|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
originally posted by Darknight613:
As for the loaded argument, I can't help feeling that you're trying to justify your generalizations and that they're under attack, because you're being very over-defensive. All I'm saying is there are exceptions to every sterotype out there, and we should consider that fact before we rely on sterotypes to make our point.
First, you're accusing me of generalizing.
Well, to be perfectly honest, you have made generalizations in the past. Several times. Our first argument, a long time ago, was about you making generalizations which I had challenged because I was citing exceptions, and you dismissed them (as a matter of fact, it was the same thing that Schnitt was talking about when he said liberals don't want to serve in the army." You made that claim a while back, I told you about my dad, and you dismissed what I was saying entirely.) So yeah, I am accusing you of generalizing. You have done so in the past, and I therefore stand by my accusation. It's something we all do from time to time. Even I've done it.
And you're also accusing me of being "overly defensive" of my generalizations.
Actually, I said that you were being overly defensive because it seemed you thought I was targeting you, when I really wasn't. If you thought otherwise, you misunderstood.
And you accuse me of trying to justify my generalizations.
Because in the past, you have. You have made generalizations before, and you have defended them tooth and nail.
[B]The only part of this that's true is that there are exceptions to every stereotype. Which has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is that anyone can make statements of "all" of a group, and that's a stereotype. But even qualifying statements (such as "most" or "a majority"), can be shot down by the opposition as generalizing saying (without statistics) "But there are many who oppose it too." So my point is, for example, no matter what percentage of Muslims in other countries are Al Qaida terrorists, or openly endorse Al Qaida terrorists, or are sympathetic to terrorism in general, or who boycott American goods and businesses since September 11th, it can be spun to say "not all Muslims feel that way".
Which may technically be true, but belies the fact that a majority of Muslims are hostile to the United States.
And my point is, even if qualifiers like "a majority" or "many" can be shot down in an argument, it's still not right to leave them out, because then you're labelling people as something they're not, and you're creating "guilt by association." Stereotyping leaves you even more vulnerable to attack. If you believe enough in your stance, or if you can back it up, then why worry over somebody exploiting the weakness of qualifiers?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
originally posted by Darknight613:
As for the loaded argument, I can't help feeling that you're trying to justify your generalizations and that they're under attack, because you're being very over-defensive. All I'm saying is there are exceptions to every sterotype out there, and we should consider that fact before we rely on sterotypes to make our point.
First, you're accusing me of generalizing.
And you're also accusing me of being "overly defensive" of my generalizations.
And you accuse me of trying to justify my generalizations.
The only part of this that's true is that there are exceptions to every stereotype. Which has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is that anyone can make statements of "all" of a group, and that's a stereotype. But even qualifying statements (such as "most" or "a majority"), can be shot down by the opposition as generalizing saying (without statistics) "But there are many who oppose it too." So my point is, for example, no matter what percentage of Muslims in other countries are Al Qaida terrorists, or openly endorse Al Qaida terrorists, or are sympathetic to terrorism in general, or who boycott American goods and businesses since September 11th, it can be spun to say "not all Muslims feel that way".
1."So my point is, for example, no matter what percentage of Muslims in other countries are Al Qaida terrorists, or openly endorse Al Qaida terrorists, or are sympathetic to terrorism in general, or who boycott American goods and businesses since September 11th, it can be spun to say "not all Muslims feel that way".
That's not spinning anything, that's a fact.
"Which may technically be true, but belies the fact that a majority of Muslims are hostile to the United States. "
That's just not true. You could argue that a majority of muslims don't trust the US, or dislike the US, but thay're certainly not "hostile." You overstate your point.
It's true that the Koran is more extreme than the Bible. I read somewhere that 1 in every 55 versus talks about "killing infidels." Even though the Koran is more violent, more people have been killed in the name of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
is it wrong to dislike a president's standing (or president elect or mayor or super intendent, etc) because you don't like the person? i tend to think no.
On the other hand, consider this:
As noted before we want, or even expect, our elected officials to act on the basis of what is (or what they perceive is) good for the people.
We do not approve of politicians who act out of base motives, such as greed or racism, recognizing that those motives, at the very least, cloud their judgement.
Doesn't hatred also cloud judgement? If so, then shouldn't we take issue with someone who bases their views on hatred, just as we do with those who base their views on greed or racism?
perhaps.
i was thinking of it more in the lines of a judgement call. if you have a neighbor, and you don't like him because he acts like an ass, i think any one of us would be a little "wary," to say the least, of his promises or nature in general.
its possible that whomod, or people like whomod (who, no doubt, live in a whomodian society on the outter rim of whomodisburg), simply get a bad vibe from dubya. maybe there's a weird sorta unintelligible distrust.
there are certain people in every day encounters that i get vibes from, warranted or otherwise. political figures are no different, and in my argument shouldn't be.
though its true that one should be based upon their actions and nature, rather than impressions (specifically first impressions), we live in a world of perspectives and interpretations, where any one action can be seen in and entirely different light by another. and, when our viewpoints upon a political figure is further divided by our only viable outlets of information (in a president's case, mainly the media), information is even more distorted. thus, maybe the only "proper" reaction to such figures is in our gut instinct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
And my point is, even if qualifiers like "a majority" or "many" can be shot down in an argument, it's still not right to leave them out, because then you're labelling people as something they're not, and you're creating "guilt by association." Stereotyping leaves you even more vulnerable to attack. If you believe enough in your stance, or if you can back it up, then why worry over somebody exploiting the weakness of qualifiers?
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along !
No matter what I say, you re-spin it to say I'm "generalizing", or "stereotyping", no matter what articles or numbers I post to back up what I say.
You try to come across as non-partisan, even as you make insultingly deceitful characterizations of my arguments, and try to dismissively categorize what I've argued --from linked articles and sources-- as unsound.
You allow yourself to do things in your posts that you dismissively write me off as "stereotyping" or "generalizing", if I even approach doing.
In the encounters I've had with you across several topics, you continually use these abrasive tactics, and it's clearly a waste of my time to post a response to what you say. You come across as conciliatory, even as you dismiss, insult, and mischaracterize.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
It's true that the Koran is more extreme than the Bible. I read somewhere that 1 in every 55 versus talks about "killing infidels."
Even though the Koran is more violent, more people have been killed in the name of Christianity.
That last statement I find particularly hard to swallow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Boy this is becoming a pissing fest. Granted, we've had some stupid-ass topics, but I doubt this is one of them.
You know, I got to hear Clinton speak last year, and even though I disagree with him poltically, I can almost respect the guy. Almost. I think if I were a man, this wouldn't bug me, but he's never denied the rape charges. However, that was back in Arkensas and had little to do with his presidency. He's great with the public, however, that does turn some people off. To pharaphrase a friend of mine. "He's like that typical politican -- smooth, even, a little debonair. But you can't tell if he's charming you or seducing you (seduciong in the sense of persuation, not sexual)."
I actually mentioned this 'hate' bit with my two roomies, both of whom are democrate, but only one of them is a tradional 'liberal'. She was frank and just said "I fucking hate Bush."
The other is pretty far left, but she very anti-gay, which I find strange because she also very anti-religious (she is her own Goddess). She agreed with my other roommate. I'm not going to pretend this is the typical pair of liberals, just something I saw.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darknight613:
And my point is, even if qualifiers like "a majority" or "many" can be shot down in an argument, it's still not right to leave them out, because then you're labelling people as something they're not, and you're creating "guilt by association." Stereotyping leaves you even more vulnerable to attack. If you believe enough in your stance, or if you can back it up, then why worry over somebody exploiting the weakness of qualifiers?
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along !
I wasn't getting that impression. It sounded a lot like you were saying that since qualifiers can be shot down, htere's no point in putting them in.
No matter what I say, you re-spin it to say I'm "generalizing", or "stereotyping", no matter what articles or numbers I post to back up what I say.
See? You're generalizing again! ( ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) Just kidding)
In all seriousness, my spin-doctoring doesn't mean you get a free ride when you do it. You constantly ignore the bulk of my messages to focus on a point you disagree with, and sidetrack the real discussion. And you too ignore any examples I might bring to the table. They may be flawed, but so are yours!
You try to come across as non-partisan, even as you make insultingly deceitful characterizations of my arguments, and try to dismissively categorize what I've argued --from linked articles and sources-- as unsound.
You allow yourself to do things in your posts that you dismissively write me off as "stereotyping" or "generalizing", if I even approach doing.
And you have done the same to me. You accuse me of biases where none exist, and you have twisted my arguments many a time to use against me. My mistakes and shortcomings don't excuse yours.
[B]In the encounters I've had with you across several topics, you continually use these abrasive tactics, and it's clearly a waste of my time to post a response to what you say. You come across as conciliatory, even as you dismiss, insult, and mischaracterize.
If this is about that one time that I lost my temper during a genuinely hellish week, I once again apologize.
But you can't expect me to sit back and not point out what I perceive as flaws or inconsistencies in your arguments or stance, or to ignore what I consider personal attacks. After all, if you can point out what you perceive to be mine, why can't I point out what I perceive to be yours? And why isn't it a waste of time to attack the weakest part of my arguments or my mistakes? Just because part of the argument is worng doesn't mean the whole thing is. And sometimes, you end up dismissing the very point that answers your challenge.
So once again, we're at an impasse, neither of us having accomplishing anthing except pissing the othr guy off. We do the same things to each other, and we get so caught up in the blame game, we spend all our time trying to outdo the other. And it makes for a very uncomfortable atmosphere around here.
But at least I apologize when I go too far or when I'm wrong. I had a heated clash with PJP once under cicumstances similar to ours, and we made up. I clashed with the G-Man once or twice in the past, but in this thread we can be civil to each other. When I apologized to you, you dismissed it as insincere, and I'm pretty resentful about it. Whatever you choose to believe, I really did want to apologize, and I did feel bad about lashing out at you that one time, and still do.
There has to be a better way to settle things between us. I don't want to fight with you, or for us to be enemies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
quote:
Hold the Vitriol!
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Considering the savagery with which the Snarling Right excoriated President Clinton as a "sociopath," blocked judicial appointments, undermined U.S. military operations from Kosovo to Iraq, hounded Vincent Foster and then accused the Clintons of murdering him, it is utterly hypocritical for conservatives to complain about liberal incivility.
But they're right.
Liberals have now become as intemperate as conservatives, and the result — everybody shouting at everybody else — corrodes the body politic and is counterproductive for Democrats themselves. My guess is that if the Democrats stay angry, then they'll offend Southern white guys, with or without pickups and flags, and lose again.
A new report from the Pew Research Center says that America is more polarized now than at any time since its polling series began in 1987. Partly that's because it used to be just the Republicans who were intense in their beliefs, while now both sides are frothing.
The latest Progressive magazine features the article "Call Me a Bush-Hater," and The New Republic earlier published "The Case for Bush Hatred."
I see the fury in my e-mail messages. In a fairly typical comment, one reader suggested that President Bush and his aides are "lying, cynical greedy pirates who deserve no better than a firing squad." At this rate, soon we'll all be so rabid that Ann Coulter will seem normal.
I worry about the polarization partly because I'm afraid that America is now transforming into something like Old Europe, the political moonscape that I remember when I was a student in England in the 1980's.
...read the rest at the link above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
It's true that the Koran is more extreme than the Bible. I read somewhere that 1 in every 55 versus talks about "killing infidels."
Even though the Koran is more violent, more people have been killed in the name of Christianity.
That last statement I find particularly hard to swallow.
What's so hard to swallow? It's true!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
If this is about that one time that I lost my temper during a genuinely hellish week, I once again apologize.
It's not. You constantly personalize it. You pretend to be impartially objective, even as you take sides.
You dismissively accuse me of making sweeping generalizations, just because I don't qualify every statement as "some Democrats" or "most Democrats." You KNOW what I mean when I make a statement such as "Democrats continually do this..." Maybe when you first came on the boards here, you didn't, but as many topics as I've posted, you certainly do by now. I've made it clear that I'm talking about the tactics of Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and others in their non-constructive scorched-earth rhetoric.
I mean, you're just being ridiculous, like some prissy schoolteacher taking a big red pen and circling every apostrophe and syntax error. And not even an error, just a statement written differently than YOU would have written it. I doubt anyone but you and myself are reading this, because it's so piddly and uninteresting, what you force me to respond to. I'm personally addressed in your comments, and it's uninteresting to ME, but it's accusing enough that I feel obligated to respond.
I made it pretty clear in prior posts that I'd accept your apology, if I believe it's a sincere one. But as I said prior, you apologize and insult me in the same breath.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
But you can't expect me to sit back and not point out what I perceive as flaws or inconsistencies in your arguments or stance, or to ignore what I consider personal attacks. After all, if you can point out what you perceive to be mine, why can't I point out what I perceive to be yours? And why isn't it a waste of time to attack the weakest part of my arguments or my mistakes? Just because part of the argument is worng doesn't mean the whole thing is. And sometimes, you end up dismissing the very point that answers your challenge.
Because clearly, you just go point-by-point through every line of what I write and try to de-bunk it, under a veil of "objectivity".
And then despite the many links I provide, you argue that I don't back up what I say, or I generalize, or I stereotype, bla bla bla. I find your approach annoying in its smug presumed superiority, where you don't prove anything, you just ( in your own self-exalted objectivity)insult my capacity to even write a reasoned argument, and say "your logic is flawed, you're wrong". No matter what evidence I post.
If you have an alternative opinion, fine, post it. But don't "grade" my style and content, and personally attack me for my style. Post regarding the issue itself, and don't personalize it.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
So once again, we're at an impasse, neither of us having accomplishing anthing except pissing the othr guy off. We do the same things to each other, and we get so caught up in the blame game, we spend all our time trying to outdo the other. And it makes for a very uncomfortable atmosphere around here.
I'm not trying to "outdo" you. I'm just trying to post my opinion without getting the verbal equivalent of a rectal exam.
Just who the heck do you think you are, o great and powerful diety of message board objectivity? (That would be the almighty Rob Kamphausen, by the way, who I think is a remarkably fair moderator on the DC boards.)
Who are YOU to declare yourself the impartial judge of what is impartially objective, even as you clearly have a liberal opinion. What arrogance. Or perhaps just youthful naivete.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
But at least I apologize when I go too far or when I'm wrong.
As I have said repeatedly, you have a tendency to insult and apologize in the same breath. I'd be happy to put this to rest.
I understand you have a strong opinion, and so do I. And I think you're probably a pretty nice guy in person. But I hope you can see how your objectivity is not superior to mine or anyone else's here, and it's a bit insulting and inflammatory to be on the receiving end of such a notion.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
I had a heated clash with PJP once under cicumstances similar to ours, and we made up. I clashed with the G-Man once or twice in the past, but in this thread we can be civil to each other. When I apologized to you, you dismissed it as insincere, and I'm pretty resentful about it. Whatever you choose to believe, I really did want to apologize, and I did feel bad about lashing out at you that one time, and still do.
There has to be a better way to settle things between us. I don't want to fight with you, or for us to be enemies.
I'll go out on a limb and apologize too.
I think you're sincere, but while you may want peace, your choice of words isn't completely conciliatory.
If you'll just put away the red pen and just respectfully disagree, and make your counterpoint without all the personal remarks, we'll get along fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
It's true that the Koran is more extreme than the Bible. I read somewhere that 1 in every 55 versus talks about "killing infidels."
Even though the Koran is more violent, more people have been killed in the name of Christianity.
That last statement I find particularly hard to swallow.
What's so hard to swallow? It's true!
First of all, look at Europe and the rest of the democratized West, and look at the Middle East.
The level of violence and repression in the name of Allah certainly far exceeds that of the Christian world.
This was already explored in at least one other topic (although as usual, opinions varied) :
"islamic ignorance"
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=206064&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
If we fully explore this here, it will hijack this topic into another topic of Christianity vs Islam, and I think I've already taken this page further off-topic than I wanted to (sorry about that, G-man !) 
~
On topic, I think we've established a hatred for Bush among his liberal/Democrat critics.
And as it relates to the topic, as well as many other RKMB discussions here, I would be far more open to concede Bush's flaws, if not for the white-hot hatred (and resultant distortion of the facts) of the majority of criticism I see of Bush.
Has Bush made mistakes? Absolutely. And I hope everyone here can see that despite my sensibilities leaning toward the Bush perspective, I've voiced considerable criticism of his policies...
( a quick review:
- Bush should be more public with disclosure of information, the perceived secretiveness breeds distrust of Bush, whether or not he is guilty of anything;
- in hindsight, he should have had a larger occupation force to invade Iraq, to prevent forseeable looting,
- Bush should be expanding U.S. military recruitment/enlistment by 400,000 or more, to insure we have the reserves to meet any situation in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or elsewhere.
- And although I'm less convinced now there is a military solution possible in Korea, I think Korea should have been invaded first instead of Iraq. Iraq could have waited a year or so, but Korea was clearly more immediate. In the six months of buildup and invasion of Iraq, Korea was known to be building nuclear weapons, and Bush allowed it to happen. (Although negotiations in Korea, though currently fruitless, now include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and are no longer just bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea. Which now puts more pressure on North Korea, particularly from China, to de-nuclearize.)
** I hasten to add, I give primary blame to the Clinton administration for enabling Korea to build nukes. THAT was the time to invade Korea, in 1994, instead of Clinton giving huge concessions and requiring no verification, that allowed Korea to go on secretly building nukes. Although again, Bush had his window of opportunity that he allowed to close as well.
- I'm not wild about the Bush tax cut, even though little of it has been enacted yet. And I think that tax cut should be repealed, to cover the additional homeland security and war expenses.
- And although I posted a few months ago I wouldn't re-elect Bush, at this point the Democrats' bitterly partisan opposition makes me far more inclined to re-elect Bush over the forseeable Democrat alterative in 2004. )
I consider that constructive criticism of the President. As opposed to the vitriol over the last year from many (but clearly not all) Democrats.
Senators McCain, Biden and Lieberman are examples of constructive criticism.
Howard Dean and John Kerry are examples of pointlessly divisive, Bush-can-do-no-right, scorched earth rhetoric, that selfishly divides the country just so they can exploit liberal anger and get more votes.
When Democrats "hate" the President, and produce venomous, deliberately misrepresentative and highly partisan articles and speeches accordingly, they don't convince moderate Republicans. They drive them defensively behind the president.
I'm a personal example of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 194
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 194 |
If there was anything constructive to say about the chimp, people would say it. As things stand, he didn't actually win the election, he's thoroughly pissed off the rest of the G8 club (apart from his mindless sex toy Blair), and he's pissed away insane amounts of money on this foolishness in Iraq while cutting government spending on everything else to fund it. The only good thing about all this stupid nonsense is that it's stopped him winding up the Chinese for no good reason.
The fuckwit couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and has no business trying to run a country. That leading to spite is inevitable.
I love the way that the American left has come to mean "anybody who doesn't support everything the president comes out with" recently as well. Very left leaning country at trhe moment, America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Here's a peice from last weeks paper, written from a conservative perspective. quote:
November 14, 2003
COMMENTARY
Hate Is Everywhere and Gets Us Nowhere
By Douglas MacKinnon, Douglas MacKinnon was press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official. His memoir will be published in the summer of 2004.
"Hate her!" So said liberal activist and actress Susan Sarandon when asked recently about liberal Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"Hate her!" — two words that open a window into the unfortunate mind-set of many on the left and right.
A well-known self-described liberal Democrat in Hollywood once said that the thing that bothered him most about some of his fellow liberals was their "hate." It's not enough, he said, "that they disagree with Republicans and conservatives, but they have to hate them and hate everything they stand for."
A number of liberal activists have stated that they hate President Bush. Just hate him and hate all of his policies. On hardcover nonfiction best-seller lists, there are four books that spew varying degrees of outright hatred for Bush and conservatives. Hate is something that not only sells, but can now be packaged and marketed.
"Hate" is a strong, obscene and destructive word, and yet it is being uttered with more and more frequency by many on the left and by many who should know better. The crass and childish name-calling directed at Bush by candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination not only creates more hate and anger but should bring shame to those in that party who would choose statesmanship and honor over insults and partisanship.
To be fair, hate was the fuel that energized many on the right during their diatribes against former President Clinton. And hate clouds the judgment of a number of Republicans today. Hatred of the left can also be found in a number of best-selling volumes by conservative authors.
On the left and on the right, hate is a powerful corrosive that is eating away at the foundation of our republic.
How quickly we seem to have forgotten that hate attacked our nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Extremists blinded by hate and ignorance murdered nearly 3,000 human beings on that day, and the same forces are responsible for the deaths of thousands more around the world. Hate spawns evil, irrational thoughts and deeds, unimaginable loss and nothing more.
Those who enter the political arena, as elected officials or as self-styled activists, must not hate. The American people cannot afford the luxury of such anger. Our nation is at risk as never before and we need all of our efforts, all of our energies focused on solutions. Solutions that ultimately will only be found by those willing to forget hatred and reach across party lines and ideologies to work together.
Hate is not only a threat to civility, it is a threat to our national security.
Get over it … for all of our sakes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oe-mackinnon14nov14,1,6711510.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
So glad to see conservatives in this country have finally seen the light about hate. This is a refrain I've heard increasingly in recent months from commentators on the right.
It's funny how hate never seemed to bother them when it was coming from their own side. Whether it was Lee Atwater's infamous Willie Horton ads or Rush Limbaugh's decade-long campaign of ridicule and character assassination against the Clintons, why use logic and reason when scare-mongering and name-calling are so much more effective?
From my perspective, the left in this country has finally gotten tired of being kicked around and has taken a page from the Republican playbook — and it's getting them some traction, which is perhaps why McKinnon and his ilk have cried foul. But the right need not worry, their side still has all the best pit bulls. Just compare Al Franken's book to Ann Coulter's. He may call you a liar, but she'll call you a traitor. I know which accusation I prefer.
And speaking of "hate"
quote:
Limbaugh Returns to Airwaves After Rehab
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh returned to his radio show on Monday after being treated for addiction to painkillers and assured listeners his therapy had not turned him into a "linguine-spined liberal."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Lee Atwater's infamous Willie Horton ads [/QB]
Let's not forgot what Willie Horton did, and how he did it:
Horton was a convicted murderer, let out of prison on an unguarded forty-eight hour furlough, under a program that Governor Dukakis loudly and publicly supported.
He didn't come back. Instead, Horton, while at large, raped and/or tortured two people in their own home.
And Horton wasn't the only felon to escape under this program. Approximately eighty other convicted felons vanished while out and about unsupervised.
And, despite all that, Dukakis continued to defend the program, only ending it when he realized that public outcry was damaging (to say the least) his presidential chances.
Now, most people, people with common sense, would think that supporting this type of failed program would say a lot about the type of leadership that a candidate would provide and how he or she would govern and, therefore, of course, it should be brought to light as part of that candidate's "record."
But not liberals. They'd rather act like this was racism. That Dukakis was libeled. That Willie Horton wasn't a murderer and a rapist at large because of Michael Dukakis.
The fact that they care more about Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton's feelings than about the victims of these and other crimes says a great deal about these members of the left, and none of it is a bit good.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
![[cool]](images/icons/cool.gif) quote:
November 19, 2003
from nme.com
===============
RADIOHEAD’s THOM YORKE is spearheading a growing chorus of protest
aimed at US President GEORGE BUSH’s visit to the UK – branding him and TONY
BLAIR "liars".
Bush and a massive entourage came to London this week (November 18) for
a rare state visit. Even before he arrived the trip provoked fury, with
reports that US security officials wanted to create a three mile
‘exclusion zone’ around him, effectively shutting down central London and
stopping legitimate protesters from getting anywhere near the President.
Angry at what he sees as using the "threat of terrorism to suppress
whatever they choose", Thom Yorke e-mailed NME last week, urging people to
protest against the visit.
When asked why he’d chosen to speak out, Thom told NME: "To make Blair
squirm over his decision to take us into a illegitimate war (In Iraq)
and follow this religious lunatic (Bush) toward a dangerous future for
the whole planet.
"Both of these men are liars. We have right to call them such, they are
putting our children’s future in jeopardy. They are not controlling the
terrorist threat, they are escalating it. Blair will not be allowed off
the hook by his pathetic pleading for us to ‘move on’, neither shall
Bush."
Thom continued: "(The visit) will be heavily staged I think. I expect
they will use the threat of terrorism to suppress whatever they choose,
intimidate and arrest whoever they wish. The majority of British people
were against this war, and Bush's visit will just taint Blair even
further."
While in the UK Bush will be staying in Buckingham Palace. Yorke urged
the Royal Family to "do something useful" and protest too. He
continued: "This is a royal invitation isn't it? How about one of the little
heirs to throne doing something useful with their lives and speaking out?
Refusing to shake hands for example? As we are still awaiting the
results of the Hutton Inquiry I think now is a good time to remind Blair
that he's on very very very very very very very very thin ice."
Anti-war protesters Damon Albarn and Robert '3-D' Del Naja have also
spoken out. 3-D told NME.COM: "The state visit of George Bush is an
insult to the entire nation. The daily death and chaos in Iraq is
escalating. This visit divides our people and our communities. The war on terror
has only created more anger, more frustration and more militants. And
the country continues to evolve into a future target for extremists."
Albarn added: "We are still at war. We are still good at watching war.
What does watching war tell us about ourselves? How does war lead to
peace? How does watching war lead to peace? Two million people asked a
question on February 15 - Why War? We haven't had an answer yet."
Travis singer Fran Healy also contacted NME.COM. He said: "Terrible
timing from our government. WHY NOW? How insensitive is this? Nothing
surprises me any more. The whole thing stinks. A three-mile bubble.
Impressive. And the great thing is- we pay for it. We pay for all of it and
we'll keep paying in money and in lives for a long time to come. I wonder
if Bush realises he's the most unpopular man in the world. That is some
feat. How does that feel? I am interested to see what happens. The
police are gonna have their jobs cut out for them."
CND are helping organise a protest march in London, which assembles
tomorrow (November 20) at 2pm on Malet St. The march will go on to
Trafalgar Square.
http://www.nme.com/news/106798.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Thank God Radiohead is on the case. Now, thanks to the insightful commentary of the guys who wrote "Fake Plastic Trees" and "Subterranean Homesick Alien," we all know what to think about Bush. ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) If having rock singers against them was any real threat to Republican Presidents, we wouldn't have had one in the last thirty years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Bush I'st on Clinton during the '91 election campaign. (U2's Bono had been prank calling the White House and asking to speak to Bush all thru the campaign)
. " I'll be consulting with John Major. He can consult with Boy Georrrrrge".
Rockin the Vote, eh?
Don't arrogantly dismiss people who can influence young voters to turn out. Bush learned that the hard way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Please.
Bono had nothing to do with Bush 41's loss to Clinton. Look that voter turnout and how many young people vote.
I remember Michael Stipe in '88 taking out full page ads (and this was at the height of REM's popularity you might recall) urging people to vote for Dukakis. I remember Springsteen four years before that (again, at the height of HIS popularity) attacking Reagan.
Neither did their candidate a damn bit of good.
And look at all the H'Wood lefties and rockers who were against the GOP in the last congressional elections. Despite the influence of these luminaries we retook the Senate and consolidated gains in the House.
Celebrity supporters might be good for some photo ops and fund-raising, but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
"I remember Michael Stipe in '88 taking out full page ads (and this was at the height of REM's popularity you might recall) urging people to vote for Dukakis. I remember Springsteen four years before that (again, at the height of HIS popularity) attacking Reagan.
Neither did their candidate a damn bit of good."
Thankfully, this is still America. Stipe and the Boss are fully permitted to express their views. And since money talks in this country, they're within their rights to spend some of their bank accounts on ads supporting their guy.
But why should I suspect any other attitude from a guy who's got G. Gordon Liddy as his avatar. The guy's a convict for crying out loud...Oh well. This is still America. You can pick your own hero.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
On to speak on topic...I don't know if all Liberals hate this President. My wife certainly does. But she is more Left than I am. I do not hate this President, but I do find him myopic, vengeful, and deluded. I think he and his cronies feel they're operating as God's agents. That's a scary thought. He makes his dad look like a political genius...
--Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
At no time did I express an opinion that Stipe or Springsteen had no right to express their opinions.
I simply noted that neither seemed very successful in swaying public opinion.
It's interesting that so many liberals--on this board and elsewhere--take disagreement, whether polite or not, as an attempt to censor. It's almost as if they hope to stifle disagreement with them through an attempt to accuse someone of censorship or similar egregious behavior.
What potential irony: stifling dissent by accusing the other side of stifling dissent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
You insinuated that Stipe et al. wasted their money, as it didn't do their candidate a damn bit of good. I said it was their right to "waste" their money regardless.
And I never said a word about anybody censoring anything...
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
I don't hate Dubya, I just don't get the impression of intelligence that I expect in the leader of the free world. I've never seen a picture of him that didn't look like it needed a comedy caption.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.
I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.
Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.
And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.
Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
The press portrayed Carter as a fool, too. Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, is clearly no fool. quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:
If there was anything constructive to say about the chimp, people would say it. As things stand, he didn't actually win the election, he's thoroughly pissed off the rest of the G8 club (apart from his mindless sex toy Blair), and he's pissed away insane amounts of money on this foolishness in Iraq while cutting government spending on everything else to fund it. The only good thing about all this stupid nonsense is that it's stopped him winding up the Chinese for no good reason.
The fuckwit couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and has no business trying to run a country. That leading to spite is inevitable.
I love the way that the American left has come to mean "anybody who doesn't support everything the president comes out with" recently as well. Very left leaning country at trhe moment, America.
Yeah. This is pretty much the way everyone feels about him down here, too.
Love the tariffs being slapped around at the moment, protecting American industry before an election.
If the man who controls our governments' foreign policy was able to be voted for by people in our countries, he might be a wee bit more multilateral. There are no direct elections for those of us in the hegemony.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.
I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.
Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.
And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.
Coincidence?
Actually, thinking about this a bit more, over the past 30 years you've had Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush Snr and Bush jr as GOP presidents, and only Carter and Clinton as Dem presidents. 5:2. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and beyond reproach for being a dummy.
So 6 presidents are open to being painted as dumb arses, and 5 of them were/are Republicans.
So, no, no coincidence, but not through any liberal press conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
quote:
I've never seen a picture of him that didn't look like it needed a comedy caption.
Interesting, because there are so maney good professional pictures of him, and yet publishers seem to print the bad ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Actually, the reason that republican presidents are perceived as stupid is because there is a tendency among liberals, including those in the media, to assume that people who don't share their beliefs are either evil, stupid or both. As an Ithaca College Professor noted earlier this year about anti-war protesters: quote:
they most frequently rely on what I like to call the "Dupes or Dopes" theory - that is, the conviction that everyone who disagrees with them is either a dupe (brainwashed by the Corporate Media, an evil conspiracy that includes everyone in America who goes near a word processor, microphone or television camera, with the sole exception of Amy Goodman), or a dope, which is to say, too stupid to recognize the clear and obvious truth [and that] "Bush is an idiot/Bush is evil"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Actually, the reason that republican presidents are perceived as stupid is because there is a tendency among liberals, including those in the media, to assume that people who don't share their beliefs are either evil, stupid or both.
As an Ithaca College Professor noted earlier this year about anti-war protesters:
quote:
they most frequently rely on what I like to call the "Dupes or Dopes" theory - that is, the conviction that everyone who disagrees with them is either a dupe (brainwashed by the Corporate Media, an evil conspiracy that includes everyone in America who goes near a word processor, microphone or television camera, with the sole exception of Amy Goodman), or a dope, which is to say, too stupid to recognize the clear and obvious truth [and that] "Bush is an idiot/Bush is evil"
None of this apologist doublespeak negates my crystal clear chain of logic:
1. Most Presidents in the past 30 years have been Republicans.
2. In the past thirty years only one - a Democrat - has been a Rhodes scholar, therefore almost all of the rest of them can be open to attack as stupid.
2. Therefore, all Republican presidents plus Carter in the past 30 years can be open to attack as being stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
So let me ask those of you who are Conservative and/or back our current President's approaches and policies...do you really think he's going to end terrorism?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Kris Kristofferson--that formerly burned out singer/songwriter who starred in "A Star is Born," "Convey" and numerous bad made for TV westerns was also a Rhodes Scholar. If being a Rhodes Scholar automatically equals brilliance, why the hell did he make those movies?
Seriously, however, it's difficult to have a rational discussion about this with someone who seems to think that the only measure of intelligence is a Rhodes Scholarship and, implicityly that every other President is subject to being called stupid for not having one.
Using that kind of highly specious logic, Thomas Jefferson--widely considered the most intelligent president to date--is subject to being called stupid because he wasn't a Rhodes Scholar.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
|
|
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080 |
You can be a Rhodes Scholar in different fields, G.
Kris studied Literature. Clinton, Government/Political Sci. It think his outweighs Kristofferson's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Kris Kristofferson--that formerly burned out singer/songwriter who starred in "A Star is Born," "Convey" and numerous bad made for TV westerns was also a Rhodes Scholar. If being a Rhodes Scholar automatically equals brilliance, why the hell did he make those movies?
Probably because he needed the money.
Just because someone's smart enough to know a bad script when they see one, doesn't mean they can afford not to do the movie. If an actor has to choose between losing a paycheck and being in a bad movie, there are times they can't afford to turn down the paycheck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Sigh... ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) did anyone here not notice that, immediately after my comment about Kris Kristofferson and his choice of film roles, I followed up with a paragraph that began "Seriously..."? ![[izzat so?]](graemlins/zatso.gif) As in "Okay, I was kidding before, however..." Do I have to surround every facetious comment with graemlins to get a point across here? Oh, and not to put too fine a point on what was a joke to begin with, but if Kristofferson is so damn smart, then why did he need to make bad movies, including "Heaven's Gate," to make money? The guy wrote "Me and Bobby McGee," "Sunday Morning Coming Down," "Help Me Make it Through the Night," and "For the Good Times," for cryin' out loud. Shouldn't the royalties on those songs alone keep him living comfortably for life? Note:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Sigh... did anyone here not notice that, immediately after my comment about Kris Kristofferson and his choice of film roles, I followed up with a paragraph that began "Seriously..."?
As in "Okay, I was kidding before, however..."
Do I have to surround every facetious comment with graemlins to get a point across here?
Oh, and not to put too fine a point on what was a joke to begin with, but if Kristofferson is so damn smart, then why did he need to make bad movies, including "Heaven's Gate," to make money? The guy wrote "Me and Bobby McGee," "Sunday Morning Coming Down," "Help Me Make it Through the Night," and "For the Good Times," for cryin' out loud. Shouldn't the royalties on those songs alone keep him living comfortably for life?
Note:
I was being sarcastic too with the "he needed the money" comment (maybe you're right - maybe we should use smileys for everything! ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif) ) I just jotted down that last bit because it just popped into my head, and for some reason, I had a feeling I might have had to say it later anyway, so why not say it now?
Generally, it is a little hard to tell on an MB if someone's being sarcastic or not at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.
I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.
Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.
And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.
Coincidence?
So none of these pearls of wisdom emanating from Bush's lips has anything to do with Bush being perceived as an idiot, eh? It's all the "liberal media's" fault. You don't even take into account that the so called "liberal media" rarely if at all ever calls him on his twisting and skewering of the facts and of the english language. Again, a desire to blame it all on some evil wicked liberal conspiracy that controls ALL MEDIA rather than actually holding Bush himself accountable for all the stupidity he speaks incessantly. Leave that paranoia for the Mr. Liddy avatar.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
quote:
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
What the Mod one said!
Bush demonstrates his C student intelligence when he speaks. I don't need Dan Rather or Al Franken to tell me that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
The standard liberal argument on Bush's intelligence is that his verbal misstatements indicate a lack of intelligence.
However, there are, of course, different types of intelligence. This is why, for example, standardized tests often test verbal and mathmatical skill separately.
A person can be possessed of a great verbal dexterity and woefully incapable of analytical thinking. A person can have the soul of a poet and be completely ignorant of, for example, basic economic theory.
In fact, some theorize that the two types of intelligences rarely go hand in hand.
So this is hardly a proper gauge of Bush's intelligence.
And Bush is hardly the only public officer to make verbal gaffes. For example, in one interview, Howard Dean meant to say, in connection with how to govern a postwar Iraq, "the problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road." instead of "that's where the rubber meets the road." You don't see jokes about that everyday, or Dean's "enemies" using it as sigs on message boards.
No, it boils down to what was pointed out earlier: if you don't agree with the elitists on the left, you can't simply have a difference of opinion. You have to be either evil or stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.
I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.
Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.
And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.
Coincidence?
So none of these pearls of wisdom emanating from Bush's lips has anything to do with Bush being perceived as an idiot, eh? It's all the "liberal media's" fault. You don't even take into account that the so called "liberal media" rarely if at all ever calls him on his twisting and skewering of the facts and of the english language. Again, a desire to blame it all on some evil wicked liberal conspiracy that controls ALL MEDIA
I believe I said clearly "about 80%" of the media, and I believe that clearly states something very different from "ALL the media" as you allege that I said. And slapped on the "paranoid" label while you were at it. More liberal namecalling, a consistent liberal tactic, to caricature and discredit through underhanded labels, rather than the facts.
I believe I've established liberal media bias --as has G-Man-- in the
"Liberal Media" topic...
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=217045&page=7&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
...among many other links, on other topics. There is no shortage of numbers and documentation of liberal distortion of the news.
Currently, I'm reading the book Bias by former 28-year CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, deconstructing the manufacture of the news by the media elite.
Explaining how sympathetic/crusading/partisan liberal reporting distorts the true facts of issues such as homelessness and AIDS, reporting unchallenged the data given by special interest advocates, while simultaneously giving extreme skepticism to any perspectives that fall outside their oh-so-enlightened superior liberal beliefs of the causes and solutions to these issues.
And anyone who disagrees is labelled a racist, or narrow minded or backwards, or heartless. Well, maybe they're just right !
And I don't mean just politically Right.
Interesting how "homelessness" began as an issue the split second Reagan took office in 1981, and was heavily reported under Bush Sr. as well. But lo and behold, as soon as Clinton was elected, reporting of homelessness virtually ceased to exist.
AIDS [liberal spin: ] was caused by Reagan's heartless lack of funding, not by promiscuous gays, I.V. drug users and prostitutes.
And cases where AIDS was transmitted to heterosexuals through secretly bisexual partners, secretly I.V.-drug-using partners, and secretly prostitute-using partners, are distortedly categorized as "heterosexual transmission" cases, thus vastly exaggerating the true number of heterosexual cases, and manufacturing a vastly large number of "heterosexually transmitted" cases.
And of course, as a consistent theme, the ultimate conclusion of liberal reporting is to simply blame it all on the Republicans.
~
As I've said ad infinitum, I didn't vote for G.W.Bush, he wasn't my choice. But while he's President I support him. I would have supported Gore as President even though I didn't vote for him either. (Once again, I voted for Ralph Nader. )
I supported the 1994 war in Haiti as in our interest (and even more so, Haiti's), I similarly supported intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia ( all wars on Clinton's watch). And I was furious Clinton, motivated by polls and self-serving cowardice, pulled out of Somalia, instead of following through and doing the job right.
Regarding G.W. Bush's quotes --as I've said several times here on the boards-- Gore, Clinton and other Democrats have similarly said some absurdly stupid things, that Rush Limbaugh and others have pointed out. When the cameras are on you every moment you step outside, no one is is eloquent every moment of every day. And in those circumstances, everyone has said one stupid thing or another.
But even saying that, I have no problem agreeing G.W. Bush is certainly not the most articulate president we've ever had.
|
|
|
|
|
![[whaaaa!]](eek01.gif)
![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon}
