Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

georgeob1 wrote:

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.

Interesting; I myself am as pure as the driven snow.

I don't allege that there is a 'hidden' agenda amongst Republicans; I don't think it's hidden. Many of the so-called opinion leaders of the party, the pundits and columnists and analysts, are quite up front about their beliefs, plans and opinions, many of which are frankly bad or evil, self-serving, beneficial to the rich at the expense of every one else, racist, xenophobia-driven, or other problematic positions. And these people are celebrated by the culture who drives the right-wing, not shunned.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[Interesting; I myself am as pure as the driven snow.

I have always thought that myself.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't allege that there is a 'hidden' agenda amongst Republicans; I don't think it's hidden. Many of the so-called opinion leaders of the party, the pundits and columnists and analysts, are quite up front about their beliefs, plans and opinions, many of which are frankly bad or evil, self-serving, beneficial to the rich at the expense of every one else, racist, xenophobia-driven, or other problematic positions. And these people are celebrated by the culture who drives the right-wing, not shunned.

Cycloptichorn

Well many of the political goals of the Democrat party are also self-serving; beneficial to their constituent groups at the expense of everyone else; racist (in requiring the identification of people by race and different treatment of them based on it) ; class warfare-driven; and based on other "problematic positions". Moreover these people are openly celebrated by the party culture. Think of it!!

Unlike you, I will stop short of personal moral judgements and not accuse them of representing all that is bad or evil. Where one stands on an issue very often depends on where he sits. It is relatively easy to identify the direct effects and beneficiaries of a particular government policy. Understanding and identifying the indirect and long-term effects of such things is far more problematic and difficult - and that is where the REAL issues usually lie.

Finally, I believe that, while there are identifiable optimal solutions to the political, economic and social issues that are the fabric of our political debates, there are no identifiable permanent solutions to such things. Governance is an imperfect process and even the best-conceived measures eventually become corrupted by either their authors or those whose behavior they are intended to influence. We are doomed to a process of give and take and cycling from one emphasis to another, if for no other reason than to correct the excesses and side effects of the last cycle.

Perhaps the only enduring principle is the value of preserving individual freedom.

0 Replies

Quote:

Unlike you, I will stop short of personal moral judgements and not accuse them of representing all that is bad or evil.

This is more due to the fact that you don't have as much of a case. You rarely see Dems calling for the bombing of foreign countries (and not giving a damn about any 'collateral damage') or the curtailing of rights of Muslims. You don't see them making racial and sexual slurs towards others very often. You don't see xenophobia and religious-based hate speech. You don't see active efforts on the side of the Dems to deny rights to people who are different then them.

You don't see the fear-based politics on the side of the Dems. They have problems; whoever claimed that they didn't? But they just aren't in the same category as many right-wingers. I never said that Republicans represent 'all that is bad or evil,' so don't exaggerate my argument. I simply believe that, yes, there is a sizable segment of the Republican crowd who don't give a damn about anything but themselves and money; a portion who actively use hate and fear to advance their careers; and a group who think that America belongs under religious rule and dominance. Witness the shameful treatment that the Hindu priest received in Congress last year; good, stalwart right-wing voters spreading their hate in Jesus' name. Witness Luntz focus groups, where in each and every Republican debate, the words 'compassion' or 'tolerance' were instantly greeted with plunging approval ratings. Article after article supporting torture. Making light of torture. Making light of corruption. YEARS of defending each and every venal thing that the Republican Congress did...

You ought to wake up. I know that the Dem party encompasses some wackos and crazy folks, but the Right wing beats them hands down when it comes to naked malevolance and the peddling of hate. Luminaries such as Rush, Neil Boortz, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Podhoretz - these people say what many of your compatriots think, but don't want to say out loud. And they are richly rewarded for it by the Republican party. There is no corollary on the left-wing, not even close.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Unlike you, I will stop short of personal moral judgements and not accuse them of representing all that is bad or evil.

This is more due to the fact that you don't have as much of a case. You rarely see Dems calling for the bombing of foreign countries (and not giving a damn about any 'collateral damage') or the curtailing of rights of Muslims.

Our involvement in WW1 was brought about by a Democrat president. It turns out this was one of the collossal blunders of the 20th century, in that in giving one side a victory in an utterly pointless and destructive war we set the stage for all that followed including WWII, the Soviet Revolution & the Cold War and even the Islamist crisis we are dealing with now. Moreover our assistance literally enabled the Allies to destroy the Ottoman Empire & the caliphate and mislead the Arabs into believing their assistance would give them freedom, instead of the British and Franch colonialism they actually got - I think that did a lot to "curtail the rights of Muslims".

Our involvement in WWII was brought about by a Democrat president who even campaigned on a promise to keep us out of the war, even as (as is now known) he conspired with Churchill to get us in it.

Our involvements in Korea and Vietnam were both brought about by Democrat presidents, one of whom (LBJ) falsified the provocations that got us into open hostilities.

This point of yours is utterly without merit and I am surprised at your willful ignorance of the facts of history.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't see them making racial and sexual slurs towards others very often. You don't see xenophobia and religious-based hate speech. You don't see active efforts on the side of the Dems to deny rights to people who are different then them. You don't see the fear-based politics on the side of the Dems.

Well the recent (and trivial in my view) dust up between supporters of Hillary and Obama suggests a rather pronounced tendency of Democrats to see racial and sexual prejudice in every corner, and then use it themselves to their perceived advantage. Is "religious-based hate speech" any worse than anti religious-based hate speech? It seems to me the class warfare of John Edwards is indeed based on the denial of the freedom of others and fear based politics.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They have problems; whoever claimed that they didn't? But they just aren't in the same category as many right-wingers.

This more or less encapsulates the rest of your argument. it is merely the rawest of personal value judgements, unprovable by any objective standard and based on the laughable presumption that you can know the inner motives of those you oppose, while they cannot understand yours.

I have no issue with the fact that you hold these beliefs. However your apparent belief in the notion that they can be objectively proven does not speak well for your knowledge of history, your understanding of human nature, or indeed of your self-knowledge.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Unlike you, I will stop short of personal moral judgements and not accuse them of representing all that is bad or evil.

This is more due to the fact that you don't have as much of a case. You rarely see Dems calling for the bombing of foreign countries (and not giving a damn about any 'collateral damage') or the curtailing of rights of Muslims. You don't see them making racial and sexual slurs towards others very often. You don't see xenophobia and religious-based hate speech. You don't see active efforts on the side of the Dems to deny rights to people who are different then them.

Utter nonsense. The non religious left is at least equally vitriolic and right here on A2K is a prime place to observe it. The only real difference is too many Lefties won't even grant the religious some form of minority status... hence they have complete deniability of their double standard when it comes to expressing their own prejudice. Any discussion on gay marriage will serve as the perfect example.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You ought to wake up. I know that the Dem party encompasses some wackos and crazy folks, but the Right wing beats them hands down when it comes to naked malevolance and the peddling of hate. Luminaries such as Rush, Neil Boortz, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Podhoretz - these people say what many of your compatriots think, but don't want to say out loud. And they are richly rewarded for it by the Republican party. There is no corollary on the left-wing, not even close.

It is you who needs to wake the hell up. Michael Moore took bigger shots at Bush than any 3 Republicans you can name ever took at the Democrats. He made millions accusing Bush of setting up 911 for crying out sideways. For every bigoted piece of **** I hear from the right, I hear twice how religious people are idiots from the left. If you don't recognize that as bigotry of the same cloth; you are one of the offenders and it explains why you have this as wrong as you have it one sided. I don't happen to be religious myself; but the hate coming out of the left is frequently enough for me to wish I were.

You, Cyclo, usually know better than to try to claim one side is good because the other's bad... but today you seem unable to recognize the simple truth that corruption is rampant on both sides of the isle Selfish people dominate most every politician's politics and how could it not when it cost so much more to get the job than the job pays? I'm so sick of it that I'll very likely be voting for a man who's positions would put him in second place... but who seems like he just may be able to overcome some of the BIPARTISAN BULLSHIT that idiotic one-sided rants like the one you just laid out nourish. Get a better hold of your own thoughts on this subject before pressing submit with such garbage.

Mad

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Unlike you, I will stop short of personal moral judgements and not accuse them of representing all that is bad or evil.

This is more due to the fact that you don't have as much of a case. You rarely see Dems calling for the bombing of foreign countries (and not giving a damn about any 'collateral damage') or the curtailing of rights of Muslims. You don't see them making racial and sexual slurs towards others very often. You don't see xenophobia and religious-based hate speech. You don't see active efforts on the side of the Dems to deny rights to people who are different then them.
Utter nonsense. The non religious left is at least equally vitriolic and right here on A2K is a prime place to observe it. The only real difference is too many Lefties won't even grant the religious some form of minority status... hence they have complete deniability of their double standard when it comes to expressing their own prejudice. Any discussion on gay marriage will serve as the perfect example.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You ought to wake up. I know that the Dem party encompasses some wackos and crazy folks, but the Right wing beats them hands down when it comes to naked malevolance and the peddling of hate. Luminaries such as Rush, Neil Boortz, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Podhoretz - these people say what many of your compatriots think, but don't want to say out loud. And they are richly rewarded for it by the Republican party. There is no corollary on the left-wing, not even close.
It is you who needs to wake the hell up. Michael Moore took bigger shots at Bush than any 3 Republicans you can name ever took at the Democrats. He made millions accusing Bush of setting up 911 for crying out sideways. For every bigoted piece of **** I hear from the right, I hear twice how religious people are idiots from the left. If you don't recognize that as bigotry of the same cloth; you are one of the offenders and it explains why you have this as wrong as you have it one sided. I don't happen to be religious myself; but the hate coming out of the left is frequently enough for me to wish I were.

You, Cyclo, usually know better than to try to claim one side is good because the other's bad... but today you seem unable to recognize the simple truth that corruption is rampant on both sides of the isle Selfish people dominate most every politician's politics and how could it not when it cost so much more to get the job than the job pays? I'm so sick of it that I'll very likely be voting for a man who's positions would put him in second place... but who seems like he just may be able to overcome some of the BIPARTISAN BULLSHIT that idiotic one-sided rants like the one you just laid out nourish. Get a better hold of your own thoughts on this subject before pressing submit with such garbage.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous, and George, that goes for you too.

I'd like you to name the Dems (other then Micheal Moore, lets' say) who make a living off of hateful rhetoric, fear, and demonization in the way that many right-wingers do. Go ahead. The left-wing does not reward hate the way the right wing does, and you're blind if you can't see that.

As for Moore, did he actually blame Bush for setting 9/11 up, or is this an exaggeration on your part? Documentation would be nice. I'd also like to hear you admit that pretty much every criticism of Bush that he put forward has, in the fullness of time, turned out to be right on.

Why do the religious deserve representation as a minority status? I'm not familiar with this tack of argument.

George, it's without doubt that both the Republican and the Dem parties today bear very little resemblance to those who existed 40 years ago; is it possible to discuss the modern era? I don't even think the Republican party today closely resembles what it was 20 years ago, let alone the Dem party and WW2.

I also think it's something of a cop-out to argue that all positions on all subjects are merely opinions, and are not indiciative of moral failings. Torture is wrong; that's an absolute moral position that I'm willing to take. Many right wingers disagree with that. I would not be comfortable arguing that side of the equation has any sort of moral equivalence to my side.

You equate Liberal disdain for religious speech to the right wing disdain for everything liberal, and that's ridiculous. Do you see Leftists putting out books entitled 'Christians are idiots?' Coulter does this towards the left and sells millions of copies. Do you see 'Conservative Fascism?' Goldberg is making a ton of bank off of this. Do you see left-wing radio and TV hosts mocking minorities, women, and disabled folks? Limbaugh does this and makes millions off of right-wingers who eat it up.

Your comparison of Edward's class-based campaign with the demonization of Muslims (calls to bomb Mecca ring a bell?) regularly practiced by your party is ridiculous.

As for this from Bill,

Quote:

You, Cyclo, usually know better than to try to claim one side is good because the other's bad... but today you seem unable to recognize the simple truth that corruption is rampant on both sides of the isle Selfish people dominate most every politician's politics and how could it not when it cost so much more to get the job than the job pays?

Both of you please attend this post of mine:

George wrote:

Quote:

Clearly Blatham believes there are serious and enduring evils within the Republican party or its several components

To which I responded:

Quote:

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.

I've never claimed the Dems are perfect, aren't corrupt, or don't have problems. I understand that both parties have problems. But the Dems don't peddle hate and fear the way the Republicans do, not even close, and no amount of ignoring points I raise is going to make it so.

I know you don't want me to start pulling quotes attesting to the comments that are regularly made by those who Republicans have and continue to make rich with their money. I know that you like to disavow many of the wackos that ride the fringe of the Republican party, but the truth is that they receive scads of cash for doing the things that they do. This is why I stick with my original premise: that Rush, Coulter, and people like them, say the things that many Republicans think, but are afraid to say.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Also,

Quote:

hence they have complete deniability of their double standard when it comes to expressing their own prejudice. Any discussion on gay marriage will serve as the perfect example.

There has never been a rational argument put forward against letting two gay people marry each other, here or anywhere else. Many, many irrational arguments have been put forward, usually in the name of religion.

Does this mean I'm prejudiced, that others cannot explain their positions? That they cannot build a case to show how gay marriage would harm society, or their own marriages? Nope. Pointing out that others are prejudiced toward homosexuals and hold opinions for which they cannot provide rational and objective arguments does not make oneself prejudiced.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And, even more also:

Coulter:

Quote:

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

I invite you to find a quote by Moore or any other Dem luminary, calling for murder in order to physically intimidate Republicans.

O'reilly:

Quote:

* You know, look, if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can't.
- of people who criticize him, The Radio Factor, September 27, 2007

I'd like to see the quote by Moore or any other Dem luminary, stating their desire to murder their critics.

Limbaugh:

Quote:

If not, you really ought to retract this:

Quote:

Michael Moore took bigger shots at Bush than any 3 Republicans you can name ever took at the Democrats.

Because it's simply untrue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm done ranting. Here's the straight facts, Cyclo. It strikes me as idiotic to the core when Okie or Foxfire or whoever on the Right throw out sweeping generalizations about liberals this and liberals that. There are few better indications that nothing more intelligent will follow. Wouldn't you agree? You are sorely mistaken if you think the same kind of BULLSHIT is any more palatable coming from the Left. Every straw poll demonstrates that A2K is dominated by Lefty's, so it may seem like it sounds reasonable since respective choirs tend not to notice their own blatant hypocrisy. But rest assured; that type of argument is no less idiotic coming from the Left.

Do you want to know what really separates Obama from Clinton? He promises to work with the Republicans and she promises to fight them.

Think about that.

She'd make a great A2K Lefty and would likely be as obscure in her political life had she not married Bill. For years I've read raging complaints about Bush's promise to be a uniter, not a divider. Funny how the very people who most strenuously objected to Bush's division are the very people who boisterously spout the nonsense necessary to continue it. You and Blatham make some fine bookends to Okie and Foxy, btw. You're all decent enough people. You just don't seem to be able to recognize the very traits that annoy the hell out of you (and certainly everyone not in your respective choirs) in yourselves. Note this: the greater one's aptitude to recognize intellectual error, the more foolish willful ignorance becomes.

0 Replies

Cyclo said...

Quote:

I'd like you to name the Dems (other then Micheal Moore, lets' say) who make a living off of hateful rhetoric, fear, and demonization in the way that many right-wingers do. Go ahead. The left-wing does not reward hate the way the right wing does, and you're blind if you can't see that.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two that I can think of, right off the top of my head.
Lets not forget Louis Farrakhan also.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm done ranting. Here's the straight facts, Cyclo. It strikes me as idiotic to the core when Okie or Foxfire or whoever on the Right throw out sweeping generalizations about liberals this and liberals that. There are few better indications that nothing more intelligent will follow. Wouldn't you agree? You are sorely mistaken if you think the same kind of BULLSHIT is any more palatable coming from the Left. Every straw poll demonstrates that A2K is dominated by Lefty's, so it may seem like it sounds reasonable since respective choirs tend not to notice their own blatant hypocrisy. But rest assured; that type of argument is no less idiotic coming from the Left.

Do you want to know what really separates Obama from Clinton? He promises to work with the Republicans and she promises to fight them.

Think about that.

She'd make a great A2K Lefty and would likely be as obscure in her political life had she not married Bill. For years I've read raging complaints about Bush's promise to be a uniter, not a divider. Funny how the very people who most strenuously objected to Bush's division are the very people who boisterously spout the nonsense necessary to continue it. You and Blatham make some fine bookends to Okie and Foxy, btw. You're all decent enough people. You just don't seem to be able to recognize the very traits that annoy the hell out of you (and certainly everyone not in your respective choirs) in yourselves. Note this: the greater one's aptitude to recognize intellectual error, the more foolish willful ignorance becomes.

I guess not all of us believe that bipartisan, smarmy solutions to problems lead to good governance. I haven't seen an ounce of evidence that the Republicans who are currently in power are willing to compromise. On anything. They certainly didn't compromise on any bills this year. In fact, they used the Fillibuster more frequently then has ever happened in history, rather then compromise. Look at McCain; he compromised on issues and the Republicans hate him for doing so. Where is your evidence that the Republicans are just going to come around?

My point isn't that Conservatism is bad. My point isn't that Republicans are evil. My point is that many on the side of Republicans, do believe those things about Liberals; they state it openly; and they are richly rewarded by the flock for doing so. You can't deny the truth of this.

It's just not enough for you to say 'bullshit' when your opponent brings up points, Bill. It is a rejection of logic to do so and akin to an admission that you don't have a good answer to those points. I understand that you don't see yourself as a Republican; why defend their excesses?

Just to make my position clear: I don't think that the Dems are anything but slightly less corrupt then the Republicans, but I do think that the Republican party as a whole uses the politics of hate and fear to accomplish their goals. There is ample evidence that this is true.

You state,

Quote:

It strikes me as idiotic to the core when Okie or Foxfire or whoever on the Right throw out sweeping generalizations about liberals this and liberals that.

I agree. Have I said 'Conservatives this, Conservatives that?' No. Feel free to go back and re-read my posts. I have said that the Republican party rewards its' supposed fringe elements, and that many of the positions its' members have taken are immoral ones. I have stated that elements of the party are working towards bad ends, which I believe to be true. That's not to say that those elements aren't present in the Dem party, either; but, I have addressed this:

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.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo said...

Quote:
I'd like you to name the Dems (other then Micheal Moore, lets' say) who make a living off of hateful rhetoric, fear, and demonization in the way that many right-wingers do. Go ahead. The left-wing does not reward hate the way the right wing does, and you're blind if you can't see that.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two that I can think of, right off the top of my head.
Lets not forget Louis Farrakhan also.

I agree that the first two practice the politics of separation, and use racial discrimination as a bludgeon to hit people with. But they don't approach the level of many right-wing commentators at all.

Farrakhan has nothing to do with the Dem party, as you know.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo said...

Quote:
I'd like you to name the Dems (other then Micheal Moore, lets' say) who make a living off of hateful rhetoric, fear, and demonization in the way that many right-wingers do. Go ahead. The left-wing does not reward hate the way the right wing does, and you're blind if you can't see that.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two that I can think of, right off the top of my head.
Lets not forget Louis Farrakhan also.

I agree that the first two practice the politics of separation, and use racial discrimination as a bludgeon to hit people with. But they don't approach the level of many right-wing commentators at all.

Farrakhan has nothing to do with the Dem party, as you know.

Cycloptichorn

Farrakhan supported Bill, and was welcomed at almost every Dem rally while Bill was President.
To say he has nothing to do with the dem party is a real stretch of the facts.

And if the leftwing doesnt reward hate, why is Jesse so much a part of dem political strategy?
Why is Al Sharpton also part of the dem machine?
Their vitriol and hatred is being rewarded by the dems, because they claim to be able to deliver the black vote.
Since the dems rely on that voting block, anyone that says they can deliver, no matter how much hatred and racism they spew, is welcomed by the dems.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo said...

Quote:
I'd like you to name the Dems (other then Micheal Moore, lets' say) who make a living off of hateful rhetoric, fear, and demonization in the way that many right-wingers do. Go ahead. The left-wing does not reward hate the way the right wing does, and you're blind if you can't see that.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two that I can think of, right off the top of my head.
Lets not forget Louis Farrakhan also.

I agree that the first two practice the politics of separation, and use racial discrimination as a bludgeon to hit people with. But they don't approach the level of many right-wing commentators at all.

Farrakhan has nothing to do with the Dem party, as you know.

Cycloptichorn

Farrakhan supported Bill, and was welcomed at almost every Dem rally while Bill was President.
To say he has nothing to do with the dem party is a real stretch of the facts.

And if the leftwing doesnt reward hate, why is Jesse so much a part of dem political strategy?
Why is Al Sharpton also part of the dem machine?
Their vitriol and hatred is being rewarded by the dems, because they claim to be able to deliver the black vote.
Since the dems rely on that voting block, anyone that says they can deliver, no matter how much hatred and racism they spew, is welcomed by the dems.

I'd like you to give some examples of the vitriol put forth by Jackson and Sharpton. And explain why you think they rise to the level of those who call for murders.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You are also forgetting the "unbiased" luminaries of the New York Times editorial staff. The mandarins of the liberal establishment somehow think their propagandizing is somehow unlike and above that of their opponents. However for every Anne Coulter or Rush Limbach there is an Al Franken or Michael Moore. For every William Buckley or Bill Crystal, there is an Maureen Dowd, etc.

Poor Cyclo - he thinks his doesn't stink.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

You are also forgetting the "unbiased" luminaries of the New York Times editorial staff. The mandarins of the liberal establishment somehow think their propagandizing is somehow unlike and above that of their opponents. However for every Anne Coulter or Rush Limbach there is an Al Franken or Michael Moore. For every William Buckley or Bill Crystal, there is an Maureen Dowd, etc.

Poor Cyclo - he thinks his doesn't stink.

Al Franken and Micheal Moore have never called for murders, George. Or for physical intimidation of Republicans.

The editors of the NYT just hired Bill Kristol for Christ' sake. Can you see the NY Post hiring Krugman? The WSJ hiring Dowd? C'mon.

You are equating people who dislike their political opponents with people who peddle hate for a living, and it's a false equivalence. There are many commentators on both side who make fun of or show disdain for the other party; that's one thing. But I think that if you bother to look at the situation objectively, you will see that one side actively rewards those who peddle fear and hate, openly.

Propagandizing is not the equivalent of hateful speech. I am really confused as to how you can think this is true. You'll never find a quote by the NYT calling for murder and physical intimidation, George. Ludicrous.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Just what is hateful speech???

Anne Coulter & Rush Limbach don't so much express hatred of "liberals" so much as they mock them. Mockery is not the same thing as hatred.

Frankly your characterizations of conservatives on this thread comes a lot closer to hate speech than what I have heard and read from Coulter & Limbach. I have repeatedly emphasized to you the importance of refraining from personal judgements of the inner motivations of those whose ideas and opinions you oppose; noting the impermanence of optimal solutions to political problems and the continuing importance of give and take in these affairs. I have repeatedly made the distinction between disagreements with those whose political preferences I oppose and presumptive judgements of their worth as human beings. And you have repeatedly rejected it all, acknowledging the occasional imperfections of Democrats, but emphasizing the continuing evil of Republicans.

You are indulging in a bit of projection here -- assigning to others (Republicans) faults you manifest yourself.

0 Replies

Quote:

Anne Coulter & Rush Limbach don't so much express hatred of "liberals" so much as they mock them. Mockery is not the same thing as hatred.

Hateful speech is, say, calling for the physical indtimidation of Liberals. I've said nothing that approaches that, but Coulter has done this. That's not mockery.

Hateful speech is saying that you'd like to choke the life out of your critics, if you wouldn't get in trouble. Or making racial or sexual slures. O'reilly has done this, and it isn't mockery.

Hateful speech is making fun of the disabled and disadvantaged. Mocking them. Limbaugh does this. It is both mockery and hateful.

You are blinding yourself to the true nature of these people, George. I don't pretend that I am perfect; but then again, I am not making a career out of demonizing those who are unlike me, like the best-selling Republican authors do.

You state,

Quote:

I have repeatedly emphasized to you the importance of refraining from personal judgements of the inner motivations of those whose ideas and opinions you oppose

Oh, is it really that difficult to figure out what the inner motivations of people are from their actions? We can never know the mind of another, ever, no matter what. It is impossible. All we can do is judge their actions. All I am doing is judging words and actions.

I shouldn't have to explain to you what hateful speech is; it is really a problem that you can't identify it when you hear it, that you equate it to others who are not engaging in hateful speech but in political speech.

Here's a question: do you honestly believe that Fear is not a pillar of the current Republican platform? Fear of Terrorism, Muslims, Immigrants, Gays? As I said earlier - I'm more then happy to quote you into the ground, if you really don't believe that this is true.

I was given a brain capable of making judgments; I see no reason whatsoever not to do so. In terms of one's moral position, however, it is not the judgment that one makes, but one's actions which matter. Have I called for anything negative against anyone? Have I recommended any course of action? No, I have not. That is the cautious part of judgment: acting upon it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm done ranting. Here's the straight facts, Cyclo. It strikes me as idiotic to the core when Okie or Foxfire or whoever on the Right throw out sweeping generalizations about liberals this and liberals that. There are few better indications that nothing more intelligent will follow. Wouldn't you agree?

Thanks for at least having some balance, ob, but seriously, my generalizations are directed toward leftists and liberals in regard to their political philosophy. Many of those people are good people, even great people, but merely misguided in my opinion. Some of them are relatives of mine. But may I remind you that you have been observed throwing around quite freely the term, "bigot," as well as other unsavory terms to those that oppose your solutions in regard to immigration. I try to keep my comments directed toward the philosophy, not the person.

Quote:

You are sorely mistaken if you think the same kind of BULLSHIT is any more palatable coming from the Left. Every straw poll demonstrates that A2K is dominated by Lefty's, so it may seem like it sounds reasonable since respective choirs tend not to notice their own blatant hypocrisy. But rest assured; that type of argument is no less idiotic coming from the Left.

I agree with you that the center of gravity on this forum is very liberal to extreme left, except for a few of us. You are kind of a mixed bag, ob. Much of the leftist opinion is filled with disdain to outright hatred, although some do not come across that way. Cyclops deserves credit for carrying on a reasonable debate. I think however by being in the majority here, they begin to think the whole world thinks the way they do, such as no Republican has a ghost of a chance of winning, when in reality they do, and when they do, they imagine all kinds of conspiracies.

Quote:

Do you want to know what really separates Obama from Clinton? He promises to work with the Republicans and she promises to fight them.

Think about that.

Obama complimented Reagan or used him as an example of an agent of change, and wow, are the Clintonistas and Edwards folks jumping on that one. I love it.

Quote:

She'd make a great A2K Lefty and would likely be as obscure in her political life had she not married Bill. For years I've read raging complaints about Bush's promise to be a uniter, not a divider. Funny how the very people who most strenuously objected to Bush's division are the very people who boisterously spout the nonsense necessary to continue it. You and Blatham make some fine bookends to Okie and Foxy, btw. You're all decent enough people. You just don't seem to be able to recognize the very traits that annoy the hell out of you (and certainly everyone not in your respective choirs) in yourselves. Note this: the greater one's aptitude to recognize intellectual error, the more foolish willful ignorance becomes.

You are all wet if you think I am at the extreme end of some kind of idealogy, in fact you are nuts, ob. I would challenge you to come up with any issue where I am extreme on anything. I am a conservative, but being conservative is not extreme. By your judgement, perhaps all the founders of this country would be extreme? Blatham and cyclops strike me as staunch liberals that believe government is the answer to all of our ills. Our founders never believed that, so who really is extreme here, attempting to pull the center of political gravity their way?

Remember, Hillary Clinton was a true extremist in her early days, keeping company with socialists, communists, and the like, and although she has supposedly moderated in terms of her public image, I doubt that she has moderated completely in her brain. The Clintons are on a mission of some kind, and most people are probably clueless as to the full meaning of that mission. We really don't know do we?

0 Replies

How is it any different to believe that government is the answer to whatever flavor of our social ills and to believe that pre-emptive strikes by our government against other countries for whatever flavor of reason is the answer to all that may be our ills in the future?

They both require government involvement and they both require high levels of taxpayer dollars to pay for them.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know