I passed them along to Herbert.
Tartarin, for what it's worth, I don't think your posts, opinionated or not, have been found to be more irritating by men once they realized you were a woman.
I don't post often on these sites, but I try to follow them fairly often. From what I've seen, your opinions are just as sought after and respected, and just as vilified, as they ever were.
One thing I've noticed, more often than not, on a2k is an openness to everyone's opinion with equal opportunity disagreement regardless of gender.
Now that the Dems are coming out with announcements of intention to run for president, I would appreciate more emphasis put on the original question, replacing GW in 2004.
BTW, even though I'm a left-leaning liberal Independent, I miss Asherman and Timber. They bring a good perspective to the discussion even though I usually disagree with what they have to say. If I read Tartarin's sentence correctly, she was simply commenting on their absence, not celebrating having fewer people on the right.
You're right, Diane, about Timber. I hope his absence doesn't mean there's been a problem...
I did notice a difference and, not being a feminist in particular, was surprised at that -- I tend to pooh-pooh that stuff. On the whole, I prefer discussions in which gender is a non-event.
Your question was a valid one, Tartarin - and one that won't be answered honestly for the same reason questions like "Do you harbor any biases toward blacks?" would. I think Blatham was honest when he said "I hope not". But you are really the only one who knows for sure if the answers to your questions semed different after your gender was known.
For myself, I believe I do take pointed criticism a little harder from women than from men, but because I'm aware I have that trait, I do make an extra effort to keep an open mind.
au1929 wrote:
Craven
That is the third time you talked about me labeling people UN American.
I don't remember ever having used that term. I do remember asking Tartarin which side of the border she lived on. At the time I was naive enough to believe that an American citizen would not denigrate the US. I have since been taught differently on a2k. Never too old to learn.
Yes, asking her what side of the border she lives on was just a facet of your campaign. Your above quote is another effort.
How long's it been since there was a post on the topic?
**Asked whom they trust to create more jobs, Bush trailed Democrats by 51 percent to 40 percent.
**28 percent said they prefer Bush's proposed tax cut to spending the money on more government services, and 57 percent said the tax cut favors the rich.
**10 percent of those surveyed said they are better off financially today than when Bush took office, with 48 percent saying they are worse off.
**35 percent said the state of the economy is good or excellent, with 64 percent saying it is not so good or poor.
Washington Post/ABC News poll
PDiddie
Yes, those polling numbers would suggest precisely where the Democrats will have to make some noise. Rove and company can be expected to:
1) promote Bush as steadfast warrior, fighting imminent terror threats
2) denigrate liberals, denigrate liberals, denigrate liberals
3) lie about the economy
4) advance some token bills, loudly PRed to be the economic remedy.
5) organize like hell to get the vote
bush
Obviously, we have to get rid of Bush before he drives America to its destruction for the financial benefit of his Texas chronies. But didn't he look great in his AWOL uniform?
Commander-in-Chief Bunnypants
I will vote for the candidate who stands up and says, "The emperor is naked."
bush
Tartarin, I will vote for virtually anyone who can beat Bush. This is not the time, in my mind, to pursue the ideal candidate; it's time to avoid the future disasters Bush, Rummy, Wolfy, Perly, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft and others of that gang will bring upon our country. The times are truly desperate.
