Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

I don't mind it that Scrat disagrees with everything I post - But, his words appear to drip venom and they attempt to twist what I said until they are unrecognizable from the intended meaning.

0 Replies

Gee edgar, I seem to have the same problem with several from your side of the aisle. I am often accused of mischaracterizing what somebody says and I have been mischaracterized more in this forum than anywhere I've been.

Not specifically to edgar but to all of you:
Why is it that some conservative members are characterized as twisting words and dripping venom, but some in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd can use just about every insulting adjective in the book to reference conservative members here and they seem to be just fine?

I know I've done my share of complaining (whining?) about the idiotic hatefulness expressed here by some. It seems to be much more prevalent on the left than the right, but then the active membership here seems to be somewhat more left than right so maybe its a matter of perception. I haven't done a proportional analysis.

And before anybody says anything, I admit I am not compleely innocent and say unequivocably that it isn't mature or useful to attack the messenger or dismiss the message because it has a conservative/liberal slant or a conservative/liberal source.

0 Replies

I don't answer for what other posters do or say.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Not specifically to edgar but to all of you:
Why is it that some conservative members are characterized as twisting words and dripping venom, but some in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd can use just about every insulting adjective in the book to reference conservative members here and they seem to be just fine?

Well, talking for myself I've done my share of calling people on the left on stuff they post as well, if their assertions or allegations are spurious. You have someone like Craven here too, also very much an equal opportunity rebuker.

Theres also simply a category of posters that one just usually skips by. Pistoff, for example, speaks his mind very clearly and thats why he's here - its little use to try to argue specific elements of his points, since he's just here to vent I think. So I hardly ever call a poster like that on anything, no use. (Sorry, Pistoff ;-)).

Foxfyre wrote:

It seems to be much more prevalent on the left than the right, but then the active membership here seems to be somewhat more left than right so maybe its a matter of perception.

Yeah. And I'd disadvise any attempt at a "proportional analysis", unless you really have nothing else to do with your life ... just check here for a hilarious example of the kind of nonsense you'd be getting yourself into ;-).

Foxfyre wrote:

And before anybody says anything, I admit I am not compleely innocent and say unequivocably that it isn't mature or useful to attack the messenger or dismiss the message because it has a conservative/liberal slant or a conservative/liberal source.

I've found your posts here thus far very sobre and reasoned. Good thing you're here.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Then again, the more you spit, the more you get spat upon.

I mean, I kinda like you, Scrat, but you must admit you get a lot more flak than, say, georgeob1 - whereas he has the more conservative views of you two. So it cant be all politics, must be something about style and such too.

No doubt. But here's the rub as I see it: when I get the flak no matter what style I use, it sort of blurs the issue of my style. There are those who are belligerent to me no matter what style I use, so how then is it about my style rather than theirs?

Of course, I can't do anything about anyone else's style, but I do make an effort to be courteous when treated with courtesy; I think you've seen that first hand. I suspect you have a little thicker skin than some, and don't take offense where others might. Conversely, I may have a thinner skin than I'd care to admit, and may enjoy poking back when I feel poked at.

All of which amounts to the stunningly obvious fact that nobody here is perfect, so we should focus on the issues and not one another. And yes, I could do a better job of that than I have at times, but again, there's that imperfection thing.

Anyhow, fair point. Now let's get back to the topic. Cool

0 Replies

It is said that confession is good for the soul. Embarrassed

0 Replies

And that silence is golden. Shocked

0 Replies

ASIDE:

I am not a liberal...nor a Democrat.

It absolutely mystifies me that so many of you obviously intelligent, reasonable, caring individuals can defend George Bush -- or American conservatism.

I'm not trying to insult anyone with that thought...I am merely sharing my feelings.

American conservatism has been on the wrong side of every major event in this country's history -- and it exists right now only because some of the lowest of low lifes make up a significant component.

As for George Bush -- well, I never thought I'd see the day when an American politician would be so vacuous that Dan Quayle would look like a Rhodes scholar in comparison.

What are you folks thinking about? Why do you embrace this blight on logic and reason?

0 Replies

ANOTHER ASIDE...

I am not a conservative... nor a Republican.

It absolutely mystifies me that so many of you obviously intelligent, reasonable, caring individuals can support John Kerry -- or American liberalism.

I'm not trying to insult anyone with that thought...I am merely sharing my feelings.

American liberalism has been on the wrong side of every major event in this country's history -- and it exists right now only because some of the lowest of low lifes make up a significant component.

As for John Kerry -- well, I never thought I'd see the day when an American politician would be so rudderless that Bill Clinton would look like a man led by a strong moral compass by comparison.

What are you folks thinking about? Why do you embrace this blight on logic and reason?

0 Replies

Nimh wrote:

Quote:

Yeah. And I'd disadvise any attempt at a "proportional analysis", unless you really have nothing else to do with your life ... just check here for a hilarious example of the kind of nonsense you'd be getting yourself into .

Laughing out loud here. Thanks friend. Good point.

0 Replies

LOL myself, at Frank and Scrat ... hehhehheh

0 Replies

Scrat was very funny there ...

but unintentionally, Scrat's response also defined the opposite poles of liberalism and conservatism in about the starkest terms possible ...

intelligence versus morality?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

but unintentionally, Scrat's response also defined the opposite poles of liberalism and conservatism in about the starkest terms possible ...

intelligence versus morality?

I'm unsure which you mean to imply is which, but I think you've brought your axe down a hair to one side of where you need to split this one. :wink:

It's not a question of either intelligence or morality, but which morality, and whether that morality is held up for scrutiny by intellect.

It seems to me that most of the things advocated by the political left start from a reasonable, heart-felt morality, but that these people consistently fail to bring their intellect to bear on assessing the probable outcome and likely collateral damage of the actions they advocate based on those noble intentions.

Of course, that may in fact be a decent description of some of those on the extreme right as well, but it seems that on the left this tendency is in the mainstream. The core of the Democrat party thinks we must punish business to save an environment that is already in every measure cleaner than it was 30 years ago. The core of the Democrat party thinks we must punish earners to make life more comfortable for some who chose not to fend for themselves, and the same core refuse to differentiate between these people and those who need our help through no fault of their own.

0 Replies

Shirley wrote:

It seems to me that most of the things advocated by the political left start from a reasonable, heart-felt morality, but that these people consistently fail to bring their intellect to bear on assessing the probable outcome and likely collateral damage of the actions they advocate based on those noble intentions.

Of course, that may in fact be a decent description of some of those on the extreme right as well, but it seems that on the left this tendency is in the mainstream. The core of the Democrat party thinks we must punish business to save an environment that is already in every measure cleaner than it was 30 years ago. The core of the Democrat party thinks we must punish earners to make life more comfortable for some who chose not to fend for themselves, and the same core refuse to differentiate between these people and those who need our help through no fault of their own.

An eggregious continuous slur informed by partisan antipathy as opposed to a reasoned analysis. This is a blatant attempt to create a ridiculous strawman, likely in the hope of drawing an argument from anyone silly enough to play Shirley's game . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

The core of the Democrat party thinks we must punish business to save an environment that is already in every measure cleaner than it was 30 years ago.

This sentence, scrattie, ought to be framed and hung somewhere really visible.

0 Replies

Yeah - In a toilet.

0 Replies

Ahhh... I wondered when the name callers and the attack squad would show up to try to derail the discussion. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Hmmm ... I remember our Queen, mid-eighties, included a sentence about the environment in the speech she pronounces each year on behalf of the government. It was extremely general and asserted that the environment was doing much better, "especially the air and water".

This, of course, was heartily laughed at by us all - what a ridiculous sentence! Sure, "air and water" - and what else, the world and outer space?

As it turns out, of course, air quality in the Netherlands is substantially better than it was back in the fifties - which is only logical, considering we still had a big industry back then, plus everyone heated on coal ... and water quality had indeed started drastrically improving in the 70s, 80s, and by now there's more bio-life in our rivers and lakes than in a long time.

Of course, lots of other things have gone wrong - sprawl, urbanisation, ever new highways, so many beautiful, open spaces lost to us and the animals that lived there ... they're starting drilling for gas under the Waddensea ... lots to fight about. But still good to at least for one moment think about our reaction back then ... and about how the Queen had in fact simply been right.

0 Replies

You were already here, scrat.

0 Replies

I was discussing the topic, courteously and civilly with other reasonable, intelligent folks. What brought you out from the shadows? Couldn't sit back and let others get along without throwing a stink-bomb in the room?

0 Replies

Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know