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.