This thread isn't asking the question are you liberal or are you conservative? This is about the battle that is being waged in both camps. Yeah, I watch Bill O'Reilly for a few minutes until I can't stand it anymore. It seems to me that at every opportunity, he will say, "The far-left wing" or something like that in a distasteful manner-and implying that all the wrongs in this country is caused by the "far-left". I'm sure some of the left leaning media does similar stuff. My question is why do these people feel that it is necessary to put down the side? It is the attitude of "Either you are with us or you are a terrorist" (only less than 50 years ago, you can replace the word "terrorist" with "communist".)  We are supposed to be ONE NATION but yet some of these people like to demonetize those who have different beliefs of how this nation should be governed. These people are trying to strike fear and hatred of the other side instead of trying to find a happy medium for which all of us can work with. 


Thoughts? Comments?



Cat

my big thing lately is, there are some conservative friends of mine -- davey, for isntance, miguel at work, jon my housemate -- who i really get on with even though in a lot of ways their ideology is pretty far afield of mine. and at the same time though in my heart i subscribe to liberal ideals i find a lot of liberals very maddening -- very joyless, quick to judge, crusading and basically miserable and no fun at all.

this is by no means a sweeping generalization, like, my friend jason is a way left pacifica-listening socialist and a great, fun-loving guy, but from someone who is basically a liberal i find it disturbing how often many liberals will attack me for some minor difference of opinion on political doctrine. it's like they don't WANT to succeed or have anyone else join the movement.

and you're totally seeing it right now in the efforts the democrats are engaging in to stop the war. a lot of reasonable people are trying to figure out a way to stop the war that will work but the lefties are all going, no! the war has to end RIGHT NOW! we refuse to compromise! which means, from a practical point of view, the democrats get hamstrung because of the far left and the repubs get a free-for-all war buffet. i mean, it's stupid.

anyway...

as for the superdivision in this country, i dunno what that's about. i think it has to do with how much power there is here, and so how hungry people get once they get a taste for it. for the last 6 years the republicans had a lock on it, the only obstacle was the disenfranchised dems yelling in the corner, but even THAT made the repubs crazy cuz, basically, they could taste world domination. so they slammed the dems hard and after six years of being called a traitor and being told i hate my country, could i be blamed for wanting to see every republican in congress and the administration tarred and feathered and run out of town? you know, enough of that kind of talk and you wouldn't piss on these characters if they were on fire.

I see today's conservatives being concerned with advancing the economic status quo.  Their social agenda is one part for show, and one part to keep uppity folks in their place.

"I'll show you politics in America right here," Hicks told audiences, miming like a puppet master. "'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer.'"

- Bill Hicks.

The problem with American politics is that the puppets on the Left and the Right have the support of too many hicks, and America has no more Hicks.

Just to add my two cents, I think the whole "red state" vs. "blue state" thing is one of the most divisive and poisonous ideas to be passed off on the American public in the entire history of the United States.

  Politics is not a one-dimensional variable.  Left versus right on the X axis ("liberal" vs. "conservative") merely measures whether you want to concentrate on taking away people's money first and rights later, or vice versa.  Libertarian versus statist on the Y axis measures whether you think that people are too stupid to run their own lives or that power corrupts and therefore governments are best kept small.  I always urge  young people to check it out...  

  The liberal vs. conservative conflict is as real as TV wrestling groove ;) on...

 

Just to add my two cents, I think the whole "red state" vs. "blue state" thing is one of the most divisive and poisonous ideas to be passed off on the American public in the entire history of the United States.



We can thank Tom Brokaw for that, I believe.  I think he was the one calling the states for Kerry and Bush that way back in '04.  I think it's demented, but people eat that sh*t up.

We can thank Tom Brokaw for that, I believe.  I think he was the one calling the states for Kerry and Bush that way back in '04.  I think it's demented, but people eat that sh*t up.
I thought it started with a map in USA Today that showed the election results county-by-county.

I thought it started with a map in USA Today that showed the election results county-by-county.



I remember on NBC's coverage, they had a map of the US on the floor and each one that went to Bush were colored red and each one that went to Kerry was colored blue.  Someone else might have been doing it first......I don't know. 

I thought it started with a map in USA Today that showed the election results county-by-county.


  I know the map you're talking about.  I watched it on the news...

  This may be familiar to many here.  I posted one back in 2004...

  http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-6/1193336/jesusland.jpg

  I didn't know whether or not to be happy for Canada...

This thread isn't asking the question are you liberal or are you conservative? This is about the battle that is being waged in both camps.


This really is a problem on both sides.  And both sides are equally guilty.

To me, it is more an issue of polarization.  Myself, I do not want to be polarized.  And even though I identify myself as "Conservative", most of my views are much closer to Rudi Guliani then those of George Bush.  And the polarization even happens in here, it is not religated soley to the "Spokesholes" on TV and radio.


Just to add my two cents, I think the whole "red state" vs. "blue state" thing is one of the most divisive and poisonous ideas to be passed off on the American public in the entire history of the United States.


I agree.  Because it tends to make people that those with different views are "alien", because they live in another area of the country.  They do not always realize that there is often less then a 1% spread that makes their own state "Red" or "Blue".  Or that indeed their own state often bounces between the two.

I view everybody as individuals, with their own views on politics.  I do not try to cram people into "cubbyholes" simply because of where they live.  After all, Texas is the home to both Kinky Freeman and George Bush.  And I would hardly say that Kinky is a typical "Texas Conservative" (he is hardly a "typical anything").

To me, this polarization is simply a step towards treating those that do not agree with you as "things".  "After all, nobody really cares what a thing thinks, because it is so alien to yourself.


It is the attitude of "Either you are with us or you are a terrorist" (only less than 50 years ago, you can replace the word "terrorist" with "communist".)  We are supposed to be ONE NATION but yet some of these people like to demonetize those who have different beliefs of how this nation should be governed.


"Terrorist" really encompases many different political beliefs.  It is not in itself a belief, as much as the way somebody is willing to impose their belief on others.  You have "Right Wing" terrorists, as well as "Left Wing" terrorists.  And based on their fundamentalizm, the Muslim Fondamentalists would in reality fall into the classification of "Right Wing Terrorists".

And I condemn all terrorists, reguardless of their political or social beliefs.  I simply do not see terror, death, and destruction as an appropriate way of expressing your beliefs.  Be it the SLA, KKK, Timothy McVeigh, "Christian Fundamentalist" (Eric Rudolph), Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Al Queda, or any other group.  I feel that such groups need to be crushed, simply because they are wrong.  "Winning the hearts and minds" is not the same as "killing anybody you do not like or who dissagrees with you".

This really is a problem on both sides.  And both sides are equally guilty.

see, i disagree. the democrats totally cut bush loads of slack on the afghanistan thing and even the iraq war, most of them voted to authorize the war and totally said we need to stand together. there were just some guys on the left who did otherwise.

after 9/11 it took the dems years for them to turn on bush, for a long time theyreally were by and large interested in bipartisanship but the republicans crapped all over them because they smelled the possibility of getting total power. i mean, firing perfectly competent prosecutors so they can plant members of their own party in judgeships? only republicans would do that, i just don't see the democrats going that far.

see, i disagree.


And therein lies the problem.  And it is this kind of "blindness" that makes this sort of behavior escalate.

But of course, your side is totally innicent, and has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Why is it that this reminds me so much of arguements with my ex-wife?  ::)

I think it's high time the Left reclaimed the color red for itself!  I don't wanna be a blue, what the hell's that?  I wanna be a RED!

And therein lies the problem.  And it is this kind of "blindness" that makes this sort of behavior escalate.

But of course, your side is totally innicent, and has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Why is it that this reminds me so much of arguements with my ex-wife?  ::)
well, you're not responding to what i'm saying. what about what i said about iraq and afghanistan? i feel i actually have a basis for claiming the dems are more interested in compromise than the republicans. and i provided an argument why i think so. you respond with something about your ex-wife that i don't really understand, and you claim i'm blind because i don't agree with you. and then you build up a straw man about how i'm saying "my" side is completely innocent, which is obviously not what i'm saying.

it's sorta the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going "la la la." it makes my point for me. i made an argument, if i'm wrong, then you'll respond to the actual argument.

well, you're not responding to what i'm saying. what about what i said about iraq and afghanistan? i feel i actually have a basis for claiming the dems are more interested in compromise than the republicans. and i provided an argument why i think so. you respond with something about your ex-wife that i don't really understand, and you claim i'm blind because i don't agree with you. and then you build up a straw man about how i'm saying "my" side is completely innocent, which is obviously not what i'm saying.

it's sorta the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going "la la la." it makes my point for me. i made an argument, if i'm wrong, then you'll respond to the actual argument.


From my point of view (hindsight being 20-20 and such) it was everyone's fault.  The Republicans had a CRAPPY plan for Iraq.  Afghanistan made sense because of the fact that the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden, but Iraq was just opportunistic.  Yeah, Saddam = bad...but several years later, where's dem WMDs?  However, the Democrats didn't have a plan to begin with...it's arguable whether NO plan is better than CRAP plan, but they went along for the ride with the Republicans because they had no alternatives and didn't have the cajones to speak up.  The Iraq war got a fairly strong vote from both sides as I recall...but no exit strategy + lots of misinformation = bad news. 

Now I guess we have to pay for it :(  At least the Democrats are tryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying to fix it and many Republicans are gradually distancing themselves from the wacky right.  I think the Republicans are forced to act in a bipartisan manner because they don't want to take any more losses, but even back when they were in power, I didn't see the Democrats as being bipartisan...it's the nature of politics, really; everyone is opportunistic, and when the Dems saw that the public was going to turn on Bush, they jumped at the opportunity.

Not that he doesn't deserve it, mind you.

From my point of view (hindsight being 20-20 and such) it was everyone's fault.  The Republicans had a CRAPPY plan for Iraq.  Afghanistan made sense because of the fact that the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden, but Iraq was just opportunistic.  Yeah, Saddam = bad...but several years later, where's dem WMDs?  However, the Democrats didn't have a plan to begin with...it's arguable whether NO plan is better than CRAP plan, but they went along for the ride with the Republicans because they had no alternatives and didn't have the cajones to speak up.  The Iraq war got a fairly strong vote from both sides as I recall...but no exit strategy + lots of misinformation = bad news. 

Now I guess we have to pay for it :(  At least the Democrats are tryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying to fix it and many Republicans are gradually distancing themselves from the wacky right.  I think the Republicans are forced to act in a bipartisan manner because they don't want to take any more losses, but even back when they were in power, I didn't see the Democrats as being bipartisan...it's the nature of politics, really; everyone is opportunistic, and when the Dems saw that the public was going to turn on Bush, they jumped at the opportunity.

Not that he doesn't deserve it, mind you.
actually... i totally agree with you. i think a lot of the dem support for the war in the beginning was fairly craven opportunism, they just didn't want to be on record as being against the war when it seemed like it would probably be another cakewalk and it was pretty pisspoor and now a bunch of them, hillary most conspicuously, are backpedaling furiously.

still, in light of that it's hard to make the argument the dems are partisan. craven in caving to the other side -- that's rather the opposite of partisan, yes? not that i think it's noble, by any means.

i'm not sure i'd say the republicans are becoming more bipartisan though. i think there are some repubs dropping ranks but given everything that's going on their discipline in sticking by bush (at least in terms of voting against dem measures) has been pretty remarkable. and they're still doing this reprehensible thing of calling everyone who disagrees with them traitors. dig cheney the other sunday on the talk shows saying, oh, the dems are playing into al qaeda's strategy. hey cheney! jump up my ass! god, i hate that crap.

To be honest, I stopped paying attention a long time ago, I'm just waiting for the current administration to go away so someone with more than half a brain can hopefully fix things :P

I wonder if the two-party system has a lot to do with it...I am not familiar with multi-party systems like the British Parliament and how they do in terms of deadlocks and stalemates and such...probably more bureaucracy too.

To be honest, I stopped paying attention a long time ago, I'm just waiting for the current administration to go away so someone with more than half a brain can hopefully fix things :P

I wonder if the two-party system has a lot to do with it...I am not familiar with multi-party systems like the British Parliament and how they do in terms of deadlocks and stalemates and such...probably more bureaucracy too.
oh yeah? well, you're just like my ex-wife! >:(

i kid, of course. dude, i'm so about runoff voting and a multiparty system. there's some quote somewhere where some democrat is talking about the two-party system as though the founding fathers had written the constitution that way. totally not the case. i think it would fix a lot.

yeah, when the bushies call it quits it'll be the best thing that happened to this nation in a long time, almost regardless of who takes their place. sorta like how when you've been beating yourself on the head for a long time, it feels really wonderful when you stop.

i kid, of course. dude, i'm so about runoff voting and a multiparty system. there's some quote somewhere where some democrat is talking about the two-party system as though the founding fathers had written the constitution that way. totally not the case. i think it would fix a lot.



Davey may be crazy but when he said in some other thread that they never intended to have stupid poor people elect leaders, he wasn't far off the mark.  The original intent of the electoral process was to have multiple parties split the electoral vote such that nobody had the plurality of electoral votes (i.e. >50%, I think that's the right term), thus throwing the decision of the President into the capable hands of the rich and wise Congress.  Guess they never figured the two-party system would be that tough to crack.

Davey may be crazy but when he said in some other thread that they never intended to have stupid poor people elect leaders, he wasn't far off the mark.  The original intent of the electoral process was to have multiple parties split the electoral vote such that nobody had the plurality of electoral votes (i.e. >50%, I think that's the right term), thus throwing the decision of the President into the capable hands of the rich and wise Congress.  Guess they never figured the two-party system would be that tough to crack.
i've read that, taht the electoral college was designed to prevent "tyranny of the majority," so that congress could intervene in case some demagogue came along who the people fell in love with, but who congress recognized as being possibly dangerous for the country. kinda the same explanation but without the class aspect to it.

seems like a good idea, if congress isn't full of people who just slithered out from under a rock. unfortunately that appears to be too much to ask.

Too much about who has the most $$ nowadays.  That's why I don't think the Democratic party truly has the "people's agenda" in mind although I do like their stance on certain issues...they're too much like the Republicans that are often grouped into the money/power-grubbing slimeball category.

Too much about who has the most $$ nowadays.  That's why I don't think the Democratic party truly has the "people's agenda" in mind although I do like their stance on certain issues...they're too much like the Republicans that are often grouped into the money/power-grubbing slimeball category.
once again, i'd love to disagree with you but i really can't.

Davey may be crazy but when he said in some other thread that they never intended to have stupid poor people elect leaders, he wasn't far off the mark.  The original intent of the electoral process was to have multiple parties split the electoral vote such that nobody had the plurality of electoral votes (i.e. >50%, I think that's the right term), thus throwing the decision of the President into the capable hands of the rich and wise Congress.  Guess they never figured the two-party system would be that tough to crack.

Like the Founding Fathers ever envision Dubya~!
:D

Wanna help me form a third party?

Like the Founding Fathers ever envision Dubya~!
:D


...or WH Harrison (DEAD!  HA!) or Millard Fillmore or Grant or Hoover or...

The disadvantage of a system where anyone could potentially be President.

Too much about who has the most $$ nowadays.  That's why I don't think the Democratic party truly has the "people's agenda" in mind although I do like their stance on certain issues...they're too much like the Republicans that are often grouped into the money/power-grubbing slimeball category.

And yet...mention "campaign finance reform" and Republicans go frikkin' nuts!
::)

This thread isn't asking the question are you liberal or are you conservative? This is about the battle that is being waged in both camps. Yeah, I watch Bill O'Reilly for a few minutes until I can't stand it anymore. It seems to me that at every opportunity, he will say, "The far-left wing" or something like that in a distasteful manner-and implying that all the wrongs in this country is caused by the "far-left". I'm sure some of the left leaning media does similar stuff. My question is why do these people feel that it is necessary to put down the side? It is the attitude of "Either you are with us or you are a terrorist" (only less than 50 years ago, you can replace the word "terrorist" with "communist".)  We are supposed to be ONE NATION but yet some of these people like to demonetize those who have different beliefs of how this nation should be governed. These people are trying to strike fear and hatred of the other side instead of trying to find a happy medium for which all of us can work with. 


Thoughts? Comments?



Cat


Bill O'Reilly believes (and says so often) that those on the far left and those on the far right are hurting the country. If you watched more than a few moments, you would realize that. He gets just as "down on" the fanatical right as he does the fanatical left - believing that both extremes are wrong.

About the bashing of both sides.. right vs left and left vs right. I think, IMHO, that because elections have been won in the last couple of decades by the won throwing the most dirt around - makes the politicians and supporters etc., more dirty and they sling more mud.  >:(  If the people did not tolerate that kind of campaign and they demanded that candidates run on their merit and what they may have planned for the future (in any given subject), then the polticians would do so. But so long as "the best mud slinger gets the vote" is rewarded by our votes, then I don't personally see an end to it....

 

Bill O'Reilly believes (and says so often) that those on the far left and those on the far right are hurting the country. If you watched more than a few moments, you would realize that. He gets just as "down on" the fanatical right as he does the fanatical left - believing that both extremes are wrong.

About the bashing of both sides.. right vs left and left vs right. I think, IMHO, that because elections have been won in the last couple of decades by the won throwing the most dirt around - makes the politicians and supporters etc., more dirty and they sling more mud.  >:(  If the people did not tolerate that kind of campaign and they demanded that candidates run on their merit and what they may have planned for the future (in any given subject), then the polticians would do so. But so long as "the best mud slinger gets the vote" is rewarded by our votes, then I don't personally see an end to it....

 
it could have ended after 9/11, i think, because the people were for a brief period thinking that gridlock wasn't actually healthy for the country. but alas, it didn't turn out that way/

This thread isn't asking the question are you liberal or are you conservative? This is about the battle that is being waged in both camps. Yeah, I watch Bill O'Reilly for a few minutes until I can't stand it anymore. It seems to me that at every opportunity, he will say, "The far-left wing" or something like that in a distasteful manner-and implying that all the wrongs in this country is caused by the "far-left". I'm sure some of the left leaning media does similar stuff. My question is why do these people feel that it is necessary to put down the side? It is the attitude of "Either you are with us or you are a terrorist" (only less than 50 years ago, you can replace the word "terrorist" with "communist".)  We are supposed to be ONE NATION but yet some of these people like to demonetize those who have different beliefs of how this nation should be governed. These people are trying to strike fear and hatred of the other side instead of trying to find a happy medium for which all of us can work with. 


Thoughts? Comments?



Cat


I was wondering - what is the difference between someone saying "you are either for us or against us" and a person who gives political parody songs all ones (across the board) because they do not share their personal opinions? For example, is the pacing really that off?  I am very curious to hear your answer.

Davey may be crazy but when he said in some other thread that they never intended to have stupid poor people elect leaders, he wasn't far off the mark.  The original intent of the electoral process was to have multiple parties split the electoral vote such that nobody had the plurality of electoral votes (i.e. >50%, I think that's the right term), thus throwing the decision of the President into the capable hands of the rich and wise Congress.  Guess they never figured the two-party system would be that tough to crack.


MMHmmm.

The vast majority are stupid.

I'm all for disenfranchising anybody that can't pass a simple test giving them the right to vote. We're talking uber simple.. and I bet it'd disenfranchise 15% of the population.

I was wondering - what is the difference between someone saying "you are either for us or against us" and a person who gives political parody songs all ones (across the board) because they do not share their personal opinions? For example, is the pacing really that off?  I am very curious to hear your answer.

i'm not sure there's much of a difference, although giving someone all ones isn't quite the same as implying they're siding with the enemy in a time of war, which is what the whole "for us or against us" thing does.

for the record, as someone who's largely left of center, i find a lot of the doctrinaire aspects of the far left totally reprehensible and counterproductive. i've gotten shredded by hardcore lefties on more than one occasion and i can tell you, it ain't pleasant. they'll go right for the eyes, knees and crotch, i tell ya.

it could have ended after 9/11, i think, because the people were for a brief period thinking that gridlock wasn't actually healthy for the country. but alas, it didn't turn out that way/


...and wasn't that nice then? Sadly, something big like that is something that breaks the lines and puts the United back into the United States. It seems as if it would be a dream if that could be realized without something big happening again.

...and wasn't that nice then? Sadly, something big like that is something that breaks the lines and puts the United back into the United States. It seems as if it would be a dream if that could be realized without something big happening again.
well, it's not like people don't remember what that was like. we could all try and set aside all this guff and try to get back to that. i personally think we're gonna be facing some problems in the near future that'll make 9/11 look like child's play (global warming? peak oil? middle east instability?) and we'll either all band together or bicker our way to all our graves. just my opinion.

Just to add my two cents, I think the whole "red state" vs. "blue state" thing is one of the most divisive and poisonous ideas to be passed off on the American public in the entire history of the United States.


True - it doesn't help the situation much huh? Interestingly enough, not too long ago, (when Reagan ran (the time he won) and back, the Republicans were blue and the Democrats were red - anyone notice that? It changed and I can't remember when, but not too long ago.

see, i disagree. the democrats totally cut bush loads of slack on the afghanistan thing and even the iraq war, most of them voted to authorize the war and totally said we need to stand together. there were just some guys on the left who did otherwise.

after 9/11 it took the dems years for them to turn on bush, for a long time theyreally were by and large interested in bipartisanship but the republicans crapped all over them because they smelled the possibility of getting total power. i mean, firing perfectly competent prosecutors so they can plant members of their own party in judgeships? only republicans would do that, i just don't see the democrats going that far.


About 3 months, maybe four, after 911, there was an article up at the democrats org site - the official one. It was attempting to figure out why Gore lost & concluded that it could have been the total lack of emotion on his part, people could not really warm up or relate to his motor-type personality. They were doing this so that they could figure out how to win the next presidential election. They went over several emotion possibilities - sad/happy/pity/ etc on and on. They came up with Anger! They wrote that if they could get the American people to vote because they were so angry at the president - they they could win. Anger would also, it said, kick in votes from the younger males, ages 18 to 25 (I think it was 25) In any case, they laid out a plan to accomplish it & the bad thing is that I believe their campaign of creating anger in Americans went far with some to the hate point. Unjust & in my opinion, really really using the American people to get what they wanted, in the white house. There is a site called way back COM that allows you to put in a URL of any domain and it will provide you with years of web pages for each of the domains you choose. If you think I am making it up, read the site and you will find their plan was way back then was to create the emotion of anger in the people. THAT is low... that is wrong... that was planned.

Like the Founding Fathers ever envision Dubya~!
:D


I have read all of your posts and they are just great in showing the hate and division without solution. You are actually posting the problem and whining and that is counter-productive, don't you think?

I have read all of your posts and they are just great in showing the hate and division without solution. You are actually posting the problem and whining and that is counter-productive, don't you think?

I've learned in the years I've been on this board that people like to talk about how people talk about problems but they don't propose any solutions, and yet when you go out of your way to propose a solution--a comprehensive, workable solution--the others just scan over your post 'coz they don't want to read 18 paragraphs.  I have turned posts into theses.  Solutions are more complicated than criticism.  Takes more time to hash them out, and it doesn't work so well on a message board designed for quick back-and-forth repartee

Now, a great way to short circuit this conundrum is to charge others with being hateful and divisive and not proposting any solutions....as you have done.  That way, you get to appear to be the person who takes the higher ground (as opposed to people like me who just put stuff down) while getting satisfaction of doing what I do...just putting stuff down!
:D

About 3 months, maybe four, after 911, there was an article up at the democrats org site - the official one. It was attempting to figure out why Gore lost & concluded that it could have been the total lack of emotion on his part, people could not really warm up or relate to his motor-type personality. They were doing this so that they could figure out how to win the next presidential election. They went over several emotion possibilities - sad/happy/pity/ etc on and on. They came up with Anger! They wrote that if they could get the American people to vote because they were so angry at the president - they they could win. Anger would also, it said, kick in votes from the younger males, ages 18 to 25 (I think it was 25) In any case, they laid out a plan to accomplish it & the bad thing is that I believe their campaign of creating anger in Americans went far with some to the hate point. Unjust & in my opinion, really really using the American people to get what they wanted, in the white house. There is a site called way back COM that allows you to put in a URL of any domain and it will provide you with years of web pages for each of the domains you choose. If you think I am making it up, read the site and you will find their plan was way back then was to create the emotion of anger in the people. THAT is low... that is wrong... that was planned.
oh, i believe it. there is definitely much to be gained by keeping the people divided, deliberately. i have very mixed feelings about bill clinton but he was definitely a smart dude and he had one really nice quote: "they don't need your support, they only need your apathy." and basically keeping the populace constantly infighting serves the same purpose as apathy... an electorate that's yelling and shaking its fist at itself is never going to look at its elected representatives en masse and say, hey... are you actually acting in our best interests? in other words, divided population = no accountability for those in power.

that said, gore was a total crap candidate. i had no idea how they ended up with him. (so, incidentally, was kerry.) but what was the rallying cry in 2004? anybody but bush. worst political slogan ever, and it totally goes to what you're saying about how they campaigned on hating bush. i saw it on the left, and i didn't like it.

but... i had a similar feeling about the republicans -- how you could go for an obvious nimrod like bush over an obviously smart and at least marginally sincere dude like mccain completely befuddled me. hell, i mighta voted for mccain over gore, and i disagree with him on virtually EVERYTHING! lol. best i can figure, it's all about focus groups and committees.

that said, gore was a total crap candidate. i had no idea how they ended up with him. (so, incidentally, was kerry.)

That's because they were encouraged to agree with the Republicans on 9 out of 10 issues and put a smiley, liberal face on Wall Street savagery.  They listened to the DLC.  The DLC must be expelled.  They still think Clinton won because of them.  Clinton won because of HRP (H.Ross Perot).  The Dems have been sold a bill of goods about being all milquetoast and moderate.  Sorry, ya gotta throw bloody raw meet to the crocodiles, not Belgian endive!

If the Dems go with Republican-lite, they're gonna lose in '08.  They should banish any party operative who has appeared on FOX News more than twice.  No time to be conicliatory and take the high road.  Hit 'em below the belt and stand on their necks so they can't get beck up!  Or they can pick Joe Lieberman for veep if they want the same old same old and hand the GOP the executive branch until 2016.  The world cannot afford that...and I mean "the world" in every sense!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smileyshot22.gif

oh, i believe it. there is definitely much to be gained by keeping the people divided, deliberately. i have very mixed feelings about bill clinton but he was definitely a smart dude and he had one really nice quote: "they don't need your support, they only need your apathy." and basically keeping the populace constantly infighting serves the same purpose as apathy... an electorate that's yelling and shaking its fist at itself is never going to look at its elected representatives en masse and say, hey... are you actually acting in our best interests? in other words, divided population = no accountability for those in power.

that said, gore was a total crap candidate. i had no idea how they ended up with him. (so, incidentally, was kerry.) but what was the rallying cry in 2004? anybody but bush. worst political slogan ever, and it totally goes to what you're saying about how they campaigned on hating bush. i saw it on the left, and i didn't like it.

but... i had a similar feeling about the republicans -- how you could go for an obvious nimrod like bush over an obviously smart and at least marginally sincere dude like mccain completely befuddled me. hell, i mighta voted for mccain over gore, and i disagree with him on virtually EVERYTHING! lol. best i can figure, it's all about focus groups and committees.


I was shocked when they went with Kerry too, very shocked & very curious. Go figure! I know why they went for Gore, he was the VP leaving office - a logical candidate! As for Bush or McCain, I dunno, I think maybe funding had a lot to do with it. Bush did some good things in Texas as governor, but McCain was pretty impressive back then too. .. I dunno.

As for 08, I am not too sure that the democrats would do well with running hillary or obama. Hillary is not really that well liked and there are a lot of things she will be in trouble for/with. Obama has been in the US senate for two years - not enough experience - that will play a big factor if he gets in the final race. Personally, Biden would do okay, but he's not up there like Hillary and Obama are now. I wonder what the Democrats are thinking here, I am stunned. Maybe it is more about getting someone, anyone, who cares --- in the white house as long as they are democrat. But I honestly think that will backfire.

Between M

I was shocked when they went with Kerry too, very shocked & very curious. Go figure! I know why they went for Gore, he was the VP leaving office - a logical candidate! As for Bush or McCain, I dunno, I think maybe funding had a lot to do with it. Bush did some good things in Texas as governor, but McCain was pretty impressive back then too. .. I dunno.

As for 08, I am not too sure that the democrats would do well with running hillary or obama. Hillary is not really that well liked and there are a lot of things she will be in trouble for/with. Obama has been in the US senate for two years - not enough experience - that will play a big factor if he gets in the final race. Personally, Biden would do okay, but he's not up there like Hillary and Obama are now. I wonder what the Democrats are thinking here, I am stunned. Maybe it is more about getting someone, anyone, who cares --- in the white house as long as they are democrat. But I honestly think that will backfire.

Between M
i personally like biden a lot. i think he's a smart, responsible dude, i'm not sure he has that rock star quality though. i was thinking about volunteering for his campaign, to me he strikes me as a together guy who would take the country in a good direction. hillary, i don't like at all. obama, i think he's really cool, but i'm sorta with you, i'm not sure he's ready to be pres. if i were him -- i mean, whatever, go ahead and run if you want, but set your real sights on 2012.

on the other side, a lot of people are giving me the hard sell on giuliani, and i'm getting to the point where i might vote for him over hillary. (george will, incidentally, wrote a very clever piece a few days ago about how the republicans are into this order of succession, i glean you may be a republican ;D, whereas democrats sorta are more into rock stars, basically... so yes, if my impression is true you're going to find hillary a sensible choice for the dems, but for the dems who are voting in the primaries, her de facto incumbancy will actually be a liability... if you take my point...) mccain i grudgingly liked until just real recently, i got a kick out of his infighting with GW and was about tickled enough by that to vote for him, but his rhetoric on the iraq war lately really has irked me. i do still like how he doesn't seem to be playing the soundbite game so many pols are playing though.

i mean, whatever. i'm basically an angry lib who votes either independent or democrat so it would be hard to talk me into voting republican but if hillary wins the primaries i might consider it. particularly if giuliani or mccain runs. i REALLY don't like hillary.

also, is there any talk of condolleezza rice running? she's sorta persona non grata with the current administration right now, and to be really frank, she's done a few things recently to endear me to her, like evidently unilaterally open up diplomatic channels with iran. she seems to really be settling into her state department gig in a way i'm not entirely unhappy with.

the repubs were really all about a rice run back in the day, i have this feeling she's pretty much a pariah in the party now but lately i've been coming around to her a bit cuz i get the sense she got set up as a fall guy and is instead pulling some really interesting moves. i used to hate her but if she made a run i'd definitely give her a day in court.

i personally like biden a lot. i think he's a smart, responsible dude, i'm not sure he has that rock star quality though. i was thinking about volunteering for his campaign, to me he strikes me as a together guy who would take the country in a good direction. hillary, i don't like at all. obama, i think he's really cool, but i'm sorta with you, i'm not sure he's ready to be pres. if i were him -- i mean, whatever, go ahead and run if you want, but set your real sights on 2012.

on the other side, a lot of people are giving me the hard sell on giuliani, and i'm getting to the point where i might vote for him over hillary. (george will, incidentally, wrote a very clever piece a few days ago about how the republicans are into this order of succession, i glean you may be a republican ;D, whereas democrats sorta are more into rock stars, basically... so yes, if my impression is true you're going to find hillary a sensible choice for the dems, but for the dems who are voting in the primaries, her de facto incumbancy will actually be a liability... if you take my point...) mccain i grudgingly liked until just real recently, i got a kick out of his infighting with GW and was about tickled enough by that to vote for him, but his rhetoric on the iraq war lately really has irked me. i do still like how he doesn't seem to be playing the soundbite game so many pols are playing though.

i mean, whatever. i'm basically an angry lib who votes either independent or democrat so it would be hard to talk me into voting republican but if hillary wins the primaries i might consider it. particularly if giuliani or mccain runs. i REALLY don't like hillary.


yeah, I am republican...... But if I were given a choice as to which democrat I would want in the white house, (but I can't vote primaries).... but if I had to choose, it would be Biden. I think he would do a whole lot better than Hillary and certainly Obama. I think Hillry will get through though & I don't think she could beat Giuliani (which is good by me).  I liked Liberman mainly because he votes more for what he thinks American should get/ needs / you know, what is right for us, not for his party. But that almost cost him the senate, which is very sad. Party line voting and doing so at the expense of the country is really not  working, and if you dare try to do what is best for the country, you may not be in poltics long.. Gosh, sad. McCain is the other one who I think votes more for the good of the country than he does party lines. But those are the only two, one on both sides of the fence.

Rice keeps (firmly) stating that she would not run. She is highly educated and very experienced and is doing a good job, despite her party affiliations - but if she won't run...... there is not much thatcan be done.

Obama isn't in his senate seat & has not voted in 90 percent of the senate votes this last few months. But if a Democrat wins the presidential election; he's better off waiting until 2016 to make his run. He is still young - he has time. But what I don't get is why he is taking campaign money from people and spending money to run (and time) when I wouldn't think even he thought he could win...  Oh well.... we'll see! 

yeah, I am republican...... But if I were given a choice as to which democrat I would want in the white house, (but I can't vote primaries).... but if I had to choose, it would be Biden. I think he would do a whole lot better than Hillary and certainly Obama. I think Hillry will get through though & I don't think she could beat Giuliani (which is good by me).  I liked Liberman mainly because he votes more for what he thinks American should get/ needs / you know, what is right for us, not for his party. But that almost cost him the senate, which is very sad. Party line voting and doing so at the expense of the country is really not  working, and if you dare try to do what is best for the country, you may not be in poltics long.. Gosh, sad. McCain is the other one who I think votes more for the good of the country than he does party lines. But those are the only two, one on both sides of the fence.

Rice keeps (firmly) stating that she would not run. She is highly educated and very experienced and is doing a good job, despite her party affiliations - but if she won't run...... there is not much thatcan be done.

Obama isn't in his senate seat & has not voted in 90 percent of the senate votes this last few months. But if a Democrat wins the presidential election; he's better off waiting until 2016 to make his run. He is still young - he has time. But what I don't get is why he is taking campaign money from people and spending money to run (and time) when I wouldn't think even he thought he could win...  Oh well.... we'll see! 
weird how we're agreeing on stuff ms. newbie republican girl! :D i think i'll go ahead and start looking into the biden campaign, he's been my favorite for a long time and i too have a feeling he'll probably be a back runner and fizzle out, which to me is too bad. but i have a feeling volunteering for biden would be a fun experience and i'd meet cool people i'd dig. so i might just go ahead on.

i actually can't stand lieberman though. can't even put my finger on it. i have a feeling a lot of guys on the right probably feel the same way about specter and olympia snowe and hagel, but to me there's something different about lieberman, he just seems... weird zealous about the war. like he hasn't thought about it, he just supports the war hardcore for whatever reason.

i must say that i'm finding it super-refreshing that i'm able to talk to someone who is professedly on the other side of the fence and we're finding avenues for geniune discussion. that's very hard rock in my book. i hope you stick around. this is good.

(incidentally... if the antiwar movement today could find anything remotely resembling this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EJbpDzFDh8

the repubs would be in big big trouble... whatever happened to the left having kickass music?)

Bill O'Reilly believes (and says so often) that those on the far left and those on the far right are hurting the country. If you watched more than a few moments, you would realize that. He gets just as "down on" the fanatical right as he does the fanatical left - believing that both extremes are wrong.


I have not seen him do that with the far-right. Of course it has to do with how someone defines "far-left" or "far-right". I have seen him refer to Howard Dean as well as Hillary as "far-left" which is not so. I don't see him doing the same with Ann Coulter who I would say is extremely far-right as you can get.



About the bashing of both sides.. right vs left and left vs right. I think, IMHO, that because elections have been won in the last couple of decades by the won throwing the most dirt around - makes the politicians and supporters etc., more dirty and they sling more mud.  >:(  If the people did not tolerate that kind of campaign and they demanded that candidates run on their merit and what they may have planned for the future (in any given subject), then the polticians would do so. But so long as "the best mud slinger gets the vote" is rewarded by our votes, then I don't personally see an end to it....

 



Here, I agree with you 100%


I was wondering - what is the difference between someone saying "you are either for us or against us" and a person who gives political parody songs all ones (across the board) because they do not share their personal opinions? For example, is the pacing really that off?  I am very curious to hear your answer.


Not sharing someone's opinion is one thing. But it is another to accuse that person who does not share your belief as being unpatriotic, being a "terrorist" or helping the terrorists. These tactics are used to demonetize and to strike fear into people to go along with their opinion whether they agree with it or not. "I don't want to be accused of being unpatriotic so therefore I must do what they say." It is called coercion and it will continue until someone finally has the guts to say, "Have you no decency" to the people who are trying to coerce others with fear.




Cat

I love Obama, but he'd get crushed like a bug.  Folks always say they want a fresh face and a Beltway "outsider," but it's going to take a lot of cash and a lot of clout to beat the Republican blitzkrieg in '08.  The only one I see who's willing to hit below the belt is Hillary.  She's got a goonsquad who would pick through the other guy's garbage if she gave the order.  Gore has the money and the connections, he just has to do a No More Mister Nice Guy.  He's gotta learn how to be reeeally mean to his opponents.  Take no prisoners!

Of course, the punditocracy will say the "mean" strategy will alienate the voters if Hillary or Gore goes that way.  When Republicans are vicious and low-down, they sanctify it, like they did with the Swift Boat fiasco. Kerry just let that little Nixon snitch walk all over him.  If the Dems played like the Repugs, that Swift Boat guy would still be wearing a bag over his head in public!
::)

I love Obama, but he'd get crushed like a bug.  Folks always say they want a fresh face and a Beltway "outsider," but it's going to take a lot of cash and a lot of clout to beat the Republican blitzkrieg in '08.  The only one I see who's willing to hit below the belt is Hillary.  She's got a goonsquad who would pick through the other guy's garbage if she gave the order.  Gore has the money and the connections, he just has to do a No More Mister Nice Guy.  He's gotta learn how to be reeeally mean to his opponents.  Take no prisoners!

Of course, the punditocracy will say the "mean" strategy will alienate the voters if Hillary or Gore goes that way.  When Republicans are vicious and low-down, they sanctify it, like they did with the Swift Boat fiasco. Kerry just let that little Nixon snitch walk all over him.  If the Dems played like the Repugs, that Swift Boat guy would still be wearing a bag over his head in public!
::)


Has Gore actually mentioned running?

Hilary of Wal-Mart fame?  ;) ;D

(I know..I know, you're as big a fan of her as I am)

I have not seen him do that with the far-right. Of course it has to do with how someone defines "far-left" or "far-right". I have seen him refer to Howard Dean as well as Hillary as "far-left" which is not so. I don't see him doing the same with Ann Coulter who I would say is extremely far-right as you can get.

With all due respect, in your original post you mentioned that you don't watch FOX News for more than a few moments, (or something to that nature). Had you been watching - just this past week on the factor, Bill announced that she has gone way over-board in the last several months and really was almost dogging her over her last comment regarding John Edwards.



Not sharing someone's opinion is one thing. But it is another to accuse that person who does not share your belief as being unpatriotic, being a "terrorist" or helping the terrorists. These tactics are used to demonetize and to strike fear into people to go along with their opinion whether they agree with it or not. "I don't want to be accused of being unpatriotic so therefore I must do what they say." It is called coercion and it will continue until someone finally has the guts to say, "Have you no decency" to the people who are trying to coerce others with fear.


Cat

I think you may have totally missed my point to you there...

With all due respect, in your original post you mentioned that you don't watch FOX News for more than a few moments, (or something to that nature). Had you been watching - just this past week on the factor, Bill announced that she has gone way over-board in the last several months and really was almost dogging her over her last comment regarding John Edwards.

wow, bill shouted down ann coulter?! and all she had to do was call john edwards a f*gg*t.

imagine if she'd started venting about the n****rs and s**cs who i'm sure she's convinced are ruining america. then you REALLY would have seen bill get moderate. ;D

wow, bill shouted down ann coulter?! and all she had to do was call john edwards a f*gg*t.

imagine if she'd started venting about the n****rs and s**cs who i'm sure she's convinced are ruining america. then you REALLY would have seen bill get moderate. ;D



What is the n****rs and s**cs ?

What is the n****rs and s**cs ?





Uhhhh, the derogatory terms for African-Americans and Hispanics. 

you know, the racial slur for black people and then the racial slur for hispanic people. much akin to the incredibly hideous slur ann coulter used for gay people to refer to john edwards.

and the point i was trying to make is, if that's what it takes to make bill o'reilly finally, at long last, turn on his own far-right racist brethren, the man is far, far, far from being a moderate.

you know, the racial slur for black people and then the racial slur for hispanic people. much akin to the incredibly hideous slur ann coulter used for gay people to refer to john edwards.


You know, usually when she's on I watch just so I can see how much of a bleepin' bleep she makes of herself, but I missed this.  She really called Edwards a f*g?

You know, usually when she's on I watch just so I can see how much of a bleepin' bleep she makes of herself, but I missed this.  She really called Edwards a f*g?
f*gGOT, is what she said. that's the exact epithet i'm sure a lot of gay guys heard as their last word as they were getting lynched by the Klan back in the day.

and now she claims she was quoted out of context. but i heard it in real time on c-span, she pretty much just thinks that any man who isn't an uber far right neonazi isn't a real man. but she's such an obvious mattressback who's so been around the block a million times already, i'm sure she would need a nuclear submarine up her business at this point to even feel it.

f*gGOT, is what she said. that's the exact epithet i'm sure a lot of gay guys heard as their last word as they were getting lynched by the Klan.

and now she claims she was quoted out of context. but i heard it in real time on c-span, she pretty much just thinks that any man who isn't an uber far right neonazi isn't a real man. but she's such an obvious mattressback who's so been around the block a million times already, i'm sure she would need a nuclear submarine up her business at this point to even feel it.



I prefer "hot dog down a hallway."  I hate her.  She gives real Conservatives a bad name.  I mean, my family is Republican....not the scary kind, but the normal kind.  I hope people still think those exist.  Anyhow, she's a real piece of work and I wish more people would just boycott this harpy so she'll go away forever.

I don't care if Ann calls John Edwards a fag. He's a big boy, I doubt he's gonna cry about it (and I'll bet he is! - Then again, I'm still holding out for Newt to smoke Crack with an underage thai boy) but still.
Yeah, Bill pretty much ripped her totally.
He does.

Ya know.. that's the thing about the left, ya'll wanna paint everyone with the same brush.

I can fully see your dislike for people like Sean Hannity (Smug Fenian Prick) and Rush Limbaugh (When you gonna baloon again pop 'n' fresh?) but leave Bill alone.

He's generally impartial in so much that he says what he thinks, not what the station wants him to think. He'll actually listen to ideas from all ends of the spectrum, but he'll crush the stupid ones and make whoever suggests them lok small.. and that's funny.
First and foremost his show is for news.. but a close second - entertainment.

See, that's what a lot of people forget. Guys like John Stewart are few and far between. He's a liberal who's also humerous... you get these guys (perfect example being Alan Colmes) with no personality and no concept of humor and they just sit there are mumble on.
Ugh, it's like listening to a red faced drunken Ted Kennedy race... except without the shouting or the falling down....or the murder.

Ya know.. that's the thing about the left, ya'll wanna paint everyone with the same brush.

yeah, we're sorta all the same that way.

You know, usually when she's on I watch just so I can see how much of a bleepin' bleep she makes of herself, but I missed this.  She really called Edwards a f*g?


You guys reminded me of the Kids in the Hall skit with Scott Thompson (the only truly gay comedian on that show) doing his gay guy routine and talking about why the word "f****t" is so bad...and then he decided that if you left out the "T" it'd be cute and stuff.  It was pretty silly.

I think you can Youtube it but not sure...

Has Gore actually mentioned running?

Hilary of Wal-Mart fame?  ;) ;D

(I know..I know, you're as big a fan of her as I am)

Gore said he isn't a candidate now, but not that he wouldn't be a candidate in the future. If he wants in, he'd better hop to it because he will have to raise more money than any candidate in history.  That's what Hillary's going to do.  I don't think Gore is going to run.  If he does, he will be attacked nonstop for "An Inconvenient Truth."  They'll drag out all the Michael Crichton-type pseudo-scientists.  Gore has to kick them to the curb without any equivocation.  Even BP and Exxon-Mobil are making green overtures.  It might be merely PR right now, but at least they're not on the Sen. Inhofe bandwagon.  Within a decade Big Oil is going to have to come to terms with reality for business reasons.  The last global warming deniers won't be oil executives.  They will be right-wing politicians too proud to give up the fight.


Yes, Hillary was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart.  It's an Arkansas thing.  Hillary is a panderer.  She gives lip service to liberalism, but her true allegiance is to Wall Street and Israel.  Regarding the latter, she says so herself, so don't yell at me!


With all due respect, in your original post you mentioned that you don't watch FOX News for more than a few moments, (or something to that nature). Had you been watching - just this past week on the factor, Bill announced that she has gone way over-board in the last several months and really was almost dogging her over her last comment regarding John Edwards.



I've been watching FOX News since 1997.  I know how Bill Orally operates.  There's a BIIIIG difference between his criticism of the Left and the Right.  He compares anybody to the Left of Hillary to Fidel Castro.  He only criticizes the far-right, and only when they use violence or hate speech.  He DOES criticize Republicans, but only when they're not right-wing enough for his liking.   Bill-O does not endorse the far-right points of view of, say, Senator James Inhofe or Judge Roy Moore.  However, when he does a story on guys like that, his tack is: "Now, I don't agree with so-and-so, but I give him a fair opportunity to present his side...and the mainstream liberal media doesn't!" 

Or he declares, "Now, I don't agree with Joe Shmo, but why is it if a liberal....when a liberal...the Democrats...the left-wing media gives John Doe a free pass and why the double standard?"  He usually brings some oaf like Bernie Goldberg or Brent Bozzel on the program for these stories.

Regarding Ann Coulter--here's the difference.

Obnoxious lefties, such as Michael Moore, don't get invited back on The Factor if they challenge Bill-O.  Obnoxious righties, such as Ann Coulter, are regular panelists.  Bill-O rails against Al Franken and Paul Krugman with all the vitriol he can muster, but he would never seriously debate a guy like Krugman.  In fact, when he was on "Meet the Press" with Krugman, Bill-O spat venom and shouted down Krugman everytime Krugman tried to make a point.  Tim Russert sat there with his S.E.G. and let it happen because Russert is a right-winger just like Bill-O.

An emailer once asked Bill-O why he didn't invite Noam Chomsky on his program.  He smiled superciliously and said, "I will, on the day I invite Fidel Castro!"

Bill-O's fears those who can seriously challenge him and just won't face his critics.  That's what Limbaugh does too. 

With Ann, it's just a nod and a wink, "Pshaw, I wouldn't go that far!  Come on!"  He regards her as a loveable scamp no matter what she says because she's no threat to his self-righteousness.

Brent Bozzel


There is no single individual on the face of this planet that I hate more than L. Brent Bozell III.

I would glady smash his smug like McCarthyist face in to a pulp with a brick.
Bozell got nothing from Will Buckley, who is hilarious.. he instead got everything from his Father. The prick.

Buckley's a bit whacked, but he's great.

With all due respect, in your original post you mentioned that you don't watch FOX News for more than a few moments, (or something to that nature). Had you been watching - just this past week on the factor, Bill announced that she has gone way over-board in the last several months and really was almost dogging her over her last comment regarding John Edwards.


I DID see how Bill said that Ann did go a bit overboard but it was something like, "Oh, she probably shouldn't have said that". Where he would have been totally irrate and spitting fire if it was a Dem calling a Repub. the same thing.



I think you may have totally missed my point to you there...


Probably.  :-[




Cat

Since I haven't commented yet I'm going back to the original discussion.  Seems to me that while there are real differences between the "left" and the "right" there should be room for intelligent, rational debate.  What talking heads like O'Rielly, Hannity, and Limbaugh do doesn't come close to that goal, and I do listen to them for more than a few minutes.  It is a very common tactic to try to demonize ones opponent or attacking character rather than focusing on issues and ideas, and it appeals to our common fascination with sensationalism and the cult of personality.  What impresses me most about this section of the board is that, with a few exceptions, we, both liberals and conservatives, mostly avoid that sort of thing.

Beyond that, there is a great deal of confusion in this country regarding what "left" and "right" mean, which I think comes from the fact that both liberalism and conservatism stem from the same source, the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith.  At the heart of the debate, it seems to me, is the relationship between capitalism and democracy.  I use to spend at least 3 class periods discussing that question when I taught US history, but I'll spare you all that analuysis.  ;)

I can fully see your dislike for people like Sean Hannity (Smug Fenian Prick) and Rush Limbaugh (When you gonna baloon again pop 'n' fresh?) but leave Bill alone.




ChuckyG -  I don't know how to send you a message that gets to you personally; so I'll just type one here. The double standards are JUST TOO MUCH for me! Maybe I am not evolved enough to "get" the rules. So you can go ahead and block me out of here as you said!

hmm. interesting, i've seen people threaten to delete their accounts but i've never seen anyone ask to be blocked before. most curious, captain.

anyway, davey's probably mostly on your side.

ChuckyG -  I don't know how to send you a message that gets to you personally; so I'll just type one here. The double standards are JUST TOO MUCH for me! Maybe I am not evolved enough to "get" the rules. So you can go ahead and block me out of here as you said!





Dearie this stuff is mild.  ::) 

Dearie this stuff is mild.  ::) 
you should be around when we start talking goats.

or when the duck factions start throwing down on the geese factions.

Since I haven't commented yet I'm going back to the original discussion.  Seems to me that while there are real differences between the "left" and the "right" there should be room for intelligent, rational debate.  What talking heads like O'Rielly, Hannity, and Limbaugh do doesn't come close to that goal, and I do listen to them for more than a few minutes.  It is a very common tactic to try to demonize ones opponent or attacking character rather than focusing on issues and ideas, and it appeals to our common fascination with sensationalism and the cult of personality.  What impresses me most about this section of the board is that, with a few exceptions, we, both liberals and conservatives, mostly avoid that sort of thing.

Beyond that, there is a great deal of confusion in this country regarding what "left" and "right" mean, which I think comes from the fact that both liberalism and conservatism stem from the same source, the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith.  At the heart of the debate, it seems to me, is the relationship between capitalism and democracy.  I use to spend at least 3 class periods discussing that question when I taught US history, but I'll spare you all that analuysis.  ;)

Yes, that's why I think economic issues as the pertain to labor of all stripes are more important than "identity politics" or whether somebody is pro-choice or anti-choice.  John Locke and Adam Smith are still relevant, but they are pre-industrial capitalism.  The kind "small government" the Cato Institute talks about is not possible in a global industrial/post-industrial economy.  When John Locke was writing his treatises, the world was a much larger place with a much smaller population, and only a small percentage of that population even qualified for this "liberty."  Now everybody is theoretically entitled to it.  

DEBT

When you're in debt up to your eyeballs, you're not really free.  They say it's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility.  I'm not talking about people who max out credit cards buying luxuries.  I am talking about the basics of housing, transportation, healthcare, and education.   There's the student loan scam.  Yes, credit card debt does count as well because people cannot afford the things they need by paying cash up front.  Home owners have used their property as a cash cow only to now be drowning in a sea of debt.  Nowadays your credit rating is talked of as though it were a vital sign!

Never mind that it was right-wing ideology that turned America itself into the world's biggest debtor nation from the world's biggest lender nation in only a few years, it is the right-wing that will deny there is anything wrong with our economy and call personal/family debt a matter of poor personal planning on your part!

Other than being born rich (which is the Republican way), the options for staying out of debt in America are slim indeed.  Debt is the great controller.

you should be around when we start talking goats.

or when the duck factions start throwing down on the geese factions.


Too bad she wasn't here during the elections.  ;D  That was a blood bath.

hmm. interesting, i've seen people threaten to delete their accounts but i've never seen anyone ask to be blocked before. most curious, captain.

anyway, davey's probably mostly on your side.


I'm confused.

I thought it was common knowledge that Sean Hannity is a smug little prick... and Rush Limbaugh is an oaf who can't control himself...

ChuckyG -  I don't know how to send you a message that gets to you personally; so I'll just type one here. The double standards are JUST TOO MUCH for me! Maybe I am not evolved enough to "get" the rules. So you can go ahead and block me out of here as you said!







What are you talking about?  What double standard are you talking about?  What are these rules you think you don't "get"?  This is a highly confusing post.  I can't see anywhere in Andy's post that would cause you to say something like that, unless you can't handle people challenging you or disagreeing with you.

this entire thread is just like my ex-wife.

this entire thread is just like my ex-wife.


You've been obsessing over her a lot lately.  It's kinda becoming a drag. :P

You've been obsessing over her a lot lately.  It's kinda becoming a drag. :P
did my ex-wife send you?

did my ex-wife send you?


No.  I'm just afraid you'll end up like Howard.  (That was terrible)  Of course I'd rather hear you guys ramble then be stuck listening to Rush than forced to discuss. :P

No.  I'm just afraid you'll end up like Howard.  (That was terrible)  Of course I'd rather hear you guys ramble then be stuck listening to Rush than forced to discuss. :P
the weirdest part is, i've never been married.

the weirdest part is, i've never been married.


Well... technically.. it's not legal in Virginia.

the weirdest part is, i've never been married.


And you wonder why you were never married!!!  I refuse to get off the topic.  Where the heck is Randy Rhoades?  Rush is making me ill.

Well... technically.. it's not legal in Virginia.
:o Oh no!!!

And you wonder why you were never married!!! 
i'll bite. cuzza my dark obsession with my ex-wife?

What are you talking about?  What double standard are you talking about?  What are these rules you think you don't "get"?  This is a highly confusing post.  I can't see anywhere in Andy's post that would cause you to say something like that, unless you can't handle people challenging you or disagreeing with you.


No, I can handle myself fine - thank you! I got a personal message that said, (after I said "hard for liberals to wrap their tiny brains around...") that told me I would be kicked off the board for calling names. Get it now?
 

No, I can handle myself fine - thank you! I got a personal message that said, (after I said "hard for liberals to wrap their tiny brains around...") that told me I would be kicked off the board for calling names. Get it now?
 



I don't see where Andy called you a name, or insulted you....so I don't know why you'd claim there were double standards. What you quoted from him that brought on that comment wasn't about you.

Dearie this stuff is mild.  ::) 


"Sweetes" - like I mentioned, I am not upset over the comments, I can hold my own. It's the double-standards that get to me... (from people on ":my side" or not).

"Sweetes" - like I mentioned, I am not upset over the comments, I can hold my own. It's the double-standards that get to me... (from people on ":my side" or not).



What double standards are you talking about?!  The comment you quoted from Andy wasn't an insult to you, it wasn't a derogatory comment about you.....so I have no clue where you're getting this from.  What, do you think someone challenging you and not getting a PM from a mod is a "double standard"? 

I don't see where Andy called you a name, or insulted you....so I don't know why you'd claim there were double standards. What you quoted from him that brought on that comment wasn't about you.




I used his post as an example, because I don't know how to reply to personal messages. Maybe I should have not included a quote from anyone, that was my mistake .... I could have easily used another post quote or none at all. Sorry about that.

I used his post as an example, because I don't know how to reply to personal messages. Maybe I should have not included a quote from anyone, that was my mistake .... I could have easily used another post quote or none at all. Sorry about that.



To reply to a personal message, you go to your personal messages and you click "reply". 

What double standards are you talking about?!  The comment you quoted from Andy wasn't an insult to you, it wasn't a derogatory comment about you.....so I have no clue where you're getting this from.  What, do you think someone challenging you and not getting a PM from a mod is a "double standard"? 



NO! I don't care who challenges me! Challenges make it more interesting, (unless one just likes to have a bitch fest message board where everyone agrees on the bashing & does it to fill some ego need). I thought I explained it pretty well. When I wrote "wrap their tiny brains" regarding all liberals - I got a warning. The warning was to NOT call people names at all in here and that my parodies were tolerated, but personal attacks in here would get me banned. But all I read in here are personal attacks on people... I did a group of people, but that's not the same as doing people I guess. Maybe it's okay to call names, (although I didn't consider that to be calling names) as long as they are about people on the right. Maybe we can just put one party down and not the other... certain people but not groups. Who knows! Anyway, sorry you did not understand, I tried to be clear - be obviously failed. 

NO! I don't care who challenges me! Challenges make it more interesting, (unless one just likes to have a bitch fest message board where everyone agrees on the bashing & does it to fill some ego need). I thought I explained it pretty well. When I wrote "wrap their tiny brains" regarding all liberals - I got a warning. The warning was to NOT call people names at all in here and that my parodies were tolerated, but personal attacks in here would get me banned. But all I read in here are personal attacks on people... I did a group of people, but that's not the same as doing people I guess. Maybe it's okay to call names, (although I didn't consider that to be calling names) as long as they are about people on the right. Maybe we can just put one party down and not the other... certain people but not groups. Who knows! Anyway, sorry you did not understand, I tried to be clear - be obviously failed. 




So you're under the impression that it's okay here for people to insult Conservatives but not Liberals?  Ummm, okay.  What you think are personal attacks.....really aren't, otherwise I'm pretty sure Chucky would have said something to the people who were making said comments or he would have posted something here.

hmm, that seems a bit much to me to be honest. i'd like to be able to say conservatives all have tiny brains if the mood strikes me, which means i'd have to defend your right to say liberals have tiny brains. ;D maybe chucky took it as directed at ash in particular, which would be a mistaken impression on his part but i could see where someone might have thought that.

you might want to point out to him that you were talking in general terms, he might not know that.

So you're under the impression that it's okay here for people to insult Conservatives but not Liberals?  Ummm, okay.  What you think are personal attacks.....really aren't, other wise I'm pretty sure Chucky would have said something to the people who were making said comments or he would have posted something here.


Or, better answer, double standards... because I was told I would be kicked out.... awe forget it. You just don't see it or you just do not want to.

Or, better answer, double standards... because I was told I would be kicked out.... awe forget it. You just don't see it or you just do not want to.

i'm thinking it's a misunderstanding. he thought your comment was directed at someone in particular, not at a group of people in general.

but whatever, it's his rules, not mine. he's actually been giving lots of people warnings lately, it's been crackdown time around here.

i think we just became part of the "liberal media."

i think we just became part of the "liberal media."



Such a thing exists?  LOL

Such a thing exists?  LOL
yeah, if it weren't for the fifth-column liberal media we'd have won the war in iraq by now. didn't you hear about that?

Has she talked to "Shrumie"?  Mushroom's a Conservative who likes to bash us liberals every once in a while.  Come to think of it I remember our favorite Bush fan (G.W.Bush2004) nailing us a few times.  I don't see a double standard.

Has she talked to "Shrumie"?  Mushroom's a Conservative who likes to bash us liberals every once in a while.  Come to think of it I remember our favorite Bush fan (G.W.Bush2004) nailing us a few times.  I don't see a double standard.
yah, and davey thrashmister actually openly advocates the rounding up of the weak and infirm!

yeah, if it weren't for the fifth-column liberal media we'd have won the war in iraq by now. didn't you hear about that?



No, I was too busy leading a protest march against Bush and chaining myself to the doors of a lab that tests cosmetics on animals.  You know, just being the bleeding heart Liberal that I am.

yah, and davey thrashmister actually openly advocates the rounding up of the weak and infirm!


.. and those who differ in appearence to me.

yah, and davey thrashmister actually openly advocates the rounding up of the weak and infirm!


We're a bunch of well rounded politically minded people who like to argue.  Be we liberal or conservative, everyone has learned to dish it out and take it.  B.T.W. where has G.W.Bush2004 been?  Kinda miss him. :)

Has she talked to "Shrumie"?  Mushroom's a Conservative who likes to bash us liberals every once in a while. 


Actually, I do not "bash liberals".  In fact, I am somewhat of a "heretic" as a Conservative, and have a lot of views that are considered "Liberal" myself.

Mostly what I bash, is "Group Think".  This is where people will simply fall along with what is considered to be "appropriate thinking", just because it is what "Liberal Leaders" tell them to think.  And I love to poke fun at it, because it is so full of inconsistancies.  They will say one thing, then do another.  Or support (or oppose) something, then turn right around and take the opposite stance at a later time, simply because it is "convient".

I can fill volumes with examples I see in here all the time.  Where somebody will take one view on something, then turn around at a later date and take the opposite view.  Often for no other reason then in once instance it supports their own party, then in the next it supports the other party (so they must now be against it).

And yes, Conservatives who blindly follow their party do the same thing.  It disgusts me just as much when they do it.

So bash Liberals, good heavens no.  About the only thing I actively bash is hatred, discrimination, and bigotry. 


Come to think of it I remember our favorite Bush fan (G.W.Bush2004) nailing us a few times.  I don't see a double standard.


GW moved on quite a while ago.  This board really is so skewed to "The Left", that it often becomes uncomfortable to anybody that leans towards "The Right".  And the farther Right somebody leans, the more uncomfortable it is in here.  In reality, I not very far to the right in most of my views.  And even I get attacks which I mostly ignore.  GW was basically attacked on almost anything he posted, and he just got tired of it.

BTW:  Think about this people.  Over and over again, people are surprised when I agree with Don Carlos or Maxwell Smart.  Yet this happens over and over again.  If I am so Conservative, why do we agree so often?  And can many of you honestly say what my real beliefs are in many things?  Quite often (around 40%) of the time, I take up a stance opposite of what I believe.  I do this to be a "spoiler", so that "The Liberals" have somebody to actually debate a topic on (as opposed to just standing around and going "we are so right").  I often chuckle because I treat it like an organizaed debate, where ideas are debated logically.  And most of the responses I get contain no substance, and are all feeling.  In an organized debate, that would get you no points.

To be fair, GW was kind of a reactionary prick.

To be fair, GW was kind of a reactionary prick.
"kind of"? he totally gave as good as he got. but his arguments just... sucked. it's funny when people say they're objective, but also openly admit to being left or right-wing. im liberal. the reason why is because i just don't think conservative points of view are as well thought out, as effective in terms of governance (anyone wanna take a look at the recent track record?), and i think theyre fuonded on ideas that just don't wash, mainly the free market as magical panacea capable of fixing everything that ails the human race.

so can i claim to be objective? no. people who do make me nervous, frankly. because it's a short trip from there to thinking you have exclusive propriety over the truth. i have opinions, i argue to support them the best i can, but i certianly wouldn't claim to be on any pedagogic exercise to show other people how to debate effectively, or to show them the double-standards of their ways. i wonder about it when people think they're so uniquely talented and privileged as to be able to provide such services.

^ Well, I waaaaaaaaaaaaaas trying to be nice :D

9900!

"kind of"? he totally gave as good as he got. but his arguments just... sucked. it's funny when people say they're objective, but also openly admit to being left or right-wing. im liberal. the reason why is because i just don't think conservative points of view are as well thought out, as effective in terms of governance (anyone wanna take a look at the recent track record?), and i think theyre fuonded on ideas that just don't wash, mainly the free market as magical panacea capable of fixing everything that ails the human race.

so can i claim to be objective? no. people who do make me nervous, frankly. because it's a short trip from there to thinking you have exclusive propriety over the truth. i have opinions, i argue to support them the best i can, but i certianly wouldn't claim to be on any pedagogic exercise to show other people how to debate effectively, or to show them the double-standards of their ways. i wonder about it when people think they're so uniquely talented and privileged as to be able to provide such services.


I really really love you.

Actually, I do not "bash liberals".  In fact, I am somewhat of a "heretic" as a Conservative, and have a lot of views that are considered "Liberal" myself.

Mostly what I bash, is "Group Think".  This is where people will simply fall along with what is considered to be "appropriate thinking", just because it is what "Liberal Leaders" tell them to think.  And I love to poke fun at it, because it is so full of inconsistancies.  They will say one thing, then do another.  Or support (or oppose) something, then turn right around and take the opposite stance at a later time, simply because it is "convient".

I can fill volumes with examples I see in here all the time.  Where somebody will take one view on something, then turn around at a later date and take the opposite view.  Often for no other reason then in once instance it supports their own party, then in the next it supports the other party (so they must now be against it).

And yes, Conservatives who blindly follow their party do the same thing.  It disgusts me just as much when they do it.

So bash Liberals, good heavens no.  About the only thing I actively bash is hatred, discrimination, and bigotry. 

GW moved on quite a while ago.  This board really is so skewed to "The Left", that it often becomes uncomfortable to anybody that leans towards "The Right".  And the farther Right somebody leans, the more uncomfortable it is in here.  In reality, I not very far to the right in most of my views.  And even I get attacks which I mostly ignore.  GW was basically attacked on almost anything he posted, and he just got tired of it.

BTW:  Think about this people.  Over and over again, people are surprised when I agree with Don Carlos or Maxwell Smart.  Yet this happens over and over again.  If I am so Conservative, why do we agree so often?  And can many of you honestly say what my real beliefs are in many things?  Quite often (around 40%) of the time, I take up a stance opposite of what I believe.  I do this to be a "spoiler", so that "The Liberals" have somebody to actually debate a topic on (as opposed to just standing around and going "we are so right").  I often chuckle because I treat it like an organizaed debate, where ideas are debated logically.  And most of the responses I get contain no substance, and are all feeling.  In an organized debate, that would get you no points.



Well, Mushroom. It seems that we agree once again. Which brings back the point to this thread. It seems to me that the Left vs Right argument has to do with generalizations. "All liberals are...." or "All conservatives are..." People like Ann Coulter do this-which is why she is spreading hate.  I like to take people on an individual basis. I have a dear friend who is very much to the right-in fact her family is friends with the Bush family. We just agree to disagree when it comes to politics and have a very good friendship. (Though I must admit that sometimes I just have to say my piece but I did it in such a way where it is not an attack-just my opinion. And then move on.)



Cat

Well, Mushroom. It seems that we agree once again. Which brings back the point to this thread. It seems to me that the Left vs Right argument has to do with generalizations. "All liberals are...." or "All conservatives are..." People like Ann Coulter do this-which is why she is spreading hate.  I like to take people on an individual basis. I have a dear friend who is very much to the right-in fact her family is friends with the Bush family. We just agree to disagree when it comes to politics and have a very good friendship. (Though I must admit that sometimes I just have to say my piece but I did it in such a way where it is not an attack-just my opinion. And then move on.)



Cat


I believe there is such a thing as Blue Dog Democrats and Moderate Republicans.  I also think that there a quite a few Dems and Republicans who agree to disagree. 

Yes, that's why I think economic issues as the pertain to labor of all stripes are more important than "identity politics" or whether somebody is pro-choice or anti-choice.  John Locke and Adam Smith are still relevant, but they are pre-industrial capitalism.  The kind "small government" the Cato Institute talks about is not possible in a global industrial/post-industrial economy.  When John Locke was writing his treatises, the world was a much larger place with a much smaller population, and only a small percentage of that population even qualified for this "liberty."  Now everybody is theoretically entitled to it. 

DEBT

When you're in debt up to your eyeballs, you're not really free.  They say it's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility.  I'm not talking about people who max out credit cards buying luxuries.  I am talking about the basics of housing, transportation, healthcare, and education.  There's the student loan scam.  Yes, credit card debt does count as well because people cannot afford the things they need by paying cash up front.  Home owners have used their property as a cash cow only to now be drowning in a sea of debt.  Nowadays your credit rating is talked of as though it were a vital sign!

Never mind that it was right-wing ideology that turned America itself into the world's biggest debtor nation from the world's biggest lender nation in only a few years, it is the right-wing that will deny there is anything wrong with our economy and call personal/family debt a matter of poor personal planning on your part!

Other than being born rich (which is the Republican way), the options for staying out of debt in America are slim indeed.  Debt is the great controller.


Yes, both Smith and Locke are relevant.  Smith recognized the fallicy of "free enterprise" when he wrote to the affect that whenever you put two or three businessmen in a room alone, they will hatch a conspiracy to fix prices and eliminate competition.

What I was getting at though, is that both liberals and conservatives see capitalism as the economic manifestation of democracy.  The only fundamental question on which they disagree is the role of the state in regulating capitalism.  The problem, as you pointed out, is that this is historically incorrect, capitalism preceeded democracy, and was, in fact, the prime impetus in its development, since the rising capitalist class was excluded from access to  the power of the state, which was in the hands of the nobility.  Barrington Moore, in The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, pointed out that there were three "solutions" to this problem.  The British nobility ultimately sold state power for access to wealth.  The French bourgeoisie used the guillotine to get state power, and the German bourgeiosie gave up the right to rule for the right to make money.  So what we call "democracy" Marx would call "the dictatorship of the boureiosie".  So thinking along those lines, the real question between liberals and conservatives is "how blatantly will we use the power of the state to further our own interests?".  Or put another way," how harshly can we get away with exploiting the working class before they rise up in rebellion?".  All the rest is fluff.  Note that it was only during the '30s that "welfare capitalism" caught on, a time of considerable unrest, although there were forerunners before WWI, mostly to counter the Wobblies. 

People like Ann Coulter do this-which is why she is spreading hate. 


Yes, and the list goes on.  Anne Coulter, Al Franken, Michael  Moore, Bill O'Riley, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Tammy Bruce, the list really is long.

But what constantly amazes me is that you have people that say "What Anne Coulter says is devisive and she should shut up".  They will turn right around and say "Al Franken is totally right, and he should attack them harder".

Things like that often make me think I have stepped into the twilight zone.  Personally, I feel that both of them have the right to say what they want.  And nobody has the right to tell either one of them to "shut up".

And somebody who wants to muzzle somebody just because they are from "the other side" is the worst kind of fascist.


It seems to me that the Left vs Right argument has to do with generalizations. "All liberals are...." or "All conservatives are..."


I never make such assumptions.  And when I do use words to that effect, it is in reference to those that tend to "toe the party line".  But you will notice, I never get as ugly as some people do around here.  I certainly do not go around saying things like "Liberals want to force your daughters to have abortions" or "Liberals want to make it legal for drug dealers to sell crack to your children".  Things like that are not only ugly, they are untrue.

Yet at the same time, I can't tell you how many times I have seen people say things like "Conservatives support racism", "Conservatives want to turn the country into a Theocracy", or "Conservatives want homeless to suffer so they can get richer".  But for some reason, these statements are not even blinked at, because they are accepted as being "true".


"kind of"? he totally gave as good as he got. but his arguments just... sucked. it's funny when people say they're objective, but also openly admit to being left or right-wing. im liberal. the reason why is because i just don't think conservative points of view are as well thought out, as effective in terms of governance (anyone wanna take a look at the recent track record?), and i think theyre fuonded on ideas that just don't wash, mainly the free market as magical panacea capable of fixing everything that ails the human race.


So this is your justification for rejecting out of hand any alternative concept that is run past you.  "I am a liberal, so nothing else matters".


I believe there is such a thing as Blue Dog Democrats and Moderate Republicans.  I also think that there a quite a few Dems and Republicans who agree to disagree. 


That is very true.  And when it comes to people who goose-step in line of their party simply because it is their party, I reject them, no matter which party they happen to represent.  For example, when President Clinton got us in volved in Somalia and Yugoslavia, I fully supported his actions.  And I simply could not understand the "Conservatives" that spoke up against the President's attempt to end human suffering in those countries.

And I am just as baffled at the reactions from "The Other Side" now.  But at least I can accept that I am consistant with myself, and my own beliefs.  And in the end, that is all that really matters.  My beliefs are determined by myself, and the "Party" I associate myself with is the one that tends to be closer to those beliefs.  But they do not tell me what to think, only I do that.  And if they tried to do that, I would tell them to kiss my posterior.

And if you look back, I frustrated GW almost as much as Don Carlos and Maxwell did.  Many times I would be on an opposite side then his, or would simply want to let things slide.  I even was a member briefly of one of the boards he went to from here.  I left, because most of those over there told me I was "to Liberal".

Ain't that a hoot!

BTW:  Think about this people.  Over and over again, people are surprised when I agree with Don Carlos or Maxwell Smart.  Yet this happens over and over again.  If I am so Conservative, why do we agree so often?  And can many of you honestly say what my real beliefs are in many things?  Quite often (around 40%) of the time, I take up a stance opposite of what I believe.  I do this to be a "spoiler", so that "The Liberals" have somebody to actually debate a topic on (as opposed to just standing around and going "we are so right").  I often chuckle because I treat it like an organizaed debate, where ideas are debated logically.  And most of the responses I get contain no substance, and are all feeling.  In an organized debate, that would get you no points.


And this about the many times I agree with you Mushroom  ;)

Barrington Moore, in The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, pointed out that there were three "solutions" to this problem.  The British nobility ultimately sold state power for access to wealth.  The French bourgeoisie used the guillotine to get state power, and the German bourgeiosie gave up the right to rule for the right to make money.  So what we call "democracy" Marx would call "the dictatorship of the boureiosie".  So thinking along those lines, the real question between liberals and conservatives is "how blatantly will we use the power of the state to further our own interests?".  Or put another way," how harshly can we get away with exploiting the working class before they rise up in rebellion?". 


Of course, there is more then one definition to the word Exploit:

1. To use for one's own advantage.
2. To take advantage of.

Myself, when I think "Exploit", I tend to think of the first defintion.  To use for your own advantage does not have to mean "to abuse".  When we farm land, we are "exploiting" the land.  But through careful management, the land can be even better off after that is done.  In the past, lumber companies "exploited" the forests (second definition), cutting trees and leaving nothing behind but wasteland.  Modern techniques "exploit" the land by trying to leave it in as good (if not better) condition, ensuring that another "crop" can be harvested in the future (first definition).

Every form of Government "Exploits" it's citizens.  The only real difference is if they are trying to improve their lives in the process, or only useing it as a way to get something else (fame, power, money, glory, etc).  Myself, I would much rather be "Exploited" by an "enlightened" nation like the US, UK, or France.  Especially when the alternatives are being "Exploited" by countries like the PRC, Iran, and Lebanon.  No system is perfect, but hopefully "Democracy" and "Republicanism" (the forms of Government - not the political parties) help level out the worst aspects of a Government.

Personally, I view our contry as having "Revolutions" every 2-4 years.  Because at thate, we have the choice of throwing out the party in control, and adopting a new one.  And it has happened many times in the past.  And most of the time, it takes the form of a "coalition government", with both sides having a say in which business is conducted.  8 years ago, the Democrats controlled half and the Republicans controlled half.  5 years ago, Republcians controlled most of both sides.  Then last year the Democrats got half the control.  I have no problem with that.  I never have, and never will.  As long as the business is taken care of, and neither side tries to hog all of the power.

Yes, and the list goes on.  Anne Coulter, Al Franken, Michael  Moore, Bill O'Riley, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Tammy Bruce, the list really is long.

But what constantly amazes me is that you have people that say "What Anne Coulter says is devisive and she should shut up".  They will turn right around and say "Al Franken is totally right, and he should attack them harder".

Things like that often make me think I have stepped into the twilight zone.  Personally, I feel that both of them have the right to say what they want.  And nobody has the right to tell either one of them to "shut up".

And somebody who wants to muzzle somebody just because they are from "the other side" is the worst kind of fascist.



I never said that these people should shut up. As you probably know that I HIGHLY believe in the First Admendment which grants us freedom of speech. As Voltaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." What bothers me is that people do listen to them and like you said (in so many words), "egg them on to attack harder". I am talking about left AND right. It is because of their "followers" that their venom spreads. Hate begats hate.



I never make such assumptions.  And when I do use words to that effect, it is in reference to those that tend to "toe the party line".  But you will notice, I never get as ugly as some people do around here.  I certainly do not go around saying things like "Liberals want to force your daughters to have abortions" or "Liberals want to make it legal for drug dealers to sell crack to your children".  Things like that are not only ugly, they are untrue.

Yet at the same time, I can't tell you how many times I have seen people say things like "Conservatives support racism", "Conservatives want to turn the country into a Theocracy", or "Conservatives want homeless to suffer so they can get richer".  But for some reason, these statements are not even blinked at, because they are accepted as being "true".





I never said you did that. I am saying that SOME people do this-which lies the problem. When people do that, they strike fear of the other side. It is one thing to say that "SOME liberals want..." or "SOME conservatives want..." but to say "ALL" is just false.



Cat

So this is your justification for rejecting out of hand any alternative concept that is run past you.  "I am a liberal, so nothing else matters".

i compromise and dialogue with people on the other side all the time. davey, rice, even lterhume and me have all found things  to agree on. but you're just so abrasive in your approach, and so inherently convinced in the praiseworthiness of your own argumentative skills, that it makes it really really difficult to actually talk about anything real.

i mean, look how many sentences you start with "remember," or "actually, the truth is," or, "i approach this as an organized debate," or "i always chuckle when i see other people do" this or that. you spend so much time referencing the perfect even-handedness of your argumentative approach and comparing yourself favorably to others as the pearl surrounded on all sides by swine, you don't even get around to actually making an argument half the time. instead you post long messages about how objective and fair your messages are. sorta like how fox's main story is that they're "fair and balanced." they're so busy being "fair and balanced" half the time they don't ever getting around to actually giving us any news.

so sometimes i try and find some way to engage the things you post but i can't even find a way in. because they're mostly so self-referential.

I never said you did that. I am saying that SOME people do this-which lies the problem. When people do that, they strike fear of the other side. It is one thing to say that "SOME liberals want..." or "SOME conservatives want..." but to say "ALL" is just false.


And I never meant to imply that you did Cat.  But there are others around here that do.

Myself, I tend to view it more as "some people", because quite often these things really cross party lines.  You have hatefull, ugly, and stupid people on both sides of the political fence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101439.html

this was in the paper today. although it was in the post, damn liberal press, so i just decided it was treasonous and ignored it. :D

***

Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil.

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, March 12, 2007; A03

The conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week gave Americans a chance to pick at the scab of what has become a favored obsession -- the debate over the motives of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

The contours of that debate are straightforward. Opponents of the war believe passionately that President Bush, his neoconservative allies and a complicit Congress deliberately misled the nation into war. Supporters of the president and the war concede that mistakes were made, especially on the question of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but say this involved no attempt to hoodwink the nation.

Antiwar groups declared that the Libby trial laid bare the Bush administration's smear campaign to discredit a war critic -- and said they hope Libby is just the first in a long line of officials to be punished. Supporters of the administration and the war declared the trial showed that Bush had done nothing to mislead the nation and that war opponents are being paranoid.

What is interesting about the clash from a psychological perspective is not that supporters and critics disagree, but that large numbers of people on both sides claim to know the motives of people who disagree with them. When was the last time you heard people say that those who disagree with them on the Iraq war are well-meaning, smart, informed and thoughtful?

A wide body of psychological research shows that on any number of hot-button issues, people seem hard-wired to believe the worst about those who disagree with them. Most people can see the humor in such behavior when it doesn't involve things they care about: If you don't care about sports, for example, you roll your eyes when fans of one team question the principles and parentage of fans of a rival team.

ii mean, look how many sentences you start with "remember," or "actually, the truth is," or, "i approach this as an organized debate," or "i always chuckle when i see other people do" this or that. you spend so much time referencing the perfect even-handedness of your argumentative approach and comparing yourself favorably to others as the pearl surrounded on all sides by swine, you don't even get around to actually making an argument half the time. instead you post long messages about how objective and fair your messages are. sorta like how fox's main story is that they're "fair and balanced." they're so busy being "fair and balanced" half the time they don't ever getting around to actually giving us any news.

so sometimes i try and find some way to engage the things you post but i can't even find a way in. because they're mostly so self-referential.


And once again, that is really all about style and approach.

And I do treat this forum like a debate.  And in debate, there really is no place for "personal feelings".  In fact, I rarely use such things.  Most of the time, I either look up or remember something from the past that is along the same lines.  And my being both a trivia nut and a history buff gives me a lot to dredge through (my mind in many ways is like a cess pool - all sorts of things fall into it, and very few ever leave).

Mostly, I do not "debate feelings" because they are so subjective.  They can vary depending on the perspective of the person making the observation.  And that is never a very reliable thing to use.  But I also never approach these conversations as anything other then differences of opinion.  And quite often we will dissagree, but I certainly do not think any less of you (or anybody else) simply because we dissagree.  However, it is my right to give my own opinion on something.  That way even though we walk away dissagreeing, at least we have heard each other out.

I am not here to "convert" anybody.  And I admit that I love to debate.  The last thing I would ever want is for Don Carlos, Cat, Maxwell, or you to suddenly "see the light and become a Conservative".  Because then a lot of the fun would go out of the debates.  And also because of my distrust of "Fundamentalists".  In my experience, people that "discover a new truth" are the most inflexible in their thinking.

The biggest differences between our forms of posting is that you tend to argue with "feelings", and I argue with "experiences" or "past history".  And when it comes to history and feelings, neither one of them gives a damn about the other.  A feeling cares nothing about history.  And history certainly cares nothing about feelings.  JFK is dead, no matter what you may wish.  And wishing that Bin Ladin was dead certainly does nothing to make it so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101439.html

this was in the paper today. although it was in the post, damn liberal press, so i just decided it was treasonous and ignored it. :D

***

Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil.

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, March 12, 2007; A03


This is an editorial piece, not a news piece.  You will find a lot more diversity in the editorial features, simply because it is where the different reporters are able to put their own beliefs into print.  I never accept editorial pieces as "News", unless it is like that moron Kenneth Eng, who made himself into news because of his idiotic racist opinions (which was published because it was an "editorial).

The biggest differences between our forms of posting is that you tend to argue with "feelings", and I argue with "experiences" or "past history". 
this is why you say things like i remind you of your ex-wife? because you're refraining from using "feelings" when you post? ::)

again, you seem to reference your own objectivity much more often than you practice it. i've seen you regularly get defensive, engage in personal invective, selectively criticize policies on one side of the political debate and give the other side a free pass, catalog long sequences of facts without a plain overarching thesis to synthesize them, and the like. your style of "debating" is HIGHLY emotional. and your insistent denials of the emotional aspect of your argumentative style seems to be part and parcel of this. the irony is, the way you deny that your style is emotional is, itself, rather emotional.

This is an editorial piece, not a news piece.  You will find a lot more diversity in the editorial features, simply because it is where the different reporters are able to put their own beliefs into print.  I never accept editorial pieces as "News", unless it is like that moron Kenneth Eng, who made himself into news because of his idiotic racist opinions (which was published because it was an "editorial).
actually, it's an analysis of study findings. although the post web site listed it under opinion.

remember, news analysis has a leeway in terms of personal opinion that strict news pieces are not supposed to have. don't forget, news analysis is somewhere between straight journalism and editorial pieces in terms of how objective it's supposed to be.

And once again, that is really all about style and approach.

And I do treat this forum like a debate.  And in debate, there really is no place for "personal feelings".  In fact, I rarely use such things.  Most of the time, I either look up or remember something from the past that is along the same lines.  And my being both a trivia nut and a history buff gives me a lot to dredge through (my mind in many ways is like a cess pool - all sorts of things fall into it, and very few ever leave).

Mostly, I do not "debate feelings" because they are so subjective.  They can vary depending on the perspective of the person making the observation.  And that is never a very reliable thing to use.  But I also never approach these conversations as anything other then differences of opinion.  And quite often we will dissagree, but I certainly do not think any less of you (or anybody else) simply because we dissagree.  However, it is my right to give my own opinion on something.  That way even though we walk away dissagreeing, at least we have heard each other out.

I am not here to "convert" anybody.  And I admit that I love to debate.  The last thing I would ever want is for Don Carlos, Cat, Maxwell, or you to suddenly "see the light and become a Conservative".  Because then a lot of the fun would go out of the debates.  And also because of my distrust of "Fundamentalists".  In my experience, people that "discover a new truth" are the most inflexible in their thinking.

The biggest differences between our forms of posting is that you tend to argue with "feelings", and I argue with "experiences" or "past history".  And when it comes to history and feelings, neither one of them gives a damn about the other.  A feeling cares nothing about history.  And history certainly cares nothing about feelings.  JFK is dead, no matter what you may wish.  And wishing that Bin Ladin was dead certainly does nothing to make it so.



I feel the exact opposite way about history and the world we live in.  I “feel” very strongly about the war in Iraq.  I “feel” very strongly about our President.  I “feel” very strongly about racism and discrimination in this country.  You have denounced racism and prejiduce time and time again.  How can you denounce something you have no feeling about?  You say that you state your opinions, but as far as I’m concerned, feelings and opinions go hand in hand.  The way you put it, you very logically think that racism is wrong.  You don’t feel anything?  When you hear stories about families being terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan, you don’t feel anything?   When you see pictures of men who have been tortured and lynched you don’t feel anything?  You just logically analyze the situation and then state your opinion?

One of the things that makes us human is our capacity to empathize.  Every opinion I have ever had is based on a feeling about a problem or a situation.  My life would be a lot easier if I could look at the world objectively, but I am just not capable of doing so.  I look at our soldiers who are coming home from Iraq missing an arm or a leg, and I feel very strongly for and about them.  I ask myself why they had to lose that arm, or that leg, and I really don’t have an answer.  I am against the war because of the way it makes me feel.  Not because I’m logical or superior.  Not because I’ve studied up and memorized historical trivia.  I would much rather deal with a person who debates with feeling.  It’s more honest.  It’s more real. 

I feel the exact opposite way about history and the world we live in.  I “feel” very strongly about the war in Iraq.  I “feel” very strongly about our President.  I “feel” very strongly about racism and discrimination in this country.  You have denounced racism and prejiduce time and time again.  How can you denounce something you have no feeling about? 


I can do it very easily.  I simply do not use my "feelings" as a justification.

And even without "feelings", I can effectively argue that racism and discrimination is wrong.  On a purely logical basis, it is wrong because it can prevent the best person from doing a job they should be doing.  I find discrimination to be "very stupid", because it often results in somebody who is bad a job into that job, simply because of that person's outward appearance.

And this (along with genocide) are among the few topics in here where I let my anger and frustration out.  Discrimination (and it's extreme form: genocide) is the ugliest and most hurtful thing that can be done.  I feel very strongly about it, and it is one of the few instances where I do not care to hear what "the other side" has to say on the issue.  To me, there is simply no justification for keeping somebody down because of their race, religion, sex, place of origin, or anything else that can be discriminated against.

About the only other time I come up with such "feelings" is when it comes to the harming of children.  Murder, child abuse  and sexual assault against children (or adults) is one of the other items which I see no justification for. 

And I defy anybody to try and find a reason to support any of those actions. 

I can do it very easily.  I simply do not use my "feelings" as a justification.

And even without "feelings", I can effectively argue that racism and discrimination is wrong.  On a purely logical basis, it is wrong because it can prevent the best person from doing a job they should be doing.  I find discrimination to be "very stupid", because it often results in somebody who is bad a job into that job, simply because of that person's outward appearance.

And this (along with genocide) are among the few topics in here where I let my anger and frustration out.  Discrimination (and it's extreme form: genocide) is the ugliest and most hurtful thing that can be done.  I feel very strongly about it, and it is one of the few instances where I do not care to hear what "the other side" has to say on the issue.  To me, there is simply no justification for keeping somebody down because of their race, religion, sex, place of origin, or anything else that can be discriminated against.

About the only other time I come up with such "feelings" is when it comes to the harming of children.  Murder, child abuse  and sexual assault against children (or adults) is one of the other items which I see no justification for. 

And I defy anybody to try and find a reason to support any of those actions. 


So these things make you feel angry and frustrated, but you don't form opinions on them at all based on feeling?

That doesn't make any sense.

"kind of"? he totally gave as good as he got. but his arguments just... sucked. it's funny when people say they're objective, but also openly admit to being left or right-wing. im liberal. the reason why is because i just don't think conservative points of view are as well thought out, as effective in terms of governance (anyone wanna take a look at the recent track record?), and i think theyre fuonded on ideas that just don't wash, mainly the free market as magical panacea capable of fixing everything that ails the human race.

so can i claim to be objective? no. people who do make me nervous, frankly. because it's a short trip from there to thinking you have exclusive propriety over the truth. i have opinions, i argue to support them the best i can, but i certianly wouldn't claim to be on any pedagogic exercise to show other people how to debate effectively, or to show them the double-standards of their ways. i wonder about it when people think they're so uniquely talented and privileged as to be able to provide such services.



Can I have your babies?

Can I have your babies?
sure! but only if we can call her "mystia." and raise her as a twirly-bird sundress-wearing hippy chick totally governed by her emotions. :D

only if we can call her "mystia." and raise her as a twirly-bird sundress-wearing hippy chick totally governed by her emotions. :D


If that's all it takes I'll come and be your kid.  You guys would be killer parents!

sure! but only if we can call her "mystia." and raise her as a twirly-bird sundress-wearing hippy chick totally governed by her emotions. :D



I can dig that, groovy man. 

This thread isn't asking the question are you liberal or are you conservative? This is about the battle that is being waged in both camps. Yeah, I watch Bill O'Reilly for a few minutes until I can't stand it anymore. It seems to me that at every opportunity, he will say, "The far-left wing" or something like that in a distasteful manner-and implying that all the wrongs in this country is caused by the "far-left". I'm sure some of the left leaning media does similar stuff. My question is why do these people feel that it is necessary to put down the side? It is the attitude of "Either you are with us or you are a terrorist" (only less than 50 years ago, you can replace the word "terrorist" with "communist".)  We are supposed to be ONE NATION but yet some of these people like to demonetize those who have different beliefs of how this nation should be governed. These people are trying to strike fear and hatred of the other side instead of trying to find a happy medium for which all of us can work with. 


Thoughts? Comments?



Cat


  Left vs. Right mentality exists because that's what Americans want...

  Politics are too complex for the average person.  What Americans understand is sports.  That's right, sports...

  and...

  200 cable channels...

  X-Boxes and Wiis...

  American Idol...

  Celebrity gossip...

  Anna Nicole's $$$...

  SUVs with DVD players in the seat backs...

  Journalism as entertainment...

  Blah, blah, blah...

  Nobody's paying attention.  That's why it's Left vs. Right.  People don't vote on principle, they vote on party.  They don't vote for issues, they vote against them, if they bother to vote, at all...

  Nobody's watching the driver.  If that's what you want, America, then the Patriot Act is what you get..!

  Patriot Act - I could f**king barf...    

  Left vs. Right mentality exists because that's what Americans want...

  Politics are too complex for the average person.  What Americans understand is sports.  That's right, sports...

  and...

  200 cable channels...

  X-Boxes and Wiis...

  American Idol...

  Celebrity gossip...

  Anna Nicole's $$$...

  SUVs with DVD players in the seat backs...

  Journalism as entertainment...

  Blah, blah, blah...

  Nobody's paying attention.  That's why it's Left vs. Right.  People don't vote on principle, they vote on party.  They don't vote for issues, they vote against them, if they bother to vote, at all...

  Nobody's watching the driver.  If that's what you want, America, then the Patriot Act is what you get..!

  Patriot Act - I could f**king barf...   




Unfortunately, that is very true. And if you look at most of what you posted, sports, American Idol (Survivor also falls into this category, too)-it all falls under the heading of "Us vs Them" and people HAVE to chose sides.


As for the rest, it is truly sad that Anna Nicole has been the major headlines in the past month rather than the firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors which basically has been swept under the rug. It does really bother me that journalism has been turned into entertainment and because of that, many people don't know the difference.


BTW, karma +1.



Cat

Yeah, Americans sure do suck.

Unfortunately, that is very true. And if you look at most of what you posted, sports, American Idol (Survivor also falls into this category, too)-it all falls under the heading of "Us vs Them" and people HAVE to chose sides.


As for the rest, it is truly sad that Anna Nicole has been the major headlines in the past month rather than the firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors which basically has been swept under the rug. It does really bother me that journalism has been turned into entertainment and because of that, many people don't know the difference.


BTW, karma +1.



Cat


  Precisely...

  The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are both spoken with hate, in many instances, on this board..?

  Only when it is possible (and allowed by society) to define "us" vs. "them", can such brainwashing occur...

  groove ;) on...

  Left vs. Right mentality exists because that's what Americans want...

  Politics are too complex for the average person.  What Americans understand is sports.  That's right, sports...

  and...

  200 cable channels...

  X-Boxes and Wiis...

  American Idol...

  Celebrity gossip...

  Anna Nicole's $$$...

  SUVs with DVD players in the seat backs...

  Journalism as entertainment...

  Blah, blah, blah...

  Nobody's paying attention.  That's why it's Left vs. Right.  People don't vote on principle, they vote on party.  They don't vote for issues, they vote against them, if they bother to vote, at all...

  Nobody's watching the driver.  If that's what you want, America, then the Patriot Act is what you get..!

  Patriot Act - I could f**king barf...   

yeah, i dunno, you might have been able to say people weren't paying attention ten years ago but people actually DO seem to be paying more attention today. i mean, yeah, right before 9/11 the big stories were gary condit and shark attacks but nowadays the news DOES seem to be about weighty issues, war in iraq, civil liberties, health care, entitlements. the anna nicole thing seems to have already blown over, unlike, say, monica, which tangled up the country for like, what, two years?

i mean, the fact that people ARE actually using "liberal" and "conservative" as invectives means people are paying attention and caring about the issues, yes? even if the results aren't always what we would like?

Of course, there is more then one definition to the word Exploit:

1. To use for one's own advantage.
2. To take advantage of.



When I use the term I use it based on the labor theory of value.  As Linclon said, "labor is supirior and prior to capital, capital is the fruit of labor", or words to that effect.  Labor creates all value, and the extent to which a worker's wage falls short of the value that worker creates, s/he is exploited.  Thus, without exploitation, profit could not exist, because profit is the difference between all the costs of production (including the sometimes exorbinate direct wages of management, raw materials, maintanance, research funds, etc, all legit expenses) and the revenue from the sale of the product or service.  It is the unearned incriment that, in fact, should belong to the producers of that value and not those who contribute nothing to its production.  By the way, the labor theory of value also asserts, based on Adam Smith's "law of supply and demand" that all commodities (and services) tend to sell at their value, so it is not the consumer being  exploited.

Using this definition, we would, I think, have to agree that both "liberals and conservatives" condon exploitation because both believe that profit, thus defined, is legitimate.  In a less "scientific" sense, I agree with both your definitions, its just that they are rather vague when it comers to the area of political economy.  I guess "take advantage of" comes closest since in any society, if you don't work, you don't eat.  The question becomes one of who "owns the jobs" and at what wage am/are I/we willing to work.  Most people here today would not work for the $/per day and 12 hour shifts steel workers were forced to accept during the late 19th/early 20th Century, and because they were able to develop strong unions during the '30s don't have to, but they are still exploited, and more so all the time because of the anti-union activities of the  courts and National Labor Relations Board's decisions.

As a true "leftist" I abhore exploitation.  I believe that the direct producers are entitled to the full value of their labor, minus "social overhead", which is to say, that value needed to educate their kids, provide health care, fight crime and fires, defend our country, etc, ie those things we need done that absorb labor but produce no "marketable" product.  That, I call "social overhead".  Granted, this is a political economy based on the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, and not one based  on individual advantage or individual greed.  I would conceed that both those imperative are a part of our natures, mine as well as everyone elses, but I do believe that we can foster the former and discourage the later.

  Left vs. Right mentality exists because that's what Americans want...

  Politics are too complex for the average person.  What Americans understand is sports.  That's right, sports...

  and...

  200 cable channels...

  X-Boxes and Wiis...

  American Idol...

  Celebrity gossip...

  Anna Nicole's $$$...

  SUVs with DVD players in the seat backs...

  Journalism as entertainment...

  Blah, blah, blah...

  Nobody's paying attention.  That's why it's Left vs. Right.  People don't vote on principle, they vote on party.  They don't vote for issues, they vote against them, if they bother to vote, at all...

  Nobody's watching the driver.  If that's what you want, America, then the Patriot Act is what you get..!

  Patriot Act - I could f**king barf...   



Yes, of course.  This is part of the latest version of the "great '30s trade-off" of welfare capitalism. 

The bourgeois dictators: "We don't want to give you more educational opportunities, universal health care, real environmental protection, sustainable Social Security etc. but we will make available this wonderful circus, this "fantasy land" for your amusement (and our continued profit).  The trivialisation of the news is but one dimension, but it goes back to the decadance of Rome - if we can't give them bread, we can give them circuses.

Yes, of course.  This is part of the latest version of the "great '30s trade-off" of welfare capitalism. 

The bourgeois dictators: "We don't want to give you more educational opportunities, universal health care, real environmental protection, sustainable Social Security etc. but we will make available this wonderful circus, this "fantasy land" for your amusement (and our continued profit).  The trivialisation of the news is but one dimension, but it goes back to the decadance of Rome - if we can't give them bread, we can give them circuses.
well, actually, when you put it that way, there's eomthing to be said for it. but the process is necessarily imperfect and plenty of people ARE discontent and DO want to see political change. and i have a hard time seeing this as part of the problem.

on the other hand, here we are, bickering on the internet -- possibly the biggest breadless circus in the history of bread and circuses. funny how it was originally a defense department technology -- wouldn't it be hilarious if the use it was being put to in the US was to mollify people by keeping them sitting in their houses typing out political diatribes instead of going out and doing something about it? after all, the CIA had a long (and from my point of view, not entirely misguided) history of insinuating itself into the left to deflect it into less politically explosive avenues of action. (dig you some "Congress for Cultural Freedom.")

Now for a general observation.  This thread, for the most part, has focused on the superficial, either personal interchanges between members accusing each other of a "double standard" in evaluating the media, and of bias (but we are all bias, and I have posted mine), or rather boring discussions of who is worse, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Rielly, or Franken, Moore and the other "lefties".  With the exception of Max and Mushroom, you all have ignored the heart of the debate - the political economy that is really the heart of the debate.  That's why I have not weighed in on any of the give and take on the "personalities", either of board members of "celebrities".  From my point of view, those are part of the distrctions that precent us from addressing the fundamentals.  Can we get real here?

I guess we should just be fortunate that people like Max and Mushroom post here....you know, to illuminate things for us.

yeah, i dunno, you might have been able to say people weren't paying attention ten years ago but people actually DO seem to be paying more attention today. i mean, yeah, right before 9/11 the big stories were gary condit and shark attacks but nowadays the news DOES seem to be about weighty issues, war in iraq, civil liberties, health care, entitlements. the anna nicole thing seems to have already blown over, unlike, say, monica, which tangled up the country for like, what, two years?

i mean, the fact that people ARE actually using "liberal" and "conservative" as invectives means people are paying attention and caring about the issues, yes? even if the results aren't always what we would like?


  You're saying that the two terms have entered the poular lexicon indicates a wider comprehension of the issues..?  Eh, mebbe...

   Paying more attention..?  I've seen no hint of it in my daily encounters, not that I'm a raving lunatic.  Aware of the major issues..?  Sure, but like so many of my fellow Americans, they are all to willing to accept the world inside the boob tube as reality and truth...

  Perhaps "uninformed", would be more accurate...

  two cents groove ;) on...

Now for a general observation.  This thread, for the most part, has focused on the superficial, either personal interchanges between members accusing each other of a "double standard" in evaluating the media, and of bias (but we are all bias, and I have posted mine), or rather boring discussions of who is worse, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Rielly, or Franken, Moore and the other "lefties".  With the exception of Max and Mushroom, you all have ignored the heart of the debate - the political economy that is really the heart of the debate.  That's why I have not weighed in on any of the give and take on the "personalities", either of board members of "celebrities".  From my point of view, those are part of the distrctions that precent us from addressing the fundamentals.  Can we get real here?
although perhaps the actual problem is that you're not recognizing genuine political discourse unless it's framed in the sorts of terms you're accustomed to seeing? trust me, everyone here is sincerely trying to engage the issues in their own way. i mean, this comes off a bit patronizing as well, no? pretending to be the arbiter of political "fundamentals" is a lot like pretending to be the lone practitioner of objectivity.

nothing can actually get done until we actuallly start responding to what other people are saying, instead of each person trying to redirect the debate to what he thinks is the sole important issue, whatever that issue might be.

well, actually, when you put it that way, there's eomthing to be said for it. but the process is necessarily imperfect and plenty of people ARE discontent and DO want to see political change. and i have a hard time seeing this as part of the problem.

on the other hand, here we are, bickering on the internet -- possibly the biggest breadless circus in the history of bread and circuses. funny how it was originally a defense department technology -- wouldn't it be hilarious if the use it was being put to in the US was to mollify people by keeping them sitting in their houses typing out political diatribes instead of going out and doing something about it? after all, the CIA had a long (and from my point of view, not entirely misguided) history of insinuating itself into the left to deflect it into less politically explosive avenues of action. (dig you some "Congress for Cultural Freedom.")


I guess that depends on how addicted we get to this new "infernal machine".  It is fun, but more than that, it is an avenue for eductation that TV could have been but never became - I refer to all the research one can do if one wants to etc. (even though most fed agancies are way out of compliance with the E-FOIA provisions (you could google me - if you knew my name - and access all my publications and the college faculty that use them in their teaching, for example).  Unlike TV, we can decide to waste are time or use it, and GOOGLE gets lots of hits.

I'm not saying that this substitutes for "on the street" political action.  No Way, but unlile TV, the variety of views, and the abundance of facts will, hopefully, turn couch potatoes into information seekers, and, if the  truth will make you free, encourage them to turn off the computer and take direct action.  Call me an optimist.

  You're saying that the two terms have entered the poular lexicon indicates a wider comprehension of the issues..?  Eh, mebbe...

    Paying more attention..?  I've seen no hint of it in my daily encounters, not that I'm a raving lunatic.  Aware of the major issues..?  Sure, but like so many of my fellow Americans, they are all to willing to accept the world inside the boob tube as reality and truth...

  Perhaps "uninformed", would be more accurate...

  two cents groove ;) on...
yeah, i guess we can all only work from personal experience but the people i work and play with, on all sides of the political fence, DO seem by and large to be trying to keep up with what's going on in the world, in a way that they weren't before planes started flying into buildings and wars started getting started for no readily comprehensible reason. as to how "informed" they are, everyone still seems to be cataloguing facts and observations in accordance with personal preconceptions (meaning miguel, for instance, big conservative guy, is always talking in a very informed manner about the innocent lives being taken by islamic terrorists, whereas marty, big liberal chick, is always coming back with the latest body count of innocent civilians who died in the last american bombing run.) if that's not your experience, i'm actually working at a government contractor and live in washington so i might not be getting a reliable cross-section.

although perhaps the actual problem is that you're not recognizing genuine political discourse unless it's framed in the sorts of terms you're accustomed to seeing? trust me, everyone here is sincerely trying to engage the issues in their own way. i mean, this comes off a bit patronizing as well, no? pretending to be the arbiter of political "fundamentals" is a lot like pretending to be the lone practitioner of objectivity.

nothing can actually get done until we actuallly start responding to what other people are saying, instead of each person trying to redirect the debate to what he thinks is the sole important issue, whatever that issue might be.


Sorry if that sounded partronizing, but frankly I couldn't care less if Coulter or Franken are more bias.  Nor am I claiming "objectivity".  I have advanced a very "biased" political economy analysis to which only Mushroom and Max have responded.  And I say again, the silliness about which board member is useing a double standard, and the rest is just a part of the distractions you already addressed.  The real topic has been lost in these trivialities, so let me restate it - without Cat's approval (I don't need her appropval).  What is the difference between "right" and "left"?  I have raised augments about  "what is "right" and "left" , and I think I desrerve a response, evan if it is "we don't want to discuss political philosophy".

What is the difference between "right" and "left"?  I would augment that by asking "what is "right" and "left".  these questions are sorta too general for me to do much with. i mean, left vs. right depends on the issue, on the particular faction you're talking about, on the context you're in -- what country, what class, what gender, cetra cetra. i mean, i see a lot in common between hippies in communes and right-wing extremists in isolated militia compounds. i also think a lot of radical feminists and christian fundamentalists hate each other because they were separated at birth. they must wonder why they keep showing up to the same protest rallies, for instance because the feminists want a particular movie banned because they think it advances an unhealthy view of women and the christians because the same exact movie is detrimental to family values.

if the conversation is so superficial, you should try and find some way to redirect a specific comment or issue that's been brought up into a direction that you think is more substantial. asking "what's left and what's right" hardly introduces substance to the discussion, at least not that i can see. in speaking of incurring wrath.

And the farther Right somebody leans, the more uncomfortable it is in here.


It's only uncomfortable if you actually believe that others are on the same level as you.

Thankfully after reading Mein Kampf so many times, I know nobody.. not even me.. is as good as I think I am.  :) ;D

Yeah, Americans sure do suck.


I hate being a cog in the worlds most powerful nation.. that won every freakin major war there was to win, that kicks all the uncivilised countrys in to shape because nobody else has the balls to do it.. that has so many freakin jobs at home it can employ half of the third world and do waaaaay more than some piece of schmitt chairty.. I love feeling superior when I visit my friends because I can earn twice as much as them and only pay half as much tax.

Damn, it sure sucks!

What I find really funny is this.

Ya'll on the left have this kind of dream picture of a socialist paradise. Ok, I can dig it.. that's cool.
It's funny how these socialist paradises are full of folks killing themselves.  ;D

Yeah sure, when you break your leg it gets taken care of.. but you can't even afford basic cable 'cus the Government takes so much of your wages.

I was in Denmark a few years ago and it cost about $7 for a beer.
I'd go crazy!!

you keep using this word "socialist." i do no think it mean what you think it mean.

s.

if the conversation is so superficial, you should try and find some way to redirect a specific comment or issue that's been brought up into a direction that you think is more substantial. asking "what's left and what's right" hardly introduces substance to the discussion, at least not that i can see. in speaking of incurring wrath.


Sorry to incurr you reath. And I have tried to redirect  the topic.  As I said in several posts, the fundamental issues is the relationship between capitalism and democracy and the way the 2 "political paradigms" (really only 1") look at it.  I have tried, numerous times, to focus on this  issue, but to very little avail.  So, I invite you to weigh in on the political economy, instead of the celebrity bashing/lauiding.

you keep using this word "socialist." i do no think it mean what you think it mean.


I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but to whom is this addressed? 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but to whom is this addressed? 


Me I think.


you keep using this word "socialist." i do no think it mean what you think it mean.


What's your definition of socialist Mike?

Sorry to incurr you reath. And I have tried to redirect  the topic.  As I said in several posts, the fundamental issues is the relationship between capitalism and democracy and the way the 2 "political paradigms" (really only 1") look at it.  I have tried, numerous times, to focus on this  issue, but to very little avail.  So, I invite you to weigh in on the political economy, instead of the celebrity bashing/lauiding.
i get the impression that you're after something really specific here, so you might have to provide it. you're seeing liberalism and conservatism as being essentially the same, and that they've both got a particular take on the relationship between capitalism and democracy? it's all coming across as rather abstract to me.

you keep using this word "socialist." i do no think it mean what you think it mean.


Inigo...

Yes Fezzik?

I hope we win.

Inigo...

Yes Fezzik?

I hope we win.
*I* am not left-handed either!

there. we're back on topic.

Me I think.

What's your definition of socialist Mike?
Socialist Mike. Wasn't he a Marvel Comics villain?

Socialist Mike. Wasn't he a Marvel Comics villain?


That was the Red Skull.  He was a Nazi and got smacked around by Captain America and Nick Fury.

That was the Red Skull.  He was a Nazi and got smacked around by Captain America and Nick Fury.
could you please not be so superficial. thank you.

let's keep it real, people!

  Allow me to take a stab at this.  I suddenly feel naked...

  Left - Favors Social Progress - Liberal...
  Right - Against Social Progress - Conservative...

  Conservatism - Gives the illusion of concern for the individual.  At its philosophical core, this is true, IMO.  The adoption of the conservative cause by so many working Americans mystifys me and lends a further dimension to the illusion - conservatism in America is only concerned about certain individuals, and that has sort of been the hallmark of conservatism in history: conservation of the balance of power...

  Liberalism - Alleges to think in terms of society at large, on behalf of the common mass of humanity.  As such, the connection between one's choices and the adverse effects on others any given choice may have are at least one degree more apparent...

  One has a right to believe whatever they want.  But there is a moral line drawn by liberalism, and to deviate from the core idea of community strength is a deviation difficult to quantify...

  I offer the simplest example I can think of:  The idea of feeding the poor.  The conservative might wonder why his or her hard-earned dollars should go to feed a non-working person.  That conservative will also complain most loudly when the non-working person resorts to theft in order to fulfill his or her needs.  The liberal sees in terms of society a condition whereby the social evil of theft is largely eliminated as a specific symptom of the human condition.  Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely; there will always be rapists, there will always be thieves, but what of the proverbial "stealing to feed a child..?"

  Shall we merely punish the criminals for individual and common satisfaction (e.g. conservatism) or seek to stop the pollution at its source by addressing the suffering that compels such deviations (e.g. liberalism)..?  Suddenly, you'll notice, we've moved from charity to crime and punishment...

  To borrow from O'Reilly - "am I wrong..?" groove ;) on...

 

   Allow me to take a stab at this.  I suddenly feel naked...

   Left - Favors Social Progress - Liberal...
   Right - Against Social Progress - Conservative...

   Conservatism - Gives the illusion of concern for the individual.  At its philosophical core, this is true, IMO.  The adoption of the conservative cause by so many working Americans mystifys me and lends a further dimension to the illusion - conservatism in America is only concerned about certain individuals, and that has sort of been the hallmark of conservatism in history: conservation of the balance of power...

   Liberalism - Alleges to think in terms of society at large, on behalf of the common mass of humanity.  As such, the connection between one's choices and the adverse effects on others any given choice may have are at least one degree more apparent...

   One has a right to believe whatever they want.  But there is a moral line drawn by liberalism, and to deviate from the core idea of community strength is a deviation difficult to quantify...

   I offer the simplest example I can think of:  The idea of feeding the poor.  The conservative might wonder why his or her hard-earned dollars should go to feed a non-working person.  That conservative will also complain most loudly when the non-working person resorts to theft in order to fulfill his or her needs.  The liberal sees in terms of society a condition whereby the social evil of theft is largely eliminated as a specific symptom of the human condition.  Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely; there will always be rapists, there will always be thieves, but what of the proverbial "stealing to feed a child..?"

   Shall we merely punish the criminals for individual and common satisfaction (e.g. conservatism) or seek to stop the pollution at its source by addressing the suffering that compels such deviations (e.g. liberalism)..?  Suddenly, you'll notice, we've moved from charity to crime and punishment...

   To borrow from O'Reilly - "am I wrong..?" groove ;) on...

   


So basically, left=good and right=evil?

To borrow what you borrowed from O'Reilly..."am I wrong...?"

i get the impression that you're after something really specific here, so you might have to provide it. you're seeing liberalism and conservatism as being essentially the same, and that they've both got a particular take on the relationship between capitalism and democracy? it's all coming across as rather abstract to me.


For the most part, they are really not all that far apart.

Now remember, I am speaking in "General" terms here.  And these are "Ideals", not nessicarily how they actually work.

Under "Conservatism", the idea is that a company takes it's profit, and spreads it among it's shareholders.  The idea is that the money is then re-invested, allowing more business and greater prosperity for everybody.  And because most companies offer 401k and stock benefits for employees, they hopefully become part-owners of the company, improving their standard of living (and making a greater share of the profits).  That higher standard of living allows them to buy more things, promoting more business.

Under "Liberalism" (or "Socialism"), the idea is that Corporations can't be trusted.  There, excess profits are to be heavily taxed, and redistributed directly to the workers through Government Programs.  After all, a person can be fired (and loose all benefits), but they are not "kicked out of the country".  Taxes are then spent to improve the standard of living for everybody.  Better education, better health care, more social programs to help those with needs.

The biggest problem I see, is that both of these "Ideals" are wrong.  And most of the "Debate" is really almost a life-and-death struggle between these two opposing points of view.  I think things would be best if we could find a way to blend the two together.

But sadly, that is another false utopia.  Because neither system adequately takes into the factor of greed.  Be it greed of money or greed of power, both "ideals" are doomed because of the same problem.

   Allow me to take a stab at this.  I suddenly feel naked...

   Left - Favors Social Progress - Liberal...
   Right - Against Social Progress - Conservative...


This is not nessicarily true.  It is probably closer to the truth to say Conservaives want "Steady Social Progress".

Personally, I distrust large social changes.  Because it is often destablizing and disruptive.  That does not mean that I do not want change however.  The biggest difference tends to be that "Conservatives" prefer it spread out in gradual steps, while "Liberals" want it all right now.

It is more a matter of style then anything else.

  Allow me to take a stab at this.  I suddenly feel naked...

Put on some clothes.



  Left - Favors Social Progress - Liberal...
  Right - Against Social Progress - Conservative...

False.  As eloquently ( :o ) stated by Mushroom, both favor some form of progress, it's just there are different approaches to doing so.  Most of my conservative friends agree that resources are wasted on keeping gays from getting married, that universal health care would alleviate some economic burdens, and that you put the "conserve" in "conservative" if you actually go out and save the whales.  My liberal friends agree that there should be harsh punishments for certain crimes, although they disagree with me on the death penalty...and that's fine.



  Conservatism - Gives the illusion of concern for the individual.  At its philosophical core, this is true, IMO.  The adoption of the conservative cause by so many working Americans mystifys me and lends a further dimension to the illusion - conservatism in America is only concerned about certain individuals, and that has sort of been the hallmark of conservatism in history: conservation of the balance of power...

  Liberalism - Alleges to think in terms of society at large, on behalf of the common mass of humanity.  As such, the connection between one's choices and the adverse effects on others any given choice may have are at least one degree more apparent...

It's a conservation of values.  Is it good to respect your parents?  Yes.  Do the kids deserve to be smacked on the butt if they misbehave?  Yes.  Should kids respect their teachers and authority?  Yes.  Should we help old ladies across the street?  Yes.  Should we have a responsibility to speak appropriately despite having nigh-unrestricted freedom of speech?  Yes.  Is it bad for us to show a drive to work hard and to instill that work ethic into our posterity?  NO!  UGH UGH UGH.  I know some of you will yell at me for touting personal responsibility, but conservatism emphasizes it above all else.  Does this mean that I'm against welfare and unemployment and social service programs?  NO!  WIC is good!  Unemployment is good!  But I just don't want to see those programs abused as I've often seen.  It's sickening the way both sides aim to screw over middle America...the liberals by giving the lazy poor even more reason to be lazy, and the so-called conservatives by allowing big business to continue to expand and force out the little guys.


  One has a right to believe whatever they want.  But there is a moral line drawn by liberalism, and to deviate from the core idea of community strength is a deviation difficult to quantify...

WTF!  Conservatives have morals!  WTF WTF WTF *SMASH*



  I offer the simplest example I can think of:  The idea of feeding the poor.  The conservative might wonder why his or her hard-earned dollars should go to feed a non-working person.  That conservative will also complain most loudly when the non-working person resorts to theft in order to fulfill his or her needs.  The liberal sees in terms of society a condition whereby the social evil of theft is largely eliminated as a specific symptom of the human condition.  Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely; there will always be rapists, there will always be thieves, but what of the proverbial "stealing to feed a child..?"

NOBODY has the right to tell me WHAT I do with MY money.  If I choose to give it to the American Cancer Association or to some kid for Make-A-Wish or a hobo on 57th St, that's my choice.  If I choose to blow it on an HDTV or a new console game, that's my choice.  *I* worked for the money, not you.  If you want poor people to be less poor, give them YOUR  money.  I can back up my words with actions; don't tell me what to do with my resources when you can't back up your words.

And I was poor once.  Still am.  Am I going to rob a liquor store or embezzle money from the retail store I work at?  No!  At the end of the day, we ALL have a choice. 

  Shall we merely punish the criminals for individual and common satisfaction (e.g. conservatism) or seek to stop the pollution at its source by addressing the suffering that compels such deviations (e.g. liberalism)..?  Suddenly, you'll notice, we've moved from charity to crime and punishment...

I don't aim to punish people just for fun, I want them punished because they committed a crime.  Is that bad?

  To borrow from O'Reilly - "am I wrong..?" groove ;) on... 


In some cases, you are.

  But I just don't want to see those programs abused as I've often seen.  It's sickening the way both sides aim to screw over middle America...the liberals by giving the lazy poor even more reason to be lazy, and the so-called conservatives by allowing big business to continue to expand and force out the little guys.


Oh come on now, you KNOW they don't get abused and if they do, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!

Oh come on now, you KNOW they don't get abused and if they do, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!


Silence, hippie ;)  Don't be so superficial.

Silence, hippie ;)  Don't be so superficial.
;D

   I offer the simplest example I can think of:  The idea of feeding the poor.  The conservative might wonder why his or her hard-earned dollars should go to feed a non-working person.  That conservative will also complain most loudly when the non-working person resorts to theft in order to fulfill his or her needs.  The liberal sees in terms of society a condition whereby the social evil of theft is largely eliminated as a specific symptom of the human condition.  Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely; there will always be rapists, there will always be thieves, but what of the proverbial "stealing to feed a child..?"


I am all for feeding the poor.  However, I am not all in favor of feeding those who are not willing to work.  And I have been there.

I am a big believer in that old yard "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime".  I do not simply want to feed the hungry, I want to help them get to a position in life where they will never be hungry again.

This is where that "greed" factor sets in.  To me, not wanting to work and having society take care of you (when you are able to work) is a form of greed.  And I have no desire to take care of people like that.

And as you yourself state: "Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely".  Among those deviations are sloth and lazyness.  Just as some people claim they can't help themselves from comiting crimes, some just can't help themselves in that they have no desire to work.  I know one guy that abused the system for over 6 years, going from one social program to another.  He even turned down jobs that were offered to him, because it was easier to sit at home and live on welfare (and sell his food stamps for cigarette money).  However, a year and a half ago he ran out of programs and had to get a job or starve.

see, i'd be down with that if i ever heard anyone who espoused this point of view talk responsibly about how you'd distinguish between those who are unWILLING to work and those who are unABLE. but the way things are practiced now, i think a lot of people who are infirm, mentally ill, etc., would fall through the cracks (well, they are already) and starve along with the lazy. i mean, look what's happening to the veterans with PTSD. the army's bending over backward to make sure they don't have to subsidize them, when more often than not the army's who f**ked em up in the first place!

I am all for feeding the poor.  However, I am not all in favor of feeding those who are not willing to work.  And I have been there.

I am a big believer in that old yard "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime".  I do not simply want to feed the hungry, I want to help them get to a position in life where they will never be hungry again.

This is where that "greed" factor sets in.  To me, not wanting to work and having society take care of you (when you are able to work) is a form of greed.  And I have no desire to take care of people like that.

And as you yourself state: "Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely".  Among those deviations are sloth and lazyness.  Just as some people claim they can't help themselves from comiting crimes, some just can't help themselves in that they have no desire to work.  I know one guy that abused the system for over 6 years, going from one social program to another.  He even turned down jobs that were offered to him, because it was easier to sit at home and live on welfare (and sell his food stamps for cigarette money).  However, a year and a half ago he ran out of programs and had to get a job or starve.
see, i'd be down with that if i ever heard anyone who espoused this point of view talk responsibly about how you'd distinguish between those who are unWILLING to work and those who are unABLE. but the way things are practiced now, i think a lot of people who are infirm, mentally ill, etc., would fall through the cracks (well, they are already) and starve along with the lazy. i mean, look what's happening to the veterans with PTSD. the army's bending over backward to make sure they don't have to subsidize them, when more often than not the army's who f**ked em up in the first place!

^ Aren't the "unable" category protected by Social Security and the Americans with Disabilities Act for the most part?

Although one wonders why they won't protect Jess' dad :(  Butts.

^ Aren't the "unable" category protected by Social Security and the Americans with Disabilities Act for the most part?

Although one wonders why they won't protect Jess' dad :(  Butts.
yeah, theoretically but social security's in big trouble and the ADA, evidently it's really hard to apply for. i dunno, i'm able-bodied and basically sane (yeah yeah! hush up!) so i work, so it's not something i know much about. it just concerns me when i hear people talk about how people who don't work are lazy when i see people with obvious substance dependencies and mental illness lining the streets everytime i go downtown. i think if we further cripple the social safety net, which to me looks to already be full of holes, it's just going to make matters worse. and living on government subsidies is such a miserable existence anyway, i get the impression that the number of people who would rather do that than work actually gets way overstated. but that's just a hunch.

Yeah, Social Security is pretty much fuct in about 30 years.  Medicare's gonna die in about 15.  The welfare system in this country is way messed up and you can't really focus the blame.

Yeah, Social Security is pretty much fuct in about 30 years.  Medicare's gonna die in about 15.  The welfare system in this country is way messed up and you can't really focus the blame.
well, at the risk of getting back to the partisanship i DO think that much of the damage to the welfare system was done through the reagan-era philosophy of the 1980s. the right as an elected movement (and i mean the congressional and administration republicans and conservative dems, not so much your average joes) have been hostile to welfare and social safety net spending for years. the record's pretty clear on that. it's always cuts in those programs that pay for tax cuts in conservative administrations, and then the justification is, well, all that money's gonna go back into society, but it actually seems to just go into the bank accounts of the uberrich. and meanwhile more people fall through the cracks.

well, at the risk of getting back to the partisanship i DO think that much of the damage to the welfare system was done through the reagan-era philosophy of the 1980s. the right as an elected movement (and i mean the congressional and administration republicans and conservative dems, not so much your average joes) have been hostile to welfare and social safety net spending for years. the record's pretty clear on that. it's always cuts in those programs that pay for tax cuts in conservative administrations, and then the justification is, well, all that money's gonna go back into society, but it actually seems to just go into the bank accounts of the uberrich. and meanwhile more people fall through the cracks.


I think the tax cuts only indirectly benefit the rich, because the rich still have to foot the bulk of the tax burden in the country.  The uberpoor either pay no tax or get an earned income credit.  Some of it has to do with the way people use money, and in a sense I am guilty of it too.  What do Americans do when they get a little extra money here and there?

They spend it.

Who benefits from Americans who don't have a financial plan spending like they were millionaires?

The big companies.

See what I'm saying?

I believe you are right on some levels, but I also believe that some of the wealth disparity can be controlled by better personal responsibility when it comes to financial decisions.

Mostly what I bash, is "Group Think".  This is where people will simply fall along with what is considered to be "appropriate thinking", just because it is what "Liberal Leaders" tell them to think.  And I love to poke fun at it, because it is so full of inconsistancies. 

GW moved on quite a while ago.  This board really is so skewed to "The Left", that it often becomes uncomfortable to anybody that leans towards "The Right".  And the farther Right somebody leans, the more uncomfortable it is in here.  In reality, I not very far to the right in most of my views.  And even I get attacks which I mostly ignore.  GW was basically attacked on almost anything he posted, and he just got tired of it.



Well said - I completely agree with all quoted... I can feel it here too - a lot!

To be fair, GW was kind of a reactionary prick.



See? This message board is FULL of double standards! Very very very sad.

Oh dear.

See? This message board is FULL of double standards! Very very very sad.





Give me a break.

Give me a break.



Okay! I've read your one line responses - now can you tell me how that is NOT true? I mean writing things like "give me a break" (and the like as you have), really doesn't say much at all. Tell me how I am wrong - isn't that how a discussion works?

See? This message board is FULL of double standards! Very very very sad.





Okay! I've read your one line responses - now can you tell me how that is NOT true? I mean writing things like "give me a break" (and the like as you have), really doesn't say much at all. Tell me how I am wrong - isn't that how a discussion works?


???

but... you're asking her to respond to a one-line statement YOU'VE made! s'plain, lucy!
???

???

but... you're asking her to respond to a one-line statement YOU'VE made! s'plain, lucy!
???




Well, since I explained the double standards in detail in this very thread and got the same sort of comment (the one line thing), I assumed that she already read the details and perhaps remembered them.

Well, since I explained the double standards in detail in this very thread and got the same sort of comment (the one line thing), I assumed that she already read the details and perhaps remembered them.



i said a bunch of stuff about how chucky probably thought you were talking to ash specifically and i allowed that this was probably a mistaken impression on his part, and also that he's just been cracking down in general lately because of some scuffles that have happened around here recently, not even related to politics so much. but a lot of us have gotten warnings lately. (not me, actually, but then again i'm pure as the driven snow...  ;D now that i've said that i'll probably get one.)

it's not a big secret that chucky is fairly liberal in his politics. i actually don't think that's why he warned you and i do think he makes a real effort not to treat people in a biased way because of his own politics but you're certainly free to think what you want. you'll probably not care for this observation but i've noticed a lot of conservatives, particularly the o'reilly adherents, love to see left-wing conspiracies in everything....

See? This message board is FULL of double standards! Very very very sad.




I'm conservative.  GW was a reactionary prick.  That is, unfortunately, a fact.

I'm conservative.  GW was a reactionary prick.  That is, unfortunately, a fact.

^ Thanks for agreeing :)

Okay! I've read your one line responses - now can you tell me how that is NOT true? I mean writing things like "give me a break" (and the like as you have), really doesn't say much at all. Tell me how I am wrong - isn't that how a discussion works?






Tell you how you're wrong......you think this board is biased against Conservatives and that Liberals can say whatever they want without reproach.....which is utter crap.  You got warned for whatever reason.....PM Chucky and complain if you think it was not appropriate.  Don't claim that something is going on here that is not going on here. 

Yes this board is skewed toward the left, but that doesn't mean that those who are on that end of the fence get to do and say whatever they want to people down at the other end. 

Tell you how you're wrong......you think this board is biased against Conservatives and that Liberals can say whatever they want without reproach.....which is utter crap.  You got warned for whatever reason.....PM Chucky and complain if you think it was not appropriate.  Don't claim that something is going on here that is not going on here. 

Yes this board is skewed toward the left, but that doesn't mean that those who are on that end of the fence get to do and say whatever they want to people down at the other end. 



I am sorry to upset you, (well, not really). Apparently, you are mistaken because I never called names & many people in here do & have since my (non-name-calling) comment. I will tell you this though - it worked! There are many things I could have and would have said in response to some of these misguided liberal posts - but didn't. The reason I didn't is that I don't feel free to say what ever I want - not in the slightest. I do believe your "skewed toward the left" is an understatement & mild compared to the reality - and that is my reality because it is my experience. I have a strong feeling that if the shoe were on the other foot, you would not be so sure of your answer & more than likely would agree with me.

There is no debate of ideas when it is simply a bitch fest - where everyone agrees to be miserably unhappy together with their misinformation and lack of facts. It appears that this is exactly the way it is wanted. Toss in a couple of well mannered right wing conservatives that would never really just tell it like it is (to stay friendly with the folk) and you have only added a couple of token voices to give the gang a bigger variety of bitching.

I have written in many message boards and I will tell you this; the democrats do not create a very mature setting. I would never, for example, call someone here or gone a “prick” or any of the other names called. I’ve even read one of your current members here say in a post that she gives me all ones out of spite – automatically. Speaking of the parody section, I get people responding to my facts with things like calling me a mental patient off medication, (and it gets worse). (Yet I say liberals have tiny brains & that is too much)

For being the self-proclaimed party of tolerance, I certainly don’t see it – here or in other predominantly liberal boards. In fact what I see is more of the same, misinformed sheep that follow the leader and suck up propaganda to the exclusion of real facts. I see no tolerance unless you kiss their arses while making a point. If this is the type of message board that that you want to have - so be it & more power to you. It is what it is – and really, calling names (like so many of you do & have) really doesn’t help your cause at all and neither denial for that matter. Using those methods when faced with real facts is not debate - not an exchange of ideas - and certainly not very beneficial     

you'll probably not care for this observation but i've noticed a lot of conservatives, particularly the o'reilly adherents, love to see left-wing conspiracies in everything....




You must be kidding here! If you are not, that statement is like the old & worn out pot calling a brand new kettle black... Nah, you must be kidding -- well, hopefully.

^ Thanks for agreeing :)




Sure - isn't that the way you want it anyway? Just agree & all is okay?

Nah...... Sorry, I am not sheep material & certainly would never call someone a prick. But if you want to think that I agree & that's what makes you happy & keeps you growing, you can go right ahead  ;)

You wouldn't call someone a prick, and yet you feel it perfectly acceptable to take a nice big dump on one group of people who post here? 



Didn't you say something about double standards...................................................

So basically, left=good and right=evil?



  You said it, not me ;) ...

  I'm talking about a dictionary defintion of liberal and conservative (Right/Left?), not the actual movements in the US today.  I think someone hit a little closer to the point in another recent thread...

  I guess when everyone on Earth is happy, the conservatives will be complaining that life has gotten too easy, and the liberals will be looking for a way to tax happiness....

  And I ain't no liberal.  I'm a libertarian.  Abolish the income tax, the war on drugs, and the government's stranglehold on education, charity, energy, health care and technology.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I believe this.  Big Government got us where we are today by creating the very institutions that are strangling our economy and taking away our freedom by purely civil means, such as forcing us to drive ever longer distances to work so no one is home when their children are awake...

  I gotta run.  Be back in the morning... :)

 





 

I'm glad you think you're so much better than the rest of us and so much more evolved.  I'm even more glad that you think you know how things ought to be around here.  Thank God for you coming here and telling us poor misguided Liberals how f*cked up we are.  No really, thank you.  Just when I thought we had it all figured out, we needed you....the voice of reason....to come here and educate us on how utterly wrong we are.  I'm also very glad you had to tell us that on every other message board you've posted on, Democrats were not mature.  I needed to know that and so did everyone else here.  Thank you for painting all people who ascribe to the Democratic party with the same nice broad brush.  It's nice to see someone not adhering to ridiculous stereotypes in order to prove a point......oh wait.


If you think this place is so beneath how you think it should be, leave. 



How about if I respond to your bit above with one of the responses you gave me recetnly;
"Give me a break"  - I never wrote that stuff, however I did mention maturity.

You wouldn't call someone a prick, and yet you feel it perfectly acceptable to take a nice big dump on one group of people who post here? 





Again; God bless (well, I keep forgetting liberals do not do God) -- anyway, Bless any poster that agrees with you & fight anyone who doesn't tooth & nail... yeah.

By the way, calling people mental patients or pricks is NOT the same as pointing out how that is a bad thing!!!

Again; God bless (well, I keep forgetting liberals do not do God)


I'm a Liberal and I "do" God.....I'm Catholic.  Where did you come up with that statement?

You must be kidding here! If you are not, that statement is like the old & worn out pot calling a brand new kettle black... Nah, you must be kidding -- well, hopefully.



not...

worth...

it.

i just don't think you're listening at all. the fox news overdose has, like, thoroughly closed your mind.

like i say, i get on with all sorts of conservative people who come to this board. in fact, of late, i've come around to some conservative ideas based on the sort of discourse i've been having with people like davey and rice. but you... the partisan in me tells me that you should continue to advocate right-wing ideas in the way you're doing, because you could bring all sorts of people over to the liberal cause. much like the people who i was talking about on another board, the people on the left side of the fence who berate people for disagreeing with them and talk down to them. if i ever think about voting for rudy giuliani over hillary clinton, it's because i'm thinking of annoying, doctrinaire liberals i've known throughout my life.

your approach is the sort that will create liberals left and right by alienating folks from conservatism in droves. ;D i say keep it up. in fact, i might make a monetary contribution to your campaign, should you decide to run.

I'm a Liberal and I "do" God.....I'm Catholic.  Where did you come up with that statement?
the o'reilly factor, probably. ::) historically lots of churches have been liberal. hell, jesus was a big hippie!

  You said it, not me ;) ...

Haaaaaaaaahaaa. That's what your damned post came across as, and not only to me, either.



  I'm talking about a dictionary defintion of liberal and conservative (Right/Left?), not the actual movements in the US today.  I think someone hit a little closer to the point in another recent thread...

  I guess when everyone on Earth is happy, the conservatives will be complaining that life has gotten too easy, and the liberals will be looking for a way to tax happiness....

WTF?

  And I ain't no liberal.

Never said your were. I could give a rip what you are. I just said your post came across as putting conservatives and liberals into neat little labelled packages. Truthfully, there is a BIG gray area in this country that a lot of people fall into, even if they label themselves one or the other. Unfortunately, you have those certain people that close their minds and ears to said person if they side with the opposite party, no matter what their opinions and beliefs are.

 I'm a libertarian.  Abolish the income tax, the war on drugs, and the government's stranglehold on education, charity, energy, health care and technology.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I believe this.  Big Government got us where we are today by creating the very institutions that are strangling our economy and taking away our freedom by purely civil means, such as forcing us to drive ever longer distances to work so no one is home when their children are awake...

  I gotta run.  Be back in the morning... :)



Some of that I agree one. Not saying what though. Wouldn't want anyone to hold it against me. ::)






Again; God bless (well, I keep forgetting liberals do not do God) -- anyway, Bless any poster that agrees with you & fight anyone who doesn't tooth & nail... yeah.

By the way, calling people mental patients or pricks is NOT the same as pointing out how that is a bad thing!!!


Calling a former member a "prick" when he WAS A PRICK is pretty accurate, I think.

Oh yeah, I believe in a higher being. So don't believe everything that comes out of Ann Coulter's piehole.

Sure - isn't that the way you want it anyway? Just agree & all is okay?

Nah...... Sorry, I am not sheep material & certainly would never call someone a prick. But if you want to think that I agree & that's what makes you happy & keeps you growing, you can go right ahead   ;)



I love it when people disagree with me if they make sense. 

GW is still a reactionary prick.

you'll probably not care for this observation but i've noticed a lot of conservatives, particularly the o'reilly adherents, love to see left-wing conspiracies in everything....


As opposed to the "right-wing conspiracies" that we see posted in here all the time?  I can't think of how often I see posts in here blaming "Republicans" and "Conservatives" for everything from Global Warming to socks missing in the dryer.  And we are supposed to accept every one of those, while ignoring anything that makes the "Left" look bad.

Myself, I ignore all conspiracies (as I have often stated in the past).  I simply don't believe in them, either "Right Wing" or "Left Wing".  To me, a "Conspiracy" is simply a way to shift blame to some faceless third party.  After all, you can't disprove a negative.  And the fact that you can't find any proof of the conspiracy is proof that there really is one.

Now excuse me, I have to get back to my secret meeting.  Bob Dole, Scooter Libby and myself have to plan the next load of socks we are going to steal from Vermont.  :D

As opposed to the "right-wing conspiracies" that we see posted in here all the time?  I can't think of how often I see posts in here blaming "Republicans" and "Conservatives" for everything from Global Warming to socks missing in the dryer.  And we are supposed to accept every one of those, while ignoring anything that makes the "Left" look bad.

Myself, I ignore all conspiracies (as I have often stated in the past).  I simply don't believe in them, either "Right Wing" or "Left Wing".  To me, a "Conspiracy" is simply a way to shift blame to some faceless third party.  After all, you can't disprove a negative.  And the fact that you can't find any proof of the conspiracy is proof that there really is one.

Now excuse me, I have to get back to my secret meeting.  Bob Dole, Scooter Libby and myself have to plan the next load of socks we are going to steal from Vermont.   :D
this post could use more teal.

this post could use more teal.


Why, because I ignore all conspiracies equally?

OK, here we go.

I fully believe in conspiracies against Liberals.  Because they are the root of all evil.

May I have a cookie now?

May I have a cookie now?

what kind do you like?

To be honest, I simply can't stop laughing at what is going on in here.

I hear claims of being "fair" and yet hear words slung around that are rather insulting.  I see fingers pointed in all directions, yet nobody is willing to point any fingers at themselves.

I see lots of uglyness comming from all sides, and none of it really talking about the topic that Cat brought up in the first place.  In short, it is nothing but people going "It's all HIS fault".

Then people wonder why our respective "Political Parties" can't get along and reach compromises.  We can't even talk nice and reach compromises among ourselves.

To be honest, I simply can't stop laughing at what is going on in here.

I hear claims of being "fair" and yet hear words slung around that are rather insulting.  I see fingers pointed in all directions, yet nobody is willing to point any fingers at themselves.

I see lots of uglyness comming from all sides, and none of it really talking about the topic that Cat brought up in the first place.  In short, it is nothing but people going "It's all HIS fault".

Then people wonder why our respective "Political Parties" can't get along and reach compromises.  We can't even talk nice and reach compromises among ourselves.


It's all your fault, Mushroom.  :P

It's all your fault, Mushroom.   :P


Yep, I guess your right.  I am just to damned much of a reactionary.

To be honest, I simply can't stop laughing at what is going on in here.

I hear claims of being "fair" and yet hear words slung around that are rather insulting.  I see fingers pointed in all directions, yet nobody is willing to point any fingers at themselves.

I see lots of uglyness comming from all sides, and none of it really talking about the topic that Cat brought up in the first place.  In short, it is nothing but people going "It's all HIS fault".

Then people wonder why our respective "Political Parties" can't get along and reach compromises.  We can't even talk nice and reach compromises among ourselves.
i dunno, to me it seemed like a pretty good exchange everybody was hasving on this thread, warts and all.

I am sorry to upset you, (well, not really). Apparently, you are mistaken because I never called names & many people in here do & have since my (non-name-calling) comment. .... misguided liberal posts .....the democrats do not create a very mature setting..... misinformed sheep that follow the leader and suck up propaganda to the exclusion of real facts. I see no tolerance unless you kiss their arses while making a point.   


There is no debate of ideas when it is simply a bitch fest - where everyone agrees to be miserably unhappy together with their misinformation and lack of facts. It appears that this is exactly the way it is wanted. Toss in a couple of well mannered right wing conservatives that would never really just tell it like it is (to stay friendly with the folk) and you have only added a couple of token voices to give the gang a bigger variety of bitching.



Edited to point out your own "double standard".....if you wants us to "have facts", why not give us some?  The points that I left in your above post is basically what you're calling everyone else out on.  You say that the "liberals" are "small minded", "immature", "misguided...sheep", the claim to not name-call.......pot, meet Mr. Kettle ::) 

This is not nessicarily true.  It is probably closer to the truth to say Conservaives want "Steady Social Progress".


  Not sure I understand this.  Can you explain..?

  I had thought a prime Conservative value to be "social stability"...


Personally, I distrust large social changes.  Because it is often destablizing and disruptive.  That does not mean that I do not want change however.  The biggest difference tends to be that "Conservatives" prefer it spread out in gradual steps, while "Liberals" want it all right now.


  Here are some major social changes:

  The youth rebellion - late 60s/early70s
  Civil rights - post WWII
  Temperance - post Civil War
  Abolition of slavery
  Prohibition - maybe..?
  Tax reform movement - in California.  As a former resident, you may recall this failure...

  I agree that reform movements almost always backfire.  There's a reason for representative government instead of direct democracy.  Unfortunately that hasn't been working very well lately, either.  I'll spare you my own personal slant on history... :)


It is more a matter of style then anything else.


  Which accounts for that grey area between the, well, you know...

   Not sure I understand this.  Can you explain..?

   I had thought a prime Conservative value to be "social stability"...


Quite often, these type of things are more an issue of semantics, depending on who is taking or resisting the action.

It is not impossible to have change with stability.  But it can be impossible to have stability with rapid change.  After all, everything changes.  And I know of very few "Conservatives" that are so locked in their view, that they want everything to just freeze in place.  After all, we are not Mennenites.


   Here are some major social changes:

   The youth rebellion - late 60s/early70s

  Abolition of slavery
  Temperance - post Civil War
  Prohibition - maybe..?
   Civil rights - post WWII
   Tax reform movement - in California.  As a former resident, you may recall this failure...

(I placed these in chronological order)


And many of these caused widespread problems.  The "Radical Republicans", "Liberal Republicans" and "War Democrats" almost tore the country apart with their in-fighting.  And when it was all said and done, slavery evolved into little more then a feudal system.  Granted it was progress, but not as much as they could have done if they had not been fighting each other so much.

The Temperance-Prohibition movement was doomed from the start.  It was a crusade about morality, and you can't legislate morals. 

Civil Rights made some good strides in most of the country after WWII, but some areas simply refused to change.  Ironically, one of the groups that had the fastest progress in this area was the US Military.  By the early 1950's, the entire military had become desegregated, without the riots and strife that was seen in the civilian sector.

Tax Reform in California has worked well, but the State Legislature simply found a way around it.  Now instead of "Taxes", you have "Fees" on everything.  So instead of paying high property taxes, you pay hundreds of little "fees" on everything from cigarettes and gasoline to car registration and legal paperwork.

To be honest, I simply can't stop laughing at what is going on in here.

I hear claims of being "fair" and yet hear words slung around that are rather insulting.  I see fingers pointed in all directions, yet nobody is willing to point any fingers at themselves.

I see lots of uglyness comming from all sides, and none of it really talking about the topic that Cat brought up in the first place.  In short, it is nothing but people going "It's all HIS fault".

Then people wonder why our respective "Political Parties" can't get along and reach compromises.  We can't even talk nice and reach compromises among ourselves.



One thing you have to admit is that these people are PROVING my point-the left hating the right and the right hating the left. For what reason? Who knows.

Ok, the rights go to your corner and the lefts go to yours and when the bell rings come out and fight-but keep it clean, please. I really don't want Chucky to delete this thread.




Cat

One thing you have to admit is that these people are PROVING my point-the left hating the right and the right hating the left. For what reason? Who knows.

Ok, the rights go to your corner and the lefts go to yours and when the bell rings come out and fight-but keep it clean, please. I really don't want Chucky to delete this thread.




Cat
meh, i think the partisanship on this thread is getting overblown. i get the impression lterhume, mushroom and perhaps davester are sorta set in their various positions but outside of that i saw a bunch of examples of reconciliation and openmindedness around here... maxwell smart talking about brands of liberal activism he doesn't care for, davey admitting that the right is big on mudslinging, rice cube's clarification of how he defines conservatism was just excellent, i thought... i'm not nearly as discouraged as you and mushroom seem to be.

One thing you have to admit is that these people are PROVING my point-the left hating the right and the right hating the left. For what reason? Who knows.

Ok, the rights go to your corner and the lefts go to yours and when the bell rings come out and fight-but keep it clean, please. I really don't want Chucky to delete this thread.




Cat


I'm not the least bit surprised to see people fighting on this thread - I totally expected it.  It's what we do on this board, especially in the politics section.  There's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned American kvetching.  It's good for the soul.  :)

I'm not the least bit surprised to see people fighting on this thread - I totally expected it.  It's what we do on this board, especially in the politics section.  There's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned American kvetching.  It's good for the soul.   :)
hear hear! i totally agree.

oops, i mean, get a haircut, hippie! :P

meh, i think the partisanship on this thread is getting overblown. i get the impression lterhume, mushroom and perhaps davester are sorta set in their various positions but outside of that i saw a bunch of examples of reconciliation and openmindedness around here... maxwell smart talking about brands of liberal activism he doesn't care for, davey admitting that the right is big on mudslinging, rice cube's clarification of how he defines conservatism was just excellent, i thought... i'm not nearly as discouraged as you and mushroom seem to be.


  Things are definately changing around here...

  Question: inasmuch as we are expected to show certain respect for one another's beliefs, what is the responsibility of the believer?  If we expect respect for our beliefs, do we owe the audience anything..?

  If acting in accord with a belief results in what we may call injustice, what respect do we owe that belief?  If the only foundation for rejecting the label of injustice is to agree with what cannot be demonstrated, or is demonstrated false, what do we expect..?

  Look, I know there are certain things that make no sense to me that are very important for other people.  Like, um, the whole gay fray, for instance.  It is apparently really important for some people to have someone left to hate for no logical reason.  Okay, that's harsh, yes...

  It's a difficult thing to explain sometimes: "It's not that you must do things my way, but if you do things my way, you're free, I'm free, everyone's free.  If we do things as you're proposing, that's not true."  And that's essentially what gets me about a lot of moral, ethical, and judicial debates.  Political issues, all...  

  After awhile, it seems clear that what is missing is a sense of realism groove ;) on...
 

not...

worth...

it.

i just don't think you're listening at all. the fox news overdose has, like, thoroughly closed your mind.

like i say, i get on with all sorts of conservative people who come to this board. in fact, of late, i've come around to some conservative ideas based on the sort of discourse i've been having with people like davey and rice. but you... the partisan in me tells me that you should continue to advocate right-wing ideas in the way you're doing, because you could bring all sorts of people over to the liberal cause. much like the people who i was talking about on another board, the people on the left side of the fence who berate people for disagreeing with them and talk down to them. if i ever think about voting for rudy giuliani over hillary clinton, it's because i'm thinking of annoying, doctrinaire liberals i've known throughout my life.

your approach is the sort that will create liberals left and right by alienating folks from conservatism in droves. ;D i say keep it up. in fact, i might make a monetary contribution to your campaign, should you decide to run.




Funny, that same concept is exactly what I was thinking about the posts I see in here and other liberal message boards! Wow! Calling names, using “mental patients”, “pricks”, “idiots” & “stupid” etc., is what I find in here used by liberal democrats who cannot seem to fact facts head on & so need to resort to this sort of attacking! I call that berating, don’t you?  It’s that sort of juvenile attacks that liberals use all the time that make it clear to me it damages their cause, not mine.  (And your sarcasm at the end of your post, although you may find it enduring, is just another form of the same defensive & rude behavior that I see so much – but what is important that you feel good using it I suppose)

^ Is there something wrong with a conservative calling another so-called conservative a reactionary prick?  Because he was.

^ Is there something wrong with a conservative calling another so-called conservative a reactionary prick?  Because he was.
i believe using that epithet automatically makes you a liberal. i trust you'll be changing your party affiliation accordingly.

i believe using that epithet automatically makes you a liberal. i trust you'll be changing your party affiliation accordingly.


Nah.  Still a Republican.  Democrats scare me :D :D :D

Not that Republicans don't, they just scare me slightly less :P

for the record, was anyone actually calling anyone an idiot, or stupid, or a mental patient? i totally don't recall that.

for the record, was anyone actually calling anyone an idiot, or stupid, or a mental patient? i totally don't recall that.


People have called her that on AmIRight because of her parodies - I don't think anyone on this thread and/or board actually said it.

the o'reilly factor, probably. ::) historically lots of churches have been liberal. hell, jesus was a big hippie!



I can't figure out why you use "Fox News" & "O'Reilly" so much in your posts - it must be some sort of fear on your part. I don't know why you think he has anything to do with church/liberal connection; perhaps you watch his show a lot and know something that I apparently miss when I catch his show from time to time.

Putting your obsession with Fox News & O'Reilly aside; God and liberals do not mix. There are too many examples to back this up - way too many! But since your response would be hostile if I didn't mention some, I will do so in an effort to help you understand....

God has the right to life, not women. When you take the right to choose from God and give it to women to aboard their babies up to 9 months old… that’s killing. God told us not to kill.

All the major Atheist organizations support the liberals candidates, wonder why?

The ACLU Anti-Christian-Lucifer’s-Union is supported by the liberals and pursues the liberal cause. They also pursue the cause for Man Boy Love Association & are against things like “God’ on our dollar bills etc. A nasty little org that sues small and large cities to take little crosses off their emblems that they have had for decades. If they do not comply, they sue – if they do comply, they spend sometimes millions changing logos on police cars, public buildings of all kinds etc.

Liberals fight Jessica’s law – you know the one that takes child’s rights and puts the abductors in prison. Well, that makes the trial lawyers like Edwards mad because they cannot negotiate more money for less or no jail time. And as you know, the trial lawyers are pretty big sponsors of the democrats.

Your own Edwards hired and refused to fire some of the biggest God / Jesus hating bloggers found online. They wrote and write the most vile stuff against God and the church, disgusting stuff that turns stomachs. Edwards, too afraid to fire these women because of the far left liberal backlash, cowardly refused to do so – even though he knew they were bloggers from hell. 

Liberals want God out of the pledge & vote that way, hell, they even vote that it’s okay to burn our flag.

Are these good enough examples for you? Nah, probably not…. I feel defensiveness coming on; liberals hate facts so very much!

i see.

i guess martin luthur king wasn't a preacher, then?

Funny, that same concept is exactly what I was thinking about the posts I see in here and other liberal message boards! Wow! Calling names, using “mental patients”, “pricks”, “idiots” & “stupid” etc., is what I find in here used by liberal democrats who cannot seem to fact facts head on & so need to resort to this sort of attacking! I call that berating, don’t you?  It’s that sort of juvenile attacks that liberals use all the time that make it clear to me it damages their cause, not mine.  (And your sarcasm at the end of your post, although you may find it enduring, is just another form of the same defensive & rude behavior that I see so much – but what is important that you feel good using it I suppose)



I'm surprised you can lift your arm up past your shoulder, what with that huge paint brush you keep wielding.  I'm getting sick and tired of seeing post after post of yours reference "Liberals" like you actually know with 100% certainty how those people think, act and feel on a daily basis.  You know as much about how all Liberals feel as I do about ancient Mayan architecture.  It's insulting.  I don't presume to know what all Conservatives think, so I'd appreciate it if you returned the favor. 

People have called her that on AmIRight because of her parodies - I don't think anyone on this thread and/or board actually said it.


I just looked at some of her parodies. Damn. And we're not supposed to name call?

I just looked at some of her parodies. Damn. And we're not supposed to name call?


Yeah...she has a damn lot of nerve.

I just looked at some of her parodies. Damn. And we're not supposed to name call?




Yeah...she has a damn lot of nerve.




Double standards, remember.  It's okay for her to say whatever she wants to people who don't agree with her.  Obviously.

Yeah...she has a damn lot of nerve.





Read the parodies, but don't forget the remarks.. read those too - it may just shock some of you, those with open minds anyway...... that is very very important if you want to judge me kids!

Read the parodies, but don't forget the remarks.. read those too - it may just shock some of you, those with open minds anyway...... that is very very important if you want to judge me kids!





I did read them. They're as rude as your parodies. But your parodies came first, not the remarks.

Read the parodies, but don't forget the remarks.. read those too - it may just shock some of you, those with open minds anyway...... that is very very important if you want to judge me kids!





We have been reading them...and all the name calling therein, which is why we're calling you the biggest hypocrite ever.

I did read them. They're as rude as your parodies. But your parodies came first, not the remarks.



So in other words, if she didn't spit such vile and offensive venom out, people wouldn't spit it back?  Interesting theory.

So in other words, if she didn't spit such vile and offensive venom out, people wouldn't spit it back?  Interesting theory.


EXACTLY.

I can't stand people who will sit there and state that people who don't share their point of view are wrong and stupid, but then they have a conniption when someone calls them on their hypocrisy.

What's pissing me off here is the blanket statements, the painting everyone with the same brush.

What's pissing me off here is the blanket statements, the painting everyone with the same brush.


But if you did that to her...

What's pissing me off here is the blanket statementsthat's because you're a liberal.

that's because you're a liberal.



One of my many failings in life, it would seem.

We have been reading them...and all the name calling therein, which is why we're calling you the biggest hypocrite ever.


I guess none of you read the parody about the whining liberals - must not have!

If you haven't been following the story here, I was threatened to be kicked out for a NON name calling issue, while all you halo wearing sort went on to call people pricks, (and other names too, go look them up yourselves). I was told that it is "put up with" in the parodies but NOT AT ALL in here, where you all do it. If you do not want to face the facts & see it for the double-standards that it is, then you go ahead and keep the head in the sand, that's growth too!

The parodies are hardly vile, (expecially next to the pardodies from the left) the comments to them, the constant name calling and very PERSONAL attacks, well, so be it. I am used to that sort of response from liberals and all ONES from the same for the same reasons.

I guess none of you read the parody about the whining liberals - must not have!

If you haven't been following the story here, I was threatened to be kicked out for a NON name calling issue, while all you halo wearing sort went on to call people pricks, (and other names too, go look them up yourselves). I was told that it is "put up with" in the parodies but NOT AT ALL in here, where you all do it. If you do not want to face the facts & see it for the double-standards that it is, then you go ahead and keep the head in the sand, that's growth too!

The parodies are hardly vile, (expecially next to the pardodies from the left) the comments to them, the constant name calling and very PERSONAL attacks, well, so be it. I am used to that sort of response from liberals and all ONES from the same for the same reasons.




None of this changes the fact that you are a hypocrite for telling us not to call names, but yet you have no problems bashing liberals on AmIRight.

I just realized that the two times I wrote a long list of facts -- in this very thread ... they were ignored for the whining you all prefer.... You ask for them, both times you just ignore them ... wow... stimulating!  

You give real Conservatives a bad name.  That is not something you should be proud of.

None of this changes the fact that you are a hypocrite for telling us not to call names, but yet you have no problems bashing liberals on AmIRight.




Maybe you should read it again more slowly.

I just realized that the two times I wrote a long list of facts -- in this very thread ... they were ignored for the whining you all prefer.... You ask for them, both times you just ignore them ... wow... stimulating!  


Sorta like when I posted that long diplomatic post explaining why chucky might have issued you a warning, and you ignored it to seize on one little part to call me a no-nothing liberal?

Sorta like when I posted that long diplomatic post explaining why chucky might have issued you a warning, and you ignored it to seize on one little part to call me a no-nothing liberal?



Oh snap.

I just realized that the two times I wrote a long list of facts -- in this very thread ... they were ignored for the whining you all prefer.... You ask for them, both times you just ignore them ... wow... stimulating!  




1. The only person I see whining right now is YOU. "Oh, woe is me...I'm the perfect conservative and everyone is picking on me."

2. Your sarcasm about this topic being stimulating is hilarious, considering YOU continue to post in defense of these so called attacks against your beliefs.

One of my many failings in life, it would seem.



The first step is in admitting it!

The first step is in admitting it!


Yes, I admit I'm a Liberal.  I find no shame in that and I'll be damned if someone like you is going to force it on me. 

The first step is in admitting it!


Check your attitude, lady.

Ok guys, chill. I really don't want Chucky to delete this thread. There are a bunch of interesting posts on here but with this going back and forth which doesn't have anything to do with the topic is getting a bit out of hand. I am very close to locking the thread.



Cat

Ok guys, chill. I really don't want Chucky to delete this thread. There are a bunch of interesting posts on here but with this going back and forth which doesn't have anything to do with the topic is getting a bit out of hand. I am very close to locking the thread.



Cat
Locking threads, eh? Typical liberal behavior.

Joke! Joke!

Ah, well, this thread was going so well, too. Too bad.

i'd say this bears repeating....


A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. ~ Sir Winston Churchill

i'd say this bears repeating....


A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. ~ Sir Winston Churchill




Impressive for once.

Trapped in the quote box!

Trapped in the quote box!
only liberals get trapped in quote boxes.

i dunno, i know i'm supposed to be taking all this bickering seriously but something about it just strikes me as incredibly... funny.

only liberals get trapped in quote boxes.

i dunno, i know i'm supposed to be taking all this bickering seriously but something about it just strikes me as incredibly... funny.



The further to one side you go, the closer you get to falling off and landing on your ass.  That is funny.  Temper your opinions with some moderation and people will take you seriously.