Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Quote:

blatham wrote:
Of course it evokes some clear and unpleasant connotations. I'm arguing something that, to my mind, has justification only in certain circumstances. If you've seen a group of firefighters playing football suddenly alter their behavior and organizational structure at the sound of a fire alarm, then you'll have a parallel for how situations can make unusual demands on all of us. If a family's house has a flood fast approaching, a family discussion with balloting is probably unwise where something more 'totalitarian' must fall into place.

nimh said:
I'm sorry, I just think you have an unexpected blind spot here. Obviously I'm not going to change your mind - considering the other people who have sparred with you on this, including Soz who is much more reasonable than me, that's clear. But you couldnt have made my 'unpleasant connotations' more explicit than in this. This to me sounds like the logic of a political commissar in revolutionary times.

Happy to delve into this argument with you somewhere at some time. It is simplistic and naive to imagine that government or authority will or should operate under the same procedures in all conditions or circumstances. Working out the tough (and they are tough) corners of this an off-the-cuff matter.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Please explain, dys. I thought you were a Goldwater supporter?

If you indeed thought that Okie you are even more of an idiot than I thought. What I have posted is that I voted for Goldwater, not that i supported Goldwater. he was "the lesser of 2 evils") I could not support nor vote for LBJ so I voted for Goldwater knowing full well that the Dem congress would not allow him to use nukes in Vietnam. Your continued ignorance per my voting for Goldwater is indicative of your continued ignorance of politics in general and posters on this forum in specific.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Gergen (and he's hardly the only such) ought to have given you some pause but it didn't.

Why would Gergen, specifically, deserve to be granted a superior authority on the subject over a fair number of other, equally smart, well-educated and well-informed commenters who have come to opposite assessments?

I mean, beyond the fact that you agree with him, and not with the others? Have those others given you any pause, that you have expressed here?

blatham wrote:

We all think our opinions well-founded or we wouldn't have them. Certainty doesn't make them correct.

Now that's an insight this debate has certainly confirmed.

Seriously though. When you are certain of something and yet it continues to elicit pretty much unanimous disagreement from fellow posters whom you usually respect and agree with, shouldnt that give one pause? More than any newspaper column?

blatham wrote:

nimh

It's endearing to find another who is nearly as snooty, blind-spotted and as undeniably correct in viewpoint as myself. [..]

Where previously we tended to grant each other the benefit of the doubt, this campaign has pitted person against person or issue against issue. And that changes viewpoints, or has the potential to at least.... "Hi, I'm left-leaning". "Oh well howdy, come in and join us for dinner". Now it changes over to "My goodness, that person sitting beside me is a bit of a dick after all". Growth. [..]

You're a bit of a dick but you know that too already, along with your proper validations of self.

Right. Dickness noted. When irked enough by repetitive and relentlessly argued disagreement, call the other person a dick. You're on the internet, you dont have to face me when you're telling me, must make it easier. It's worked with conservative opponents.

But I mean, for you to complain about someone doing too much berating? If it doesnt make you a dick, it doesnt make me a dick.

Seriously. Take a farking breath already. Read my two posts you're responding to now, and there's just arguments, arguments, arguments. It's the same kind of arguments, arguments, arguments you cheer me on for when I'm discussing with conservative posters. And no, they're not about you, not about your person, your character, whatever - they just take issue with the way of thinking in your line of argument here. Disagree with them, be annoyed by them, grow impatient with them - fine. But calling me a dick for them is just.. dick-like. Dont be a dick. 'K?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The claim that you arrived in this debate with an unbiased (or a sufficiently educated) set of ideas about Hillary Clinton is not one you can peddle with me, even if you think it reflects reality. That post from two years ago (and no, I didn't go looking for it, it came up in a contemporary context somewhere) underlines the point rather well.

And what the F does that mean? The fact that I posted, two years ago, that I'd vote for McCain over Hillary proves that I am not "sufficiently educated about Hillary Clinton"?

Forget about how I've changed my mind since and just a couple weeks ago wrote that by then I had little preference between Obama and Hillary anymore, as my respect for Obama had gone down and that for Hillary had gone up -- I'm "passionately anti-hillary" regardless. Forget the logic in which a post from 2 years ago must prove that one is uninformed now.

Forget about that, look at the other part here: if you like McCain better than Hillary, you must just not be "sufficiently educated". Anyone who doesnt share my preference must just be ignorant. Right. WTF.

I'm upset about this actually. About all this dick this and dick that and "I found out you're a bit of a dick".

I know I can be exasperating in how I can really beat the **** out of a dead horse for pages on end. I'm probably OCD or something. I know it can be grating.

But I never called nobody names or said that you must just be ignorant or must just be an asshole personally or anything like that. F*ck.

0 Replies

Quote:

Though I really do not have a boner for a Clinton presidency

It's somewhat hard to believe that this statement is true. You seem to be as convinced that all attacks against Hillary are either unfounded or a product of bias against her as others are that their candidates are superior in some way.

Is it possible, in your opinion, for me to dislike Hillary Clinton for good reasons? To think that McCain might make a better president? I know that you have the position, that another Republican president would be disastrous for our country, and I respect that; but Hillary would be nearly as disastrous, you really should admit. She's a Republican-lite, after all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george said
Quote:
I don't think there is anything equivalent going on today among the Republican candidates. While there is no shortage of narrow dogmatism among sectors of the Republican party, just as there is among the various sectors of the democrat Party, there is a good deal less of an inclination among Republicans to suppress real debate among these sectors - at least for the somewhat strange reasons that appear to motivate the Democrat candidates today.

You've managed for several consecutive posts now to avoid address to the relevant counter to what you argue or imply above...that is, the Reagan 'ammendment' I've noted twice earlier of "never speak ill of another republican". Perhaps you'd like to take this on in an honest/forthright manner?

Adding, you know, for accuracy, that the commissar blatham 'amendment' is rather less inclusive than that one.

I believe Reagan called it the "Eleventh Commandment" and he first spoke of it as Governor of California and then with respect to state politics. What do I think of it?? It was merely political cheerleading and cant - not of great import and in fact observed far more in the breech, by Reagan and others. . The fact is that in his earlier campaigns for the Republican nomination he was rather bitterly critical of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, and those were very hard fought primary campaigns.

In short it was just talk and very little came of it. If you want to call it mere hypocritical blather, I won't object. The real point here is that it wasn't observed by Reagan or anyone else.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Though I really do not have a boner for a Clinton presidency,

No, not at all. Who said you did? Laughing

There's nothing wrong with your ability to see straight...

http://www.articulate.com/rapid-elearning/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/blinders.gif

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
george said
Quote:
I don't think there is anything equivalent going on today among the Republican candidates. While there is no shortage of narrow dogmatism among sectors of the Republican party, just as there is among the various sectors of the democrat Party, there is a good deal less of an inclination among Republicans to suppress real debate among these sectors - at least for the somewhat strange reasons that appear to motivate the Democrat candidates today.

You've managed for several consecutive posts now to avoid address to the relevant counter to what you argue or imply above...that is, the Reagan 'ammendment' I've noted twice earlier of "never speak ill of another republican". Perhaps you'd like to take this on in an honest/forthright manner?

Adding, you know, for accuracy, that the commissar blatham 'amendment' is rather less inclusive than that one.

I believe Reagan called it the "Eleventh Commandment" and he first spoke of it as Governor of California and then with respect to state politics. What do I think of it?? It was merely political cheerleading and cant - not of great import and in fact observed far more in the breech, by Reagan and others. . The fact is that in his earlier campaigns for the Republican nomination he was rather bitterly critical of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, and those were very hard fought primary campaigns.

In short it was just talk and very little came of it. If you want to call it mere hypocritical blather, I won't object. The real point here is that it wasn't observed by Reagan or anyone else.

My god, man. Your ability to delude yourself (or purposefully tell falsehoods here) is magnificent and trophy deserving. Your own behavior on this board has been a consistent demonstration of what you've just claimed has no instance to be found in reality. It takes small nuclear devices coated in exlax to get you to publicly release criticism of your party, its leaders, its policies or its history. And you've just done it again on this very subject in this very post above. To get you to admit (or perhaps even to honestly face) the organizational structures put in place by Rove and Mehlman and others to ensure/enforce message unanimity over the last seven years would not be possible because you either can't allow yourself to perceive it or because you can't allow yourself to publicly admit it.

I still like you too but god what a shmuck you can be sometimes.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

My god, man. Your ability to delude yourself (or purposefully tell falsehoods here) is magnificent and trophy deserving. Your own behavior on this board has been a consistent demonstration of what you've just claimed has no instance to be found in reality. It takes small nuclear devices coated in exlax to get you to publicly release criticism of your party, its leaders, its policies or its history. And you've just done it again on this very subject in this very post above. [..] I still like you too but god what a shmuck you can be sometimes.

Jebus. This from the guy who on the same page said I was a dick for "ascertain[ing] cause to write fairly lengthy screeds" to correct your posts, thoughts and dealings with others. Talk about motes, beams and eyes. If I ever want to further hone my skills in berating people, I'll just look to your posts to learn.

What George just said was that Reagan engaged in "mere political cheerleading," in "cant," and in "hypocritical blather". And you take from this that it would take small nuclear devices to get him to publicly release criticism of his party and leaders? He just did criticise them, he just didnt criticise the thing you think is wrong. Talk about being a bit of a schmuck. Take a break or something.

0 Replies

Could someone do all us Dicks, Schmucks, Wankers and Airheads a favor and post a list of topics we're allowed to discuss in the politics category? Also, could ya post an outline of which perspectives, opinions, education or experience we're supposed to have on each topic to be able to post a thought and discuss it?

Thanks.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:

Please explain, dys. I thought you were a Goldwater supporter?
If you indeed thought that Okie you are even more of an idiot than I thought. What I have posted is that I voted for Goldwater, not that i supported Goldwater. he was "the lesser of 2 evils") I could not support nor vote for LBJ so I voted for Goldwater knowing full well that the Dem congress would not allow him to use nukes in Vietnam. Your continued ignorance per my voting for Goldwater is indicative of your continued ignorance of politics in general and posters on this forum in specific.

Well, I dug up these quotes, and they seem to indicate you supported Goldwater, in your own words. So now, you deny it? By reading some of your posts, you not only seem to have supported Goldwater, but almost worship the man, as you swoon, "if only there was another Goldwater." I will admit, after I brushed up on your posts, you seem to be a mixture of confused politics looking for some kind of perfect politician along the way, and of course you will never find one, dys. In a couple of posts, you argue that Goldwater paved the way for Reagan, and you have a point there, but even you must realize that the left spun Goldwater just like the left is still spinning conservatives today. LBJ beat Goldwater in part because the left and the press were able to spin Goldwater as a bigoted, war mongering, narrow minded wild man. In the 60's, you didn't buy their spin, but now you are. I say there is no difference in the basic philosophy of the left from the 60's to now, but the difference in you is in the 60's you didn't buy it altogether, but now you are. By reviewing your posts, I think you are more confused now than you were 40 years ago.

Only a few quotes from dyslexia concerning Goldwater: There have been alot of them, to the point that I have gotten the impression that dys not only supported him but loved him. Now dys denies he supported him.

Quote:

short story made shorter Goldwater split the repubs against the moderate Rockefeller resulting in Johnson winning the election. Yes the conservatives came in strength to the primaries but damn if the voters saw things their own way. Funny thing about that whole thing was a lot of left wing liberals actually supported Goldwater. ( I was not a Johnson supporter)

Quote:

to the conservative southwesterner, Senator Barry Goldwater, who fought continually for both readiness and Veteran benefits, we have always said, "Thanks."

Quote:

Is Goldwater still dead? He had a solution.

Quote:

Yeah kinda like what Goldwater said. Problem was the nation believed him and suggested he take a hike. Sad really because he was, at the very least, a man of integrity, probably never see that again inside the beltway.

Quote:

Adding my own observationg re Goldwater. Barry represented the "old line arizona political philosophy" much more attuned with a libertarian ideal.

Quote:

I voted for Goldwater, I also voted of Jimmy Carter.

Quote:

while voting in the western fiscal (Goldwater) conservatives as well as more social liberals (FDR) democrats.
(Followers of) Goldwater and FDR??

Quote:

I voted for Goldwater, and would vote for Kucinich, if he were on the ballot.

Quote:

I attended some Goldwater rallies in '64 and was impressed that he spoke his mind without regard for the conventional wisdom of the day. Even when buried in the polls, he stuck to his message.Of coruse he lost to the same degree as Kucinich, the people don't really like honesty, they prefer feel good lies.

Quote:

If only there was another Goldwater...

Quote:

me mum, a goldwater republican. met Lady bird in the elevator of the LBJ museum. lady bird invited me mum to her office and had a nice chat. Me mum never forgot how nice lady bird was as a human bean (she almost converted to democrat.)

0 Replies

After making a study of his posts and writing style, I am surprised you did not also notice that he tends to write with a lot of subtle satire that sometimes makes it difficult to know if he is being serious or pulling one's leg.

Knowing that might help you toward your journey of figuring him out. :wink:

0 Replies

Butrflynet, I think I have figured him out. It is up to dys to figure himself out. He has been obsessing with Goldwater with dozens of references, as if he has been the only or one of a very few honest politicians on the scene for decades, and now he denies any support. I admit it does appear that dys has always been a liberal, but he has been yearning for the perfect politician to tell him what he wants to hear, and he isn't finding any, besides apparently Kucinich now, which is sad in and of itself. But then again, Kucinich is just as confusing as dys, so they deserve each other.

Kucinich does deserve credit for having the NH recount done, so hurray for Kucinich, dys. And dys, I will agree Kucinich at least is fairly honest about what he believes, even if his beliefs are confusing.

0 Replies

Doesn't sound any different than the rest of us, Okie. We're all looking for our perfect politician and will never find it unless we run for office ourselves. :wink:

0 Replies

Politicians, and that would include us if we were, are all imperfect solutions to an imperfect world. If people are looking for the messiah in a politician to correct all the wrongs, they are barking up the wrong tree, and it is troublesome when people start viewing any politician in that manner. America was built on success coming from the bottom up, not from the top down. So I look for a politician that believes in the people and that will try to inspire optimism in the citizenry, not government, and to get government out of the way as much as possible.

0 Replies

I think the incidence of talking past each other, without really connecting on the points that really interest the various observers here the political drama we are observing, has temporarily (I hope) dominated the scene.

Clearly Blatham believes there are serious and enduring evils within the Republican party or its several components, and perhaps even somewhat hidden cabals ready to malevolently distort the national political debate to achieve its ends - all factors that are entirely absent among Democrats. He is also - observably - very defensive with respect to the Democrat candidates and process, and, as it appears to me, somewhat inclined to favor Hillary, but oddly unwilling to acknowledge any failing or perceived shortcoming in the other Democrat candidates lest (perhaps) the ever-evil and ready Republican conspiracy exploit the situation.

While all this may be a defensible position for him to take, it is an odd way to conduct an unfolding dialogue, particularly one with others who may not share all of his preconceptions. Can (or should) they be blamed for not sharing this view of the political scene? Is the case for this viewpoint so strong that anyone not holding it can be unquestionably faulted for the omission? I believe the answer to this is clearly NO. It also appears to sometimes confuse other participants here, myself included, and this has led to some of the confrontations. We end up talking at and past each other, without really clarifying or resolving anything.

0 Replies

Quote:

Clearly Blatham believes there are serious and enduring evils within the Republican party or its several components, and perhaps even somewhat hidden cabals ready to malevolently distort the national political debate to achieve its ends - all factors that are entirely absent among Democrats.

It's not that they are absent amongst Dems, it's that they are less well-developed and have been starved of money and power for long enough that it's possible to see a future without them.

You really should realize that many members of the Republican party, on a national level, perpetuate the 'serious and enduring evils' meme by their actions on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Clearly Blatham believes there are serious and enduring evils within the Republican party or its several components, and perhaps even somewhat hidden cabals ready to malevolently distort the national political debate to achieve its ends - all factors that are entirely absent among Democrats.

It's not that they are absent amongst Dems, it's that they are less well-developed and have been starved of money and power for long enough that it's possible to see a future without them.

You really should realize that many members of the Republican party, on a national level, perpetuate the 'serious and enduring evils' meme by their actions on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

OK. Cyclo is a crazy fanatic too.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Clearly Blatham believes there are serious and enduring evils within the Republican party or its several components, and perhaps even somewhat hidden cabals ready to malevolently distort the national political debate to achieve its ends - all factors that are entirely absent among Democrats.

It's not that they are absent amongst Dems, it's that they are less well-developed and have been starved of money and power for long enough that it's possible to see a future without them.

You really should realize that many members of the Republican party, on a national level, perpetuate the 'serious and enduring evils' meme by their actions on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

OK. Cyclo is a crazy fanatic too.

No more so then yourself, sir.

It's just the serious and enduring evils of the Dems and the bureaucracy for you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
OK. Cyclo is a crazy fanatic too.

No more so then yourself, sir.

It's just the serious and enduring evils of the Dems and the bureaucracy for you.

Cycloptichorn

Not really.

I don't believe there is a hidden Democrat conspiracy afoot. I do believe there are faults to be found in their funadmental political principles and in the motivations of the principal organized sub groups within the party, but accept the give and take between competing political views as a necessary and beneficial thing for the country. I have made clear that I view bureaucracies as having enduring defects, but accept that at some level they are necessary. I merely prefer non-bureaucratic solutions to problems that admit of choice in finding a means of resolution, and fault those who would ignore the defects attendant to the bureaucratic remedies they often propose.

I am the soul of tolerance and reasonable discourse.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know