Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Umbagog wrote:

Scrat, you spend way too much time defending yourself. Doesn't that say anything to you at all?

Yes, those on the "left" of most issues here spend far too much time attacking those on the "right" of the issues rather than the points those on the "right" make.

Though I'm sure it says something else to you. :wink:

0 Replies

Point of order on my text there, CdK and others, i did not say that Scrat is a dim-witted dog, i specifically compared his ranting on the subject of the Florida election brouhaha as being similar to a dim-witted dog bullyragging a stuffed toy, in that he can't let it go. That is not an ad hominem, nor was it delivered from a high horse. I will concede, however, that CdK appears to be an expert on high horses; or so it would seem, in consideration of how often he arrives in a thread astride such an animal.

0 Replies

I wasn't talking about you Setanta. But don't let that stop you.

0 Replies

I do beg your pardon, i had thought you were referring to me.

0 Replies

It's hard to tell one's own version of truth in politics without refering to mangy dogs or whatever populates the other persuasion.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

It's hard to tell one's own version of truth in politics without refering to mangy dogs or whatever populates the other persuasion.

With respect, EB, it's only hard to do so when you choose to focus your political message not around who you are but on who you think the other guys are and why you think that's bad. The thing is, aren't you more likely to paint a clearer picture of yourself than of others? (I'm speaking in terms of political parties here, not singling you out personally. That "you" isn't meant to mean you. :wink: )

Regardless of your political leanings, I think political debate would be more meaningful and useful, and better for the country, if we spent more time arguing what is good about our ideas and less time castigating others for what we think is wrong with them. The former rarely leads to name calling. The latter seems almost always to do so.

0 Replies

You've got that straight from the horse's mouth--who better to comment on what leads to name-calling.

0 Replies

stopping by with pixy dust

0 Replies

Is that standard issue for the Northwest Mounted Police?

0 Replies

Darn, Scrat; I was refering to your name calling as much as my own.

0 Replies

for those of us with unweighted loafers

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Darn, Scrat; I was refering to your name calling as much as my own.

EB - I understood you to be referring to the practice in general, and I intended my comments in the same spirit. Please do not infer otherwise. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
It's hard to tell one's own version of truth in politics without refering to mangy dogs or whatever populates the other persuasion.

With respect, EB, it's only hard to do so when you choose to focus your political message not around who you are but on who you think the other guys are and why you think that's bad. The thing is, aren't you more likely to paint a clearer picture of yourself than of others? (I'm speaking in terms of political parties here, not singling you out personally. That "you" isn't meant to mean you. :wink: )

Regardless of your political leanings, I think political debate would be more meaningful and useful, and better for the country, if we spent more time arguing what is good about our ideas and less time castigating others for what we think is wrong with them. The former rarely leads to name calling. The latter seems almost always to do so.

Hummmm...and that signature line of yours falls into which of these categories?

0 Replies

My sig is a call to liberals to bring up the level of their side of the debate--to define their terms before tossing them around, to come armed with facts and be ready to acknowledge facts even if they mean things these liberals don't wish to learn. Very Happy

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

My sig is a call to liberals to bring up the level of their side of the debate--to define their terms before tossing them around, to come armed with facts and be ready to acknowledge facts even if they mean things these liberals don't wish to learn.

Psst Scrat, have you ever listened to a conservative talk show host.? Just tune in to any am radio station not playing music. Laughing

0 Replies

Scrat, your sig could apply equally to conservatives. I don't really consider myself either, as I find that most often, neither side has anything remotely interesting or even completely factual to contribute to a debate. It's naive to think that in a bi-partisan system (or more bi-polar these days, with apologies to our resident bear) you can ever have a useful conversation about politics. Liberals, Conservatives, the terms mean nothing anymore. However...as I am late to this thread, Bush-bashing at the moment does not bother me. I have no clue if Kerry will be any better, but I do not wish to see the religious right take over the US. Regards from your friendly neighbour to the north. Wink

0 Replies

Cav - Let's put it this way; if you think any position I've taken is based on ill-defined terms or flies in the face of available facts, show me where. Also, if you think some argument of the right is likewise flawed, bring it to my attention. You may well be right, but I can't offer an opinion without specifics.

0 Replies

Scrat, my post was a general opinion. I do happen to believe that protecting free speech, abortion rights, stem cell research and gay marriage are all things that do not seriously threaten American society, and the Bush admistration is attempting to quash them all, and it's well documented. Perhaps I'll come back to this when I have more time. I don't currently have any issue with your opinions, but I haven't really looked at them either. Laughing

One thing I do know, I am apolitical, so any argument I post here in the Politics forum, which I rarely frequent, to be honest, will be based on my personal opinion, and not on an agenda of any kind.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

My sig is a call to liberals to bring up the level of their side of the debate--to define their terms before tossing them around, to come armed with facts and be ready to acknowledge facts even if they mean things these liberals don't wish to learn.

Your signature, Scrat, is everything you were railing about earlier.

It is an afront to logic and truth.

I honestly have no problem with you using it -- hell, I despise American conservatism and make no bones about it.

But to lecture on being above that kind of thing while using it really is a bit much.

Think about it, Scrat. I think you will see I am right.

0 Replies

Scrat's signature is as ill founded as is mine.

0 Replies

Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know