I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
They can go fuck themselves.
"I was wrong but it wasn't my fault and it doesn't really matter because I'm smug and I sneer."
I think Evil Spawn II wants us to apologize for being too partisan over here. And, HORRORS! WE USE PROFANITY!
Ah deeclah, Mr. Atrios. Y'alls givin' me the VAPORS!
What a baby.
Shorter Jonah Goldberg
Well thought emails from Atrios readers show they are unhinged. Unhinged callers to my hotline are really well thought out.
Ah, he's just being pissy because he was caught dead to rights being wrong, the punk.
And Jonah, if you're sneaking over here to read this - FUCK you. And your mama's way too ugly to have ever been allowed to spawn.
Well thought emails from Atrios readers show they are unhinged. Unhinged callers to my hotline are really well thought out.
Sometimes Josh Marshall's measured tones make me cringe, but I like his label "up-is-downism" for this particular type of RW meme.
Where's Entropy? Is this Joe-6-packish enough for you?
OT:
It sounds like the daily howler might call it quits!
Near the bottom of page:
http://www.dailyhowler.com
OT, but BREAKING NEWS:
CLINTON's PENIS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEAKS!!!!!
http://www.gwbush04.com/
Short Jonah: "0o0o0o, shiny thing..."
Short Jonah: "0o0o0o, shiny thing..."
Hi Atrios,
I am a political centrist and I'm comfortable saying that I can see through spin, propaganda, and lies as well as anyone. I must disagree with the delusional rightist jokers who emailed you because I consider you a very honest liberal. In no way do I see you as just a spinning/BS'ing Democratic party hack.
P.S. Once again I ask -- who the hell names their kid Jonah? What, was Lucianne thumbing through the scriptures, looking for the biggest asshole she could find to name her kid after?
"Hmmm. Jezebel, if it's a girl. And if it's a boy I can't decide between Onan and Jonah ..."
Off Topic:
40 Taliban prisoners pulled a 'Great Escape' and tunneled out of the 'Maximum' security prison in Afganistan.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/
news...ban_jailbreak_4
It demands that a lot of questions be asked.
MYOB'
.
Actually, I get surprisingly few emails from angry right wingers - it's a benefit of having comments. Of course, in comments I get plenty of angry "corner readers...."
"They're typical "Atrios" readers. "
And he's a typical partisan hack/twit.
Honest to God, it's a disgrace what National Review puts out these days. And Goldberg gets more and more childish.
It's the sort of folks who think it takes a lot of cleverness to write like a ninth-grader who just learned the F word.
Boo fucking hoo.
The boy's mama proudly proclaims her willingness to roll and indeed revel in the political muck (and a visit to her Web site is certainly enough to send one running for the showers), and her salty language is legendary, and he accuses Atrios' readers of being foulmouthed?
Well, I don't say this very often, Jonah (though I know Al Franken has suggested we use it more) but after the relentless morass of shit through which you and your dirty-trickster mother and your pals at National Review and the Wall Street Journal -- not to mention the drug-induced screeching from Rush Limbaugh, as well as lunatics like Ann Coulter, Barbara and Ted Olson and the gang of legal thugs led by Ken Starr -- dragged all of us through in the 1990s:
Fuck you.
Fuck you very much.
I hope that was polite enough for you.
Better to be a typical "Atrios" reader than a typical "Limbaugh" listener that is for sure.
"My lie is excused because these people use foul language." Who's his favorite political philposopher, Ward Cleaver?
Watch out Atrios: between Luskin and Goldberg, there's a meme floating out there that you're a hotbed of fiery, filthy partisanship. Of course, this really means you're just providing thoughtful analysis from a different perspective, but watch out: if you're not careful, the conservatives will add you to their mental "I can't hear you!!" list--along with, you know, the AP, Reuters, Dwight Eisenhower, Jesus of Nazareth...I recall Taranto trying the same thing, tarring Marshall as "hyperpartisan", which is more than a little like Kissinger denouncing someone as "Machiavellian"; you could be next. The list of spurces form which cons allow themselves to assimilate data is becoming very short...
Hi Jonah,
... no way do I see you as just a spinning/BS'ing republican party hack.
Well, me neither Jonah. You're all that and more.
I repeat what I said in another thread due to the relevance here. I'm quite proud of you people's level of discourse. Keep it up. Whether or not intended, it's classy! Expletives and all.
That said, I think we need to discuss Kristoff's column. Very informative, yet what a dick-head. He's got awesome sources and sheds much light on the truth behind the Valerie Plame scandal, but his attacks on Democrats for wanting a serious investigation, comparing such a pursuit to that of the Repugs in the past, distracts from the graveness of the offense committed, though he does afterward compare it with Ames' treason. He must believe he has more of a right to criticise than the Dems, and believes that an Ames level treason by the republicans should not be a scandal.
Aaaw. Poor Atrios readers. Jonah makes a mistake, finds out about it, and promptly admits to it. He explains the origin of the mistake, and even takes time to make it clear that Dean was not as bad as he'd originally thought.
"But he's a right-winger, so he MUST be lying, and anyway we disagree with his politics so his correction obviously doesn't count!
"Now, back to insulting his mother!"
It's obvious you're all just preaching to the choir--it'd be nice if the choir could actually sing on key once in a while, though.
comparing such a pursuit to that by the Repugs in the past
Y'all slay me. Keep it comin'. High level of discourse going on at Atrios. I tell ya. Just promise me that y'all will work extra hard to get Dean the nomination. I and other conservatives would greatly appreciate it. Although, truth be told, it really doesn't matter whp the dems nominate. President Bush will win reelection easily. Get ready to suffer for four more years my left leaning friends. I hope y'all enjoy the ride because it's gonna be full of tax cuts and conservative judicial nominations.
Cheers.
"it'd be nice if the choir could actually sing on key once in a while"
Perhaps the freepers could give us lessons, though they won't teach us much rhythm.
The two examples of letters he received were hardly offensive. Jeez-- talk about having thin-skin. Somehow, I get the feeling he can dish it out a lot better than he can take it...
"I and other conservatives "
The donkey before the cart
Lesson learned. If you use the "f" word, Jonah won't print your e-mail. I suppose "ignorant douchebag" will have to suffice.
President Bush will win reelection easily.
Diebold delivers!
OT, but did anyone see "10 Questions For Bill O'Reilly" in last week's Time?
Some highlights:
WHEN YOU TELL SOMEONE TO SHUT UP, HAVE YOU FAILED AS A HOST?
Absolutely not. I only do that very rarely. I maybe a handful of times told somebody directly to shut up. And that's when they were being dishonest or offensive.
DO YOU REGRET PUSHING THE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL FRANKEN?
Not at all. This man is being run by some very powerful forces in this country, and we needed to confront it. I was ambushed at a book convention. He got up in front of a national audience and called me a liar for 20 minutes. President Andrew Jackson would have put a bullet between his eyes. Franken's job is to do exactly what Donald Segretti did for Nixon — dig up dirt on people. He is not a satirist; he is not a comedian. He's someone who wants to injure people's reputations, and I think people have got to know that.
IS THERE A CORE OF SANITY OUT THERE?
Sure, but it's being diluted by the apathy party. You've got 50% of Americans who don't care to pay attention, either too lazy or too apathetic. So when you divide it up, you've got the crazy left, the crazy right, the apathy party. Now you're left with maybe 30% of the common-sense party. That's a small piece of the pie, but they wield an enormous amount of power, and that's who I play to.
So who's in the commonsense party these days?
Does it occur to anyone else that Jonah only corrected himself in order to make himself look good? In my experience, NR'ers will never correct themselves unless it makes those darned leftists look bad (David Frum and Jonah are just two of the examples).
Oh, and "Southern Federalist" (read: Confederate sympathizer)? When you have an issue to discuss above and beyond "Bush Rulzzzz", please come back.
Peter --
As some one who cares so much about singing, you must like the band Wilco.
So why not take this opportunity to sing Far, Far Away?
[Funny brought to you courtesy of my seven year-old nephew Paulie Two Shirts, hilarioso extraordinaire. All rights reserved.]
President Bush will win reelection easily. Get ready to suffer for four more years
And this is a selling point from one of his supporters??
Oooo . . . where do I sign up for the "Masochists For Bush" MeetUps?
"it'd be nice if the choir could actually sing on key once in a while"
Perhaps the freepers could give us lessons, though they won't teach us much rhythm.
I wonder if they could teach us to march in lock-step.
Ad Absurdum, Peter,
I'm feeling generous today. Srew the both of you, too.
I got your civil discourse, right nere.
Jesse-
What shall we discuss? I am not sure that I am "up" to the level of discourse that takes place at this esteemed leftist blog. I am not really into the profanity thang. Can I still participate?
Awaiting your response.
Your humble servant-
Steve (admirer of Gen. Robert E. Lee)
Oooo . . . where do I sign up for the "Masochists For Bush" MeetUps?
Log Cabin Republicans
www.lcr.org
It's impossible for someone who was not elected to be re-elected. If Bush actually wins in 2004 (and I doubt he will), it will be his first presidential win. Not to mention he only got close by lying his ass off with his "compassionate conservative" bullshit. Who do you think is gonna buy that this time around? The unemployed folks? The veterans whose benefits have been cut? People with kids in public schools? Military personnel on food stamps? Family members of soldiers whose souls he has compassionately & conservatively separated from their bodies with a passel of lies?
Face it, Bush's only hope of ever legitimately winning the office of president is if he allows another terrorist attack or invades another country within a month of the election. Which is really quite scary.
Heh. 'Screw' the both of you.
Now I'll get hammered for not being able to spell.
Dear Jonah, Luskin and the rest of the rightwing wackos: That's A_t_r_i_o_s_._b_l_o_g_s_p_o_t_._c_o_m
Thank you very much.
I'm feeling generous today. Srew (sic)the both of you, too.
Ayn Rand-ian generosity, that is, my good Samaritan.
Oh Jennifer. That post was so sad and pathetic. But I am sure your polysci prof appreciates your parroting his lessons back to the unwashed masses.
I love how you tittybabies bitch about "hate" radio and freepers. These comments are nothing but hate and vomit.
Steve: An adult Jonah Goldberg would have simply addmitted his mistake, "oops, I screwed up."
Instead, child Jonah came out to play and we get an apology couched in "HEY LOOK AT THOSE IDIOTS LOL THEY'RE LOUD AND THEY'VE GOT NOTHING BETTER TO DO!!!!111"
If Jonah Goldberg truly desires civil, reasoned discourse and abhors reception of vitrolic email, perhaps he should try contextualising his arguments instead of playing fast and loose with his favourite Dean comments.
I mean, seriously. He believes he is in a position where he can blatantly project and make shit up, and get away with it with a tap on the shoulder? Fuck him in the asshole with a big rubber dick, he knows there's people watching and fact-checking his ass. He should be grateful.
Steve, why did you change your name?
Why don't you tell us what Bush has done as prez that merits another four years?
I love how you tittybabies bitch about "hate" radio and freepers. These comments are nothing but hate and vomit.
I love how you play Tokyo Rose for the conservatives.
What shall we discuss? I am not sure that I am "up" to the level of discourse that takes place at this esteemed leftist blog. I am not really into the profanity thang. Can I still participate?
There's any number of posts that discuss issues in which you could participate. And I'm sorry you're not into the profanity "thang", however, if you're so easily scared off by a curseword, I can understand why you stick to fighting 138-year-old battles that you already lost.
Your humble servant-
Steve (admirer of Gen. Robert E. Lee)
Well, Lee lost. Get over it. Jesus.
That is, he should be grateful to fact-checkers for encouraging him to be a better writer and researcher.
Or at least, *a* researcher.
Hey Steve "Southern Federalist" Feddie - You guys LOST THE WAR! It's only been A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS now. Get over it.
I love how you tittybabies bitch about "hate" radio and freepers.
Self-parody as an elevated art form?
Jesse, great minds . . .
Ron-
See here's the problem. I am not here to defend Jonah (although I do like his opinion pieces a great deal). I was merely commeting the hostile and profane tenor of those who post here. Perhaps Jonah was wrong and should have admitted that he made a mistake. Nevertheless, his error is not a justification for those who disagree with him to email him profane insults. Take your post for example. As I began reading it, I thought "this guy makes a lot of sense," but then you lost me with the "rubber dick" comment. I would respectfully suggest that many of you drop the profanity and vulgarity and attempt to debate with others in a more civil and respectful manner. A little sarcasm is o.k., but I think some of the other stuff should be jettisoned. Just a thought.
Cheers.
Jesse and Thumb-
I don't think that I ever claimed that the Confederacy won the Civil War. I am simply a history buff who has great admiration for many of the men who fought to defend their homeland against overwhelming odds. My love for the Civil War and for Confederate history was instilled in me by my liberal democrat mother (who voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 dem primary), so if you have a problem with it blame her.
Pie-
I changed my name because I was blogging anon during my federal appellate clerkship. At the conclusion of my clerkship, I disclosed my identity.
What "hostile and profane tenor"?
Are we asking for his head on a stick?
Lovely as that thought might be I see no one here requesting for it.
Ask Rush to FedEx you some downers, Steve. You need to chill out.
are southern whities still whining about losing the Civil War????
how poor white trash do you have to be today to harken back to the days of slavery when at LEAST the coloreds were worse off than you are now??
David and Nads-
Really. Is any of that necessary?
Poor Jonah. I would have thought a geek with an overbearing mother would have developed a thicker skin over the decades. There's really going to be hell to pay when he finds out that Ann Coulter is better at the whole those damn liberals won't let me get my message out and oh by the way my message is: those damn liberals! riff.
A little sarcasm is o.k., but I think some of the other stuff should be jettisoned. Just a thought.
What passes for thinking nowadays: holding blog thread posters to a higher standard of decency than, say, the California governor-elect or the potty-mouth in the White House.
Steve, do you have anything to say or did you just come over here in classic Freeper fashion to antagonize people so that you could trot out the victim card and say, "Seeee!"
As I began reading it, I thought "this guy makes a lot of sense," but then you lost me with the "rubber dick" comment. I would respectfully suggest that many of you drop the profanity and vulgarity and attempt to debate with others in a more civil and respectful manner.
There's civil and then there's civil ... there are people who get uptight about using words like F--- and mother-f--- and b--chslap, etc. ... like the current posse of trolls at this site ...
and then there are the motherfuckers like O'Reilly who tell the sons of those murdered on 9/11 to "Shut up!" and proceed to cut their mic when they disagree with his ass-poor policies.
or people who enjoy laughing about smacking Hilary Clinton around with a tire iron because her book happens to be selling better than Coulter's.
or people who suggest we go over to the mideast, kill the women, and convert the survivors to Christianity (oddly, though, Coulter wrote that for Jewish World Review ... why Christianity?)
or people who very civilly and without using too many swear words lie through their teeth to start a pre-emptive war with a country that was no imminent threat, with no WMD, and proceed to kill a few hundred US soldiers and 9000 Iraqi civilians.
so yeah ... I think the occasional fuck you is warranted on this site.
try not to focus on the swear words ... you are being dishonest to suggest that you would listen to what was being said here with an open mind if only we didn't offend your sensibilities with our language.
your very republican party offends my sensibilities.
in short, your argument regarding our choice of language is a STRAWMAN to distract us from the issues being discussed ... so stop.
Steve: I am more than content to be civil, when my opponent (in this case, an op-ed writer who I will never meet) is prepared to meet on those same grounds.
However, when said opponent accuses an opposition front-runner of calling Hispanics "poor," cuts and pastes his favourite parts to make his false conclusion look like the genuine article (out of either ignorance or omnipotent stupidity), and then tries to play the poor, oppressed conservative ("Imagine if a white, preppy, Pk. Ave. Republican..."), he forfeits his right to civil response from anonymous internet addicts.
Goldberg could have said all of the above; if it were true, it would not provoke bilious vitriol.
Since he told a bold-faced friggin' lie, he should not expect to be treated with kid gloves.
Steve, I'm surprised you didn't trot out the "I used to be a Democrat, but now..." meme.
Nobody in the Confederacy was "fighting to protect their homeland", because their homeland was the United States of America. Breaking away, forming your own country, and waging war on the United States is called treason.
O.k. I see that I am not welcomed here. It was not my intent to antogonize anyone, and I truly was trying to make a point that apparently few here agree with. But out of respect for the majority, I shall depart. Best of luck in your respective endeavors.
Now this, I don't get. You come, you're disagreed with (a few even using, horror of horrors, profanity), and you run away because people disagree with you.
Would Robert E. Lee have done that? No! He would have stayed and admitted total and utter defeat like a man!
Gads, it's idiots like Steve that make me ashamed of my southern heritage.
Certainly admire Lee for being a great general. But he is owned nothing for his participation in the Civil War. It was, pure and simple, treason.
Steve - "It was not my intent to antogonize anyone"
Yet you opened up with, "Y'all slay me. Keep it comin'. High level of discourse going on at Atrios. I tell ya."
Liar? Fool? Sociopath?
Don't let the door hit you in the Southern region on the way out.
Does anyone actually subscribe to the hotline so we can factcheck what Jonah Goldberg said about it saying? Considering Jonah said it "costs quite a bit to subscribe to" (maybe an attempt to lead off the scent? -- whatever), I'm not sure I want to shell out my 25 beans for the day trial.
By the way, does anyone know if National Journal has a conservative slant? I was reading my Almanac of American Politics (published by NJ and written by Michael Barone and richard Cohen), and I noticed a lot of whoring for Republicans, unnecessary criticism of Dems, and commonly labeling as moderates people I'd usually consider to be conservatives.
Goodness gracious these folks can dish it out but they cannot take it. Hey Joenuh, you are a whining little cry-baby. Get used to it you little weasel, we are sick of your shit. We are tired of your thuggish, jack-booted tactics. All rethuglics need to know we have had enough.
Wow, a simple error, which JH referenced, sure got you guys excited.
The powerless scream the loudest. Keep up the good work.
And you wonder why liberalism is dying in this country - you hacks shot it in the back.
Peaace and love, kiddies
Zzzzzzzzz . . .
I agree. How many more years are we going to take their abuse? 20 years of it. I've had enough.
Yep, crawled out of Luciann's cauldron one dismal evening.
Crybaby Jonie,
Journalistic phony.
One point:
When a journalist commits an error, it is incumbent on him to correct it.
When that error is an egregious smear that damages the person's reputation, he owes that person a public apology as well.
Goldberg does not even attempt this. Instead, he blames his error on his source, rather than admitting that his real error was in failing to double-check that source.
It was scarcely even a correction.
Hey Texx;
Calm down, my little cow-poke. You see, we've been taking lessons in civility and courtesy over in wingerville.
To that end, when you hear during the Bush impeachment that W has a black baby, is a murderer, that his wife, HitLaura, murdered her lover and made it look like suicide, that W covered up a stock deal that made him millions on a failed business (oops, that's true!), or that if you disagree with President Dean's policies, you're un-american ...
just remember where we learned it.
Hey, Atrios, that first email Jonah published is from me. After your post on his error, I shot that off, then came here and told people to do the same.
I wasn't impolite at all and certainly not frothing. Sigh. Just calling him on it!
We've got to do this every time they spread their lies.
I wrote one to O'Lielly yesterday pointing out his lie about the LA Times not publishing Clinton sex stories.
Who is Jonah Goldberg and why should I give a fuck what he thinks?
I'm sorry, I pretty much ignore everyone on the right. I don't even know who most of them are.
I certainly don't read their columns, rags, and books, and I definitely don't watch their shows on tv or listen to their radio talk shows. I even canceled my subscription to The Atlantic when it became obvious the magazine had been taken over by right-wing maniacs after 9/11.
Really. Fuck them all. To even ackowledge their existence is to give them credibility. The way to turn back this right-wing and neo-con power grab since 2000 is to present better ideas, not to waste even one millisecond of our time discrediting their insane and illogical babbling. We already know they are liars and freaks and creeps--do we really need any more examples of it?
What we need are substantive ideas that convince people we are in fact correct. We know right-wing ideas are not working--look at the mess in which our country is mired. They control all three branches of our federal government, and Lordy, we're as fucked-up as we've ever been in my lifetime.
Way back there somebody said..
"Better to be a typical "Atrios" reader than a typical "Limbaugh" listener that is for sure."
Well, damn us with faint praise, why don'tcha.
Next thing you know you'll be saying we're better than Freepers and people who think the U.S. State Department ought to be nuked.
I think the reason why it is important to call these liars on their lies is because no one else will. It is up to regular citizens to expose them for what they are, inasmuch as that is possible with such minimal resources and impossible odds.
We are in this mess now because we allowed someone like Limpballs (since 198
to control the debate without a credible counter-offensive.
P.S. Once again I ask -- who the hell names their kid Jonah? What, was Lucianne thumbing through the scriptures, looking for the biggest asshole she could find to name her kid after?
slacktivist
What else would you name someone who was spit out of a whale?
David N.,
This is Jonah's answer to my email, calling him on his smear.
-----Original Message-----
From: JonahNRO@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:51 AM
To: xxxxxxxxx@cox.net
Subject: Re: Dean's Answer to Medicare Question
Of course I'll correct it. By the way, I assume you'll be writing to the Hotline since they were the ones to report the story incorrectly.
"I assume that since I openly publicized what is otherwise a pay-only service, that you'll contact them because I reported what they said without checking it."
NE1 WHO SAYS ECSHATON READERS R STUPID IS GONNA GET KILLED IN TEH DUCK PIT!!!!!!!!11
Whoops. I just saw that Goldberg actually quoted the hotline (didn't qite make the connection at first), and, if he provided the entire relevant quotation, my argument before is wrong.
Who is Jonah? Just another Republican hack who couldn't have gotten a job writing labels for soup cans if mommy hadn't been a Nixon hag with her claws all over far right hit jobs on Democrats for the past thirty years. Also, Linda Tripp's confessor mother, till she could dump the dip. She was all used up. Little Jonie isn't as tough as old mommy and, though it's perhaps not exactly nice, it's really easy to get him in a lather. Fun too. You just have to point out what a jerk he is.
The powerless scream the loudest.
I'd be interested to know how Texx explains Rush, Savage Weiner, O'Reilly, Hannity, and other right-wing talk-show screamers too numerous to mention.
Maybe he's trying to be funny. Yeah, that's it.
And they're always saying liberals don't have
a sense of humor.
Slander? Copecetic.
Vulgarity? Unacceptable.
OK, if that's the way you want it you baby killing seal molestors.
So "fuck you" is a shining example of "humor" from the left? Like Jeaneane Garafalo's calling the middle-aged Republican woman an asshole?
Oh yeah, that was FUNNY. Bunch of hypocritical jackasses. Sites like this are why we want Dean to be the nominee -- as someone who wasn't alive for the landslide by Nixon, and who dimly remembers Reagan's near-running of the table against Mondale (and get ready for something like that -- what's Vermont, like 2 electoral votes?), I relish the opportunity to see the results on November 4, 2004.
So "fuck you" is a shining example of "humor" from the left?
Humor is all in the delivery, GOP Blogger. Here, let me give you an example:
Dear GOP Blogger--
Fuck you.
See what I mean? That's funny.
No, GOP Blogger, "fuck you" isn't quite as funny as "Hitlery," or Ann Coulter talking about Clinton saying "Either impeach him or kill him."
Or, I've forgotten which of the right's witty raconteur Senators who called Clinton a "scumbag."
No, I guess we're not as funny as you, and have to settle for "fuck you."
Fuck you.
Manhattan Dan -
If you disagree with a political tactic, and find it reprehensible, shouldn't you be against that tactic no matter who uses it?
I voted for Clinton, and I voted for Bush, and I'll vote for Bush again simply because the democrats offer no real alternative for a moderate inependent.
I find the level of alarm somewhat amusing at times, and I'm impressed by the left's curious mandate - which at this point seem to be intuitive opposition to anything and everything that happens under the sun and a republican admin.
Even a casual reader of this website can see just how weak and scattered this party has become. There's some wheat there, but Bubba knows chaff when it makes him sneeze, and the bread y'all bake makes me sneeze.
Ransak The Elder,
Did you mean "Copacetic"?
One of my other heroes is Kurt Vonnegut, whose masterpiece Slaughterhouse-Five was sensored largely because he had an American tank commander yell, "Get out of the road, you stupid motherfucker!"
In the introduction or preface to his (much later) book Hocus Pocus, he explained that the book would contain no profanity or obscenities because he had learned that it simply gave those who did not want to hear your message a reason to dismiss you.
(Humorously, or not, he included "the excrement hit the air conditionng" for "the shit hit the fan". So he used the stuff by not using it. It's quite a nice read, but if yer only gonna read one, read Cat's Cradle or SH-5.
I think it is unclear whether he wrote that intro as himself or the narrator of the first-person novel; either way, I think it's an important point. I think we should feel free to cuss each other out here, but we should be on our best behavior when we go out. And if you disagree with me, as Kurt might say, "Go take a fuck at a rolling doughnut. Go take a flying fuck at the mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!!!"
"censored"
Beam me up, Scotty. And get me an editor......
and her's the ")" needed to close paragraph three.
Good night, all.
I voted for Clinton, and I voted for Bush, and I'll vote for Bush again simply because the democrats offer no real alternative for a moderate inependent.--
Are you serious? What about the current crop of candidates doesn't appeal to a so-called "moderate independent", especially considering that Democrats are either tied or leading among independents?
And are you just selectively looking at the left, because you're not as "moderate" as you might think?
Here's another example, GOP Blogger, in case the comedy of my first one was too subtle for you:
Flitcraft: Knock, knock.
GOP Blogger: Who's there?
Flitcraft: Fuck.
GOP Blogger: Fuck who?
Flitcraft: Fuck you, that's who.
Get it? Hilarious!
(It just kills me that Texx knocks us for knocking things just because they come from a Republican administration. Hey Texx, your kettle's kinda, uh, black, ya know?
Uh, Texx? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
P.S. If the Repub's would offer just one thing that didn't pollute the environment, enrich the already wealthy, impoverish the already poor, or just plain kill people, well, then, I won't knock it.
I'm still waiting.
Oh, I give up. Those Republicans are so, so funny. Guess I'll have to go back to the field and plant one-handed. Nothing else to do because those Repulicans are so, so funny. It's just as the media have been telling us for the last twenty-five years, those Republicans are so, so funny. And the party of new ideas too.
To any true conservatives trolling here, I think you probably understand a lot of the anger evidenced here because you too have been betrayed by 20+ years of Republicans feigning conservatism while enlarging government, practicing devastating fiscal irresponsibility, trashing the Constitution, and engaging in truly vulgar and boorish behavior all in the name of desperately holding onto power.
However, to the radical right wingers trolling here, whose ideology is so haphazard and situational as to constitute nothing more than the desire to stay at the top of the heap and/or the desire to feel superior --
Well, welcome to the vulgar swamp of bile that you created. Yes, you. This little charade that left wingers are introducing "uncivility" into the public discourse is about the most hypocritical crap you have come up with yet, and as the champions of Henry Hyde, Tom Delay, and Der Gropenfuehrer, among many others, you are psychotic with hypocrisy. So yeah, the gloves are off and in addition to out-reasoning you on every issue, we are no longer going to be polite about it. As soon as you demonstrate that you're going to be rude and condescending, we will return it in spades.
But we have a long, long, long way to go to even approach the level of utter creepiness we've put up with from the likes of you at least since the days of Lee Atwater, and truth to tell, this shit goes back further.
Think we're the uncivil ones? Do this little test: open up an Ann Coulter book and substitute "Republican" for "liberal" throughout -- since everything Coulter writes is fantasy it won't make a bit of difference as far as making sense. When she says "Clinton," substitute "Bush" or "Reagan". Hope it doesn't hurt your feelings too much. Then imagine a left wing talk show host insulting the looks of a 13 year old girl on national television because her father's a Republican president (in reality, when the adult Jenna had her brush with the law, libs like Molly Ivins said to lay off). We have a long, long way to go just to catch up with you all in sheer vile vitriole, and we're just getting started. "The powerless scream the loudest"? No, the powerful fearful of losing power scream the loudest. Turn on your radio and keep score of the insults and then come back here and try to honestly say it is we who are making the discourse "uncivil."
"like a ninth-grader who just learned the F word"? Everyone pretty much knows it by the second grade. Even home-schooled kids, I bet.
Thanks sidstencil, You said it better than I could. I always did have trouble arguing with people who see everything upside down.
Sidstencil:
I'm still trying to use reason instead of vitriol, but these motherfuckers are really starting to make me angry.
And they won't like it when I get angry.
"Alice" don't live here anymore!
Angry huh. You should see me when someone mispells EPT.
Thanks sidstencil, well done.
If GOP Blogger or Texx are still here, I'd like to add one more bit to this discussion on "Who Created the Tone?" That's chapter 19 in Al Franken's book, "Lies, and the Lying..." and Franken writes:
"Where did this amlicious tone come from in the first place? I submit that it can be traced to a day in 1981, when billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife fielded a reporter's question about his financial backing of conservative groups.
"You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here," he said to Karen Rothmyer of the "Columbia Journalism Review>" He went on to tell her that she was ugly and that her teeth were "terrible." Of Ms. Rothmyer's mother, who was not present, he said, "She's ugly, too."
We on the left could certainly learn a thing or two from the GOP on, *cough* tone.
Where did this amlicious tone come from in the first place? I submit that it can be traced to a day in 1981, when billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife fielded a reporter's question about his financial backing of conservative groups.
"You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here," he said to Karen Rothmyer of the "Columbia Journalism Review
And they say that poetry went out of the public discourse when Wm. Jennings Bryant died.
Open letter to Jonah Goldberg:
Hi, Jonah. I hope you're reading this.
Fuckity. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Motherfucker. Do-Da. And I mean carnal, messy, balls-slapping dat ass "FUCKING." Not that Bono-esque, descriptive "fuck."
Or, in other words, please go fuck yourself hard, in the ass, unlubed, with your mother's withered forearm.
Horrified yet? "Fuck you." Bullshit about you getting anally fisted by your mother is much less damaging to the "national discourse" than the bullshit that you get paid to spout multiple times everyday. Stop being a transparent shill for fascists, and maybe you won't piss people off enough to get deluged with "stupidity and crudity."
-BSF
sidstencil, I need to save that. It was a beautiful piece of divine inspiration.
I emailed Jonah and wasn't really as offensive as I might have been. He responded: "Nick you are embarrassing yourself, no surprise since you read what's his name." He reminded me of his correction (what a great guy) and said "Maybe you should go take a pill." Gotta love the discourse we get sucked in to. If there is a God, Bush and Rove will be back in Texas, running the road commission and buying shovels for the road-kill scrapers.
> To any true conservatives trolling here, I think you probably understand a lot of the anger evidenced here...
I cannot say if I am a "true" conservative or not, but I am trolling here to see what the fuss over Jonah Goldberg's mistake is all about. I must say that I understand some of the anger here, but much of it seems over the top in both content and expression.
> We have a long, long way to go just to catch up with you all in sheer vile vitriole, and we're just getting started.
I can't say who started this vitriole, as I have seen rudeness in both parties at all times. I joined in another thread in this site, using some polite and reasoned arguments, and some responses were polite and reasoned. However, looking at all the responses and other posts, I must conclude that the level of rudeness (and sheer hatred) here is much higher and the level of reasoning is much lower than over at The Corner. I do not know how that relates to the larger communities: perhaps The Corner is better than the conservative average or this site is worse than the liberal average.
Thanks for letting me join the conversation.
Good night, Rory.
Oh, aren't we all so clevah and matoor!
---Are you serious? What about the current crop of candidates doesn't appeal to a so-called "moderate independent", especially considering that Democrats are either tied or leading among independents?---
I'm not referring to polls, just my own take as an independent. From this perch, I don't see a lot of substance.
OTOH, I understand that it is a primary season choir practice, so I don't expect specific policies, but it would be nice to have a general sense of what party, not which person, we want to elect.
Come election season, democrats will face a 2-year history of growth, a stabilized Iraq and actual progress in the mideast.
Given that wost-case scenario, what benefit are there to voting dem?
What can the conservative reasoning possibly be? Tax cuts = job growth and properous economy? Discredited now and under Reagan.
Tax and spend = recession? Disproved vigorously under Clinton.
Let's keep darky down? What am I missing?
I'm telling you again, "ALICE" don't live here anymore. She came out from the mirror and lives in the real world once more.
Texx, you're starting to sound like a flack i.e. someone who's paid to troll. But I'll tell you what, if, come election season (what? We're not already there?) if I see a decent economy (and not some selective, easily distorted data about "growth"; a stabilized Iraq, i.e. a decent national government accepted by all, and actual progress in the Middle East, well, I'll vote for Bush.
You might as well believe in the tooth fairy, too, 'cause none of it is going to happen. I stand by what I said about you--no one could be as stupid as you sound; I'm guessing you're paid by Hill and Knowlton, or the RNC. Go back to Fox, boy, we don't want you here.
Hey, Texxdriver, that's some crystal ball you got there.
Saying it doesn't make it so. It certainly isn't work for Bush. I'm afraid you're going to be one disappointed cowboy next November.
working
-----(It just kills me that Texx knocks us for knocking things just because they come from a Republican administration. Hey Texx, your kettle's kinda, uh, black, ya know?
If you believe my SUV lifestyle is reliant on your efforts, and if you believe sophmoric games of kettle black will buy my vote, you're wrong.
---Uh, Texx? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.---
Is that how you court votes?
Texx, you're getting increasingly incoherent as the night wears on. A little too much bourbon, maybe?
You seem to think I care about your vote. I really don't. You seem to think I should. I think you're wrong, because you obviously came here to make debating points, not to learn anything.
So nothing personal, but fuck off and die, hokay?
----Saying it doesn't make it so.---
Of course not, but present trends are a hint of possible or plausible outcome.
It's likely that dem's will not have either argument come election day.
What then?
---It certainly isn't work for Bush. I'm afraid you're going to be one disappointed cowboy next November.-------
Is that you Terry?
Is that you, POS?
Is that you Terry?
Oh man. That hurts. Not. (For those trying to keep up, the head of the DNC is Terry McCaullife).
Anyone noticed since Jonah posted the link to Atrios we have a higher class of troll here? Not smarter, just wearing better shoes? A necktie, maybe? Shoot, I'm honored! (It's still like shooting fish in a barrel, though).
Of course not, but present trends are a hint of possible or plausible outcome.
Which news is he watching anyway?
Which news is he watching anyway?
C'mon pie, you know the answer to that. Starts with F...
Oh, Dr. Pedant, you mean the news channel whose audience was found to be sadly informed about most of what's going on in America and Iraq (except maybe the latest about Kobe and Laci)?
sadly misinformed. Time for bed.
Shooting fish in a barrel, eh?
Well, I suppose if the way you win debates or political arguments is to tell stupid knock-knock jokes or simply respond with "fuck you."
This site is everything that's wrong with the American Left. No ideas, only ideals and vitriol in the face of legitimate questions and/or criticism.
For God's sake, Jonah cannot even correct a mistake without all of you leaping all over him like vultures!
When you graduate from high school or the local junior college and live in the real world, let me know and we'll talk. Until then, adios.
Texx,
Please do remember that after The Revolution one of the priorities will be the hunting down and feeding to the ducks of all who offered propagandistic support for the fascist motherfuckers who will be going down.
So plan the rest of your life accordingly. You and your ilk set the tone. We are here to see that it's played out, and those who have set the tone will reap what they have sown.
Sayonara, sucker.
Sidstencil 's post which is back a bit hits the nail on the head.
It's been a farce for years. The conservative press has been seduced for the easy pickings of the Rush Limbaugh style. All you have to do is reverse the terms used and any rational person can see it's a ginat load of codswallop.
But people at the National Review, which I used to think of as a pretty serious magazine, is now an echo of the Rush style. I can dismiss Rush as a blowhard but when I see him honored and copied by the mainstream conservative press, I can't dismiss that.
Damn right, people are angry although I'm not crazy about some of the overboard types I'm seeing right now. But before Goldberg goes off too much in a fit of smugness over a couple of e-mails, he might want to look long and hard at his own magazine.
I should have been writing to the Review since they printed john Derbyshire's screed when he happily admitted he hated Chelsea Clinton and then "joked" what a shame it it was the new leaders didn't still off the old leader's family.
I've watched them sink lower and lower into a pit of nastiness and hatred. The lowest points recently have been David Frum's hatchet job on conservatives critics before the war with Iraq started and the totally bewildering pieces on Wilson and his wife.
We need to complain about this kind of lousy journalism. It's so commonplace it can escape almost unnoticed but it's time they're called on it. In the last week alone, I've heard so many lies on Joe Scarborough's show alone, I hardly know where to start.
But maybe I'll start with Goldberg's ridiculous generalized swipe at readers of Atrios.
What, pray tell, is a typical Atrios reader?
I'd like to know.
I'd like to remind GOPBlogger that electoral votes are determined by a state's representation in Congress (number of senators and representatives combined) which means that the smallest number of electoral votes possible for a state is three. So when you say "what's Vermont, like 2 electoral votes?" I have to wonder if you've even read the Constitution that you and the rest of the Republican Party is wiping your ass with.
Hey, I'll watch my swearing when I'm around my parents, my grandmother, and small children.
Bush idolators get what they deserve: a loud and proud "FUCK YOU."
Heather -- me, too. (Especially since it's used in a negative way.)
Maybe the gift of ESP hs traveled from Limabugh to Goldberg.
Ooh, I was off a little. Sorry -- my mistake. So Dean will get 3 electoral votes next year, and not 2.
Wow, you destroyed my whole argument. Oh wait, it was a Straw Man and Ad Hominem all wrapped into one. So despite my error it is your response that is lacking.
Try again, rookie.
I love people like GOP Blogger. They come in, say we're bad people who can't stand up to a real debate (implying that he could whip us rhetorically with ease) and then runs off like the leader of his party did on 9/11.
Cowards and bullies. That's today's GOP. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave to see what a bunch of chickenshit chickenhawks have hijacked his party.
Come on back, GOP. Or is there a big exam coming up in your hotel management class at the community college?
Oh, GOP's back. I missed the sound of his little troll feet.
Huh?
I'm here...beyond the name-calling and mocking (Ad Hominem), what do you have to offer?
Will you tell me to fuck off?
Will you call me a fascist?
Will you call me a Dittohead?
Will you call me a "Bush Idolator"?
Those have all been taken, so come up with something else.
Bush ran away on 9/11? Are you kidding me? We have a terrorist attack on our soil and you're faulting the leader of this country for going to a secure location? What would Gore have done -- gone to the Towers and yelled to the terrorists to bring it on, that he was the Alpha Male and was ready for whatever they had? NO -- he would've done the same thing...get safe, and figure out what the hell happened.
Coward is resorting to name-calling in lieu of engaging in debate.
Bullying is resorting to "Fuck off and die" in response to a reasonable statement such as those made by myself and other conservatives who posted above.
Huh?
I'm here...beyond the name-calling and mocking (Ad Hominem), what do you have to offer?
Will you tell me to fuck off?
Will you call me a fascist?
Will you call me a Dittohead?
Will you call me a "Bush Idolator"?
Those have all been taken, so come up with something else.
Bush ran away on 9/11? Are you kidding me? We have a terrorist attack on our soil and you're faulting the leader of this country for going to a secure location? What would Gore have done -- gone to the Towers and yelled to the terrorists to bring it on, that he was the Alpha Male and was ready for whatever they had? NO -- he would've done the same thing...get safe, and figure out what the hell happened.
Coward is resorting to name-calling in lieu of engaging in debate.
Bullying is resorting to "Fuck off and die" in response to a reasonable statement such as those made by myself and other conservatives who posted above.
Here's a clue for the right-wingers who've come drifting over here ...
I used to argue with people from the right all the time. I used to believe they were genuinely interested in real debate and honest give-and-take. I was an early and frequent contributor to all kinds of Internet forums.
Now my only interest in responding to right-wingers is in countering their falsehoods, which is more than enough to keep one busy anyway.
The difference?
Dec. 12, 2000.
After that date, I came to realize that conservatives, nearly to a man, were not really interested in fair play or open debate. They were interested in one thing only: Winning. And for the most part, that meant defeating liberals. Not merely defeating them, but crushing them, rubbing them out. Eliminating them.
When you guys come here, you're not interested in debate.
You're interested in rubbing our noses in the power you possess and which you quite clearly intend to continue to hang onto. By any means possible.
So please don't try to pretend you're shocked by people's refusal to even bother to debate you anymore. Most of us here know all too well just how futile that is.
Oh, and while I'm at it:
Kindly go fuck yourselves.
Huh?
I'm here...beyond the name-calling and mocking (Ad Hominem), what do you have to offer?
Will you tell me to fuck off?
Will you call me a fascist?
Will you call me a Dittohead?
Will you call me a "Bush Idolator"?
Those have all been taken, so come up with something else.
Bush ran away on 9/11? Are you kidding me? We have a terrorist attack on our soil and you're faulting the leader of this country for going to a secure location? What would Gore have done -- gone to the Towers and yelled to the terrorists to bring it on, that he was the Alpha Male and was ready for whatever they had? NO -- he would've done the same thing...get safe, and figure out what the hell happened.
Coward is resorting to name-calling in lieu of engaging in debate.
Bullying is resorting to "Fuck off and die" in response to a reasonable statement such as those made by myself and other conservatives who posted above.
"Oh yeah, that was FUNNY. Bunch of hypocritical jackasses. Sites like this are why we want Dean to be the nominee -- as someone who wasn't alive for the landslide by Nixon, and who dimly remembers Reagan's near-running of the table against Mondale (and get ready for something like that -- what's Vermont, like 2 electoral votes?), I relish the opportunity to see the results on November 4, 2004.
Wow, you destroyed my whole argument."
GOP,
It took me a while to find your "whole argument." Yeah, that's some fine rhetorical gunslinging there. Really raised the level of debate so high I've got vertigo.
So far I've seen you make one debatable point and that was about Bush turning tail on 9/11. You know what I would have liked him to do? Just what Rummy did. I don't care for Rummy's politics, but on 9/11 he acted like a man, not like a frightened fratboy. That's what I wanted the leader of the free world to do.
So no, I'm not going to tell you to fuck off or call you names. You want to defend this admin's policies, give it your best shot.
I've got the gloves off.
And while we're on 9/11, these are points I'd like you to defend: Bush took an overwhelming opportunity to use a united populace, with the entire world behind us, to rally us for action. We could have embarked on a new energy policy to free ourselves from Mideast oil. We could have started a worldwide effort to sway the Arab street to a more moderate position. He could have use his clout with the Saudi to shut down their most radical Imams. What did he accomplish? In two short years he has turned the world's outpouring of support into suspicion and hostility, divided his people along hard partisan lines and managed to bankrupt us in the bargain. Yeah. Great guy. Let's start there.
Look, I remember civil discourse. I subscribed to the Buckley-era National Review and watched Firing Line regularly--as well as David Susskind and Meet The Press when it wasn't Meet Tim Russert but had a panel of different journalists. I remember hearing ideas actually discussed, even while America was going through serious upheavals.
That was when network news departments were arrogant about their independence and dignity.
I saw the erosion of quality news on TV; felt more than a twinge as Waler Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner were replaced lightweight pretty guys like Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, and found myself staring dumbfounded and disgusted at the McLaughlin Group's content-free insider mudwrestling...
...but the moment I knew that civil discourse was dead was when I heard a broadcast by Rush Limbaugh. Lies, personal attacks and sneering contempt had won.
Civil political discourse is about ideas. In addition to all the other things they're not, Limbaugh O'Reilly Hannity Savage and Coulter are no theoreticians. Just trying to imagine discussing multilateral versus bilateral international agreements with Coulter, or intellectual property issues with Hannity, gives me the fidgeting giggles.
Most politics isn't that. It's attack and defense, accuse and deny, smear and slash--and has been as far back as anyone can tell. (Try the election of 1800 if you want to see a campaighn that makes this one look like a debate in the House of Lords.) Once you're in that arena, accusations of 'incivility' are just another rhetorical trick. I can discuss somebody's ideas and principles; start attacking people and my gloves come off.
While you're getting your thoughts together, I hope, since you're on this high-minded debate kick, that you'll also engage in a little conversation about Ann Coulter, one of the GOP darlings, who believes the entire Democratic party is guilty of treason. Now, I don't know what your patriotic credentials are, GOP, but I'm a longtime liberal and I'd be happy to put up my bona fides next to yours. In fact, if you spent one day in a uniform (I'm not talking Burger King) I'd be surprised, and you'd be in the minority in the Republican leadership.
So GOP, you have two people here willing to debate ideas. Me and pbg. Bring it on. (To coin a phrase.)
GOP,
Need more ideas to debate? How about Bush calling the FDNY heroes and then not budgeting money so they can buy decent communications gear. And without the money he promised to help NYC, fire stations all over the city are closing for lack of funds.
Or how about not funding port security?
Or stretching our military so thin that he's endangered our security.
Is that enuogh to get you started?
I can't wait all night. Looks like GOP doesn't have the heart. I can't say I'm surprised.
Good night room. Good night pbg. I too long for the old days of serious debate, before Limbaughs, Ailes, Rove, and others turned politics into a dung pile. There was a time when public service was an honorable profession.
Cowards and bullies. This is what the GOP has become.
Honestly, if people want civility, criticism that doesn't offend, and polite discourse, they should go play croquette.
And to the righties:
You've held power for nearly three years, you control all three government branches, and yet the federal and most state governments are broke and in debt and can barely provide even basic services. The economy is STILL weak after two years of federal tax cuts that GWB swore would kick-start the economy back in 2001. Osama and Saddam are still on the loose. GWB declared the war in Iraq over in May, yet soldiers are getting blown up and shot in great numbers--and it's October! Meanwhile Iraqis don't seem to see us as liberators, but as occupiers. Our European allies hate our guts.
Congratulations on a job well done.
[Standing Ovation]
re: "David N.,
This is Jonah's answer to my email, calling him on his smear.
-----Original Message-----
From: JonahNRO@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:51 AM
To: xxxxxxxxx@cox.net
Subject: Re: Dean's Answer to Medicare Question
Of course I'll correct it. By the way, I assume you'll be writing to the Hotline since they were the ones to report the story incorrectly.
Shaw Kenawe | 10.11.03 - 6:19 pm | #"
...but, shouldn't HE contact the Hotline since he was the one writing about it on HIS blog???
Will you tell me to fuck off?
Will you call me a fascist?
Will you call me a Dittohead?
Will you call me a "Bush Idolator"?
--- If the shoe fits... you know how the saying goes
Will you tell me to fuck off?
Will you call me a fascist?
Will you call me a Dittohead?
Will you call me a "Bush Idolator"?
--- If the shoe fits... you know how the saying goes
oops... double posting, sorry about that.. but remember the doublemint refrain - double your fun. HA --- oh, yeah! FUCK ... whew! that felt good..
Will you tell me to fuck off?
Will you call me a fascist?
Will you call me a Dittohead?
Will you call me a "Bush Idolator"?
Howzabout you just blow it out your ass, you moronic brownshirt fuck?
Oh, and best to Unka Karl!
Looks like GOP doesn't have the heart.
Wotta fucking shockeroo!
Come election season, democrats will face a 2-year history of growth, a stabilized Iraq and actual progress in the mideast.
Given that wost-case scenario, what benefit are there to voting dem?
Wouldn't a two year history of growth have to have started (pulls off shoes) in November of 2002? Saying it doesn't make it so.
I highly doubt either Iraq or Afghanistan (the latter of which is two years old) will be stabilized by November 2004. And if you consider what's happening in the Mideast now the path to stabilization, I'm really not thinking we're having this conversation on the same factual grounds. You're essentially saying that three things are going to happen, none of which are actually happening, and none of which look very likely given the general course of things.
I mean, I could say that I'm voting for Bush because he cured unemployment and cancer - but he didn't, and he won't. You're giving me things that you think Bush might accomplish if every plan he has goes correctly, but that he isn't accomplishing now, and doesn't seem to have much of a plan for besides the same old failed ideas.
If you're going to vote for him because of some ideal of what's he done that doesn't match up with reality, fine. But that doesn't make you moderate or independent.
I'm late to the discussion as usual. Anyway, best comment award goes to "NADS." Whoever the fuck (I really like profanity sometimes) that is.
Oops. If I'd bothered to scroll down all the way I'd have seen that Jesse and some others have still been pluggin' away. Sorry. I'll get the hang of this eventually. . .
Hey, GOP Blogg, and your buddies, remember how Ann Coulter said that really funny thing about bombing the U.N.? Golly, gosh gee, that was funny. Here it is if you don't remember it:
``IF A SMART BOMB is so friggin' smart, wouldn't it it simply turn its course after being fired, fly across Europe, over the Atlantic and head straight for the United Nation's building in New York City? Maybe it could drop down low enough here and there to take out a few German's, Frenchmen and liberal New York "journalists" on its way. That's the kind of "smart bomb" that I'd like to see.''
That's really, really humorous, huh? Because it, you know, attacks the U.N. and French people and stuff and wants to see them all dead. Hilarious.
Y'know she got off another really funny one lately, it was about Maureen Dowd, who lefties don't much like either most of the time. She said Dowd's anger at the Bush Administration was, get this, `PMS-induced.'' Woo hoo! I just about bust a gut reading that bon mot, and also when she said Democrats were mourning the deaths of Odai and Qusai. Gosh, can that girl be funny or what? And what legs, too, huh?
Right wingers surely do set a high standard for humor.
I could go on and on but I wouldn't want to take you away from your video games. If you're all really good little boys and girls maybe mommy will cut the crusts off your sammiches.
Al Absurdum -
If you read this far down, I owe you an aoplogy.
As for Peter and GOP Blogger and the others who joined in on this thread after I posted and ran out the door -
I'm thinking of a word, begins with 'f,' ends with 'k.' You.
Thanks AlanH ... Nads is actually a nickname, not too far off from my real name, so not too pseudonymous.
Looks like earlier this morining GOP meant gone to pout.
Speaking of a discussion, I'd love for a conservative to explain to me what has happened to The Hational Review and the conservative press in general.
Better yet, I'd like to see this discussed in a much more public way.
It's the 800 pound gorilla in the living room and yet no one is willing to go after it. Love that liberal media.
With Smirkie's approval ratings in freefall (he has now hit the magic below 50% approval rating), some thin skinned GOP asshole comes here and whines about about the lack of Civility on the part of the Democrats...
with a singular lack of awareness of what Democrats have put up with since Clinton was elected. These jerks can dish it out for years, "elect" a guy with no mandate who whose keepers can barely keep him from drooling, while running a foreign policy which alienates every allie (and while destroying Tony Blair in the process), gets in a war which makes the world even more dangerous, does nothing to help the economy, has an attorney general who trashes the constitution, has an administration more involved in dirty tricks, while using treasonous actions to punish decent guys like Wilson for telling the truth....not to mention killing American troops by leaving them in harms way while taking away their benefits. (meanwhile Bechtel and Halliburton prosper)
Yeah, they say they want to run against Dean. Sure they do.
I heard on NPR's "Wait, wait don't tell me" that O'Reilly stormed off during an interview by Terry Gross on "Fresh Air". Anyone know the details about this? Did anyone hear it? What happened? O'Reilly is a fucking loony.
1)--The e-mails here don't strike me as particularly angry--I'm angrier than that!
2)--Atrios--I bet you could excerpt a couple of profane e-mails from right winges that would put Goldberg's to shame--www.the-hamster.com has a couple of eye openers up.
3) What is this hotline thing? Is it really non-partisan. Could this help explain the right wing "zeitgeist" phenomena. The lazy SOB just copies things off of other this hotline--and take credit for the research.
jd,
You can hear the entire interview with O'Reilly by going to npr.org, and clicking on the Fresh Air link. O'Reilly's behavior in the last few minutes of the interview were astounding in their juvenile bluster. The guy needs to up his meds.
Oh, and I apologize for my long string of multiple posts last night. It was late and I seriousl;y wanted to kick GOP's ass. The cowardly fuck. So sorry. The movie is not about me.
-----Wouldn't a two year history of growth have to have started (pulls off shoes) in November of 2002? Saying it doesn't make it so.-----
Counting toes aside, the economy is growing (it's called a business cycle), and by all appearences and historical precedent, there is every reason to assume it will continue in an upswing through November of '04, which will take away that argument from the dem's. They will have the deficit to argue, but that never wins elections, and the dem's are as responsible for overspending as the republicans are.
----I highly doubt either Iraq or Afghanistan (the latter of which is two years old) will be stabilized by November 2004.-----
If the situation in Iraq proceeds at its present pace, then that issue will be off the table. If you look at the whole picture, it's clear that there is no "quagmire" developing, and that the physical restoration and installation of government, etc has happened at an incredible pace.
As for Afghanistan, that will be more difficult and time-consuming, given the history of that country. But, if you look at the pace of immigration there, and the economic growth, there is no way you could claim Afghanistan is worse off than before.
----And if you consider what's happening in the Mideast now the path to stabilization, I'm really not thinking we're having this conversation on the same factual grounds. You're essentially saying that three things are going to happen, none of which are actually happening, and none of which look very likely given the general course of things.----
So, all the schools that are open, the hospitals, clinics, the Iraqi police, Iraqi army, growing economy, working local governments are not actually happening?
---I mean, I could say that I'm voting for Bush because he cured unemployment and cancer - but he didn't, and he won't. You're giving me things that you think Bush might accomplish if every plan he has goes correctly, but that he isn't accomplishing now, and doesn't seem to have much of a plan for besides the same old failed ideas.----
For your assesment to be real, you would have to completely ignore the progress in Iraq. You would have to (with a straight face) claim that Iraq is indeed deteriorating. To do that, you would have to identify every bump in the road in this momentous task as an indication of overall failure, and that's not going to fly with informed independent voters, who look more at facts than they do partisan spin.
And anyone who looks at the whole picture cannot deny that Iraq is progressing incredibly fast. Well, you can "deny" it, but that would be hilarious spin in the face of the known, and only the party choir will pay any attention to the preaching.
----If you're going to vote for him because of some ideal of what's he done that doesn't match up with reality, fine. But that doesn't make you moderate or independent.----
Again, you would have to completely discount the reality of prog
----Please do remember that after The Revolution one of the priorities will be the hunting down and feeding to the ducks of all who offered propagandistic support for the fascist motherfuckers who will be going down.-----
That will fly with the electorate - a promised South-American style bloodbath of revenge. heh.
---So plan the rest of your life accordingly. You and your ilk set the tone. We are here to see that it's played out, and those who have set the tone will reap what they have sown.----
"Set the tone".
The bodies must be piling up in Ann Arbor and San Francisco. The horror!
You have met the brownshirted jackboots, and he is you.
For your assesment to be real, you would have to completely ignore the progress in Iraq.
The problem is, the progress comes with an incredibly high cost of both life and money. And for some reason, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Iraq is the Middle East. I also note that you completely ignored the criticisms of Afghanistan.
You would have to (with a straight face) claim that Iraq is indeed deteriorating. To do that, you would have to identify every bump in the road in this momentous task as an indication of overall failure, and that's not going to fly with informed independent voters, who look more at facts than they do partisan spin.
The problem is, you're not looking at facts. You're looking at conservative spin and *calling it* facts.
And anyone who looks at the whole picture cannot deny that Iraq is progressing incredibly fast. Well, you can "deny" it, but that would be hilarious spin in the face of the known, and only the party choir will pay any attention to the preaching.
The problem is, you talk about things being built, yet you wholly ignore the overall picture of a concerted and organized resistance, the lack of any controlling provisional authority, and the overwhelming number of resources we must divert to Iraq in order to simply keep pace, let alone do any real rebuilding.
The case you present is little more than the NewsMax/Fox News picture of things, where every exploding building must be matched by a little Iraqi boy eating in the sunshine. Iraq is a debacle not only because of the entire lack of a plan in the country, but because of what it means for the rest of American national security - the diversion of resources, the messages to other nations that actually *are* developing WMD, etc.
There is an argument to be made on both sides, here. However, you're essentially pointing to beneficial facts and declaring all other positions invalid. If that's the kind of "discourse" you want, I hope you like arguing in the mirror.
----The problem is, the progress comes with an incredibly high cost of both life and money.----
Compared to what? Certainly you have something relevant in both areas at question: cost and benefit.
Any benefit either of us may see is based purely on our perception of the threats in the mid-east and what to do about them - which are much larger questions the left seems to have no real answer for.
As for cost, how can you possibly say what is too much or what is too little? Any historic precedent seems to point to this as an incredible success to this point
----And for some reason, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Iraq is the Middle East. I also note that you completely ignored the criticisms of Afghanistan.----
The "mid east" is a concept of geography, this is a war of ideology whose armies are very fluid. Your typically western fixation on strict rules of boundry is meaningless in this war.
As for Afghanistan - that could develop into a long thread, and it seems my last response was cut off already.
In either case, the fixation on the left seems to be primarly on tactics as opposed to strategy, and there seems to be a denial of the obvious successes of the strategy. As such, my larger focus on strategy per the dem party will degenerate into an argument about republican tactics.
---The problem is, you're not looking at facts. You're looking at conservative spin and *calling it* facts.---
Not really, I get my facts from all over, but you make a point. I can look at the concrete facts about Iraq and see a basic upward trend. OTOH, you can focus only on the small end of the equation there to paint it as a deteriorating situation. I could point to perhaps dozens of actual facts, and you could defend your position with perhaps two - war casualties and war cost, neither of which are particularly shocking in themselves.
-----The problem is, you talk about things being built, yet you wholly ignore the overall picture of a concerted and organized resistance, the lack of any controlling provisional authority, and the overwhelming number of resources we must divert to Iraq in order to simply keep pace, let alone do any real rebuilding.-----
About 95% of the "resistance" is in 5% of the country. OTOH, police, army, medical, educational, utilities, economy, oil flow are approaching or bypassing pre-war conditions. Most of the country has established local democratic governing councils, the vast majority of Iraqis have a much better assesment of the present and future than US lefties do - who do you think people are going to listen to?
As for resistance, the percent of the population involved in that is likely about the same or less than the percentage of Islamics who are violent Islamists, and we have no plans to abandon our war with that particular small group of radicals either.
---The case you present is little more than the NewsMax/Fox News picture of things, where every exploding building m
(continued)
---The case you present is little more than the NewsMax/Fox News picture of things, where every exploding building must be matched by a little Iraqi boy eating in the sunshine.----
There are far more little Iraqi boys eating sunshine in Iraq today than there are exploding buildings.
-----Iraq is a debacle not only because of the entire lack of a plan in the country, but because of what it means for the rest of American national security - the diversion of resources, the messages to other nations that actually *are* developing WMD, etc.----
You cover the whole script here, which always leads to analysis of tactic: which country we should have invaded and when. Leftists can be surprisingly hawkish at times.
Keep in mind that we are killing enemies pure and simple. That's a core part of the issue, and it matters little whether those enemies are baathists or Islamists - they are representative of the totalitarian-minded minority that can't be allowed to win.
---There is an argument to be made on both sides, here. However, you're essentially pointing to beneficial facts and declaring all other positions invalid. If that's the kind of "discourse" you want, I hope you like arguing in the mirror.----
No, I'm taking the total picture and weighing. I happen to see very strong indications that point to success, not failure, and I've explained why. I have my reasons for optimism, I truly want the Iraqi people to enjoy what I do, and now they can, and it gets better every day there.
My God. Anyone who watched the Frontline special on Iraq last week knows what an utter farce is the picture of an improving Iraq, so ardently pushed by Bush apologists.
The Shiites have just gone off the reservation. The infrastructure is under constant attack, as are American soldiers. We just had another bombing, this one in the heart of Baghdad. Violence is worsening in the north. Anyone who thinks the violence is going to subside by spring -- which is the administration's stated hope -- is dreaming.
Iraq may prove yet one of the worst military disasters in American history, worse even than Vietnam -- and all because of the incredibly short-sighted planning by the Bush administration, a product of its specious rush to war.
Believe me, Texx -- military people know this too. You'll be hearing more from them soon.
Not, it must be added, that you are likely to listen.
---Believe me, Texx -- military people know this too. You'll be hearing more from them soon.----
I have. Personally and on-line.
With a son just back (USMC 3/1/1), and lots of friends among USMC families, I get plenty of that perpsective.
None I know personally are in favor of abandoning the effort, and anyone of them can tell you that the vast majority of Iraqis do not back the resistence, or the imported jihadists.
So, *you* just heard from "the military" in a way.
Funny, Texx, but I am a former soldier and a few of my old Army buddies returning from their Iraqi deployments--all senior NCO's--are saying that with every passing day the Iraqi resistance to the US occupation is GROWING. And getting uglier.
It's that fucking, "Smile, troopers, we're winning their hearts and minds as we shove a bayonette up their ass" bullshit from 'Nam all over again. Except in 2003 we should know better. But how do you teach a pack of chickenhawks like Cheney and Wolfie and Rove and Bush a lesson they didn't learn from personal experience(God bless student deferments and the Texas Air Guard!) in 66'-73'.
Think I am kidding? How about that telling footage on Frontline the other night when the US soldiers greased that innocent Iraqi? Every time this kind of incident happened in Vietnam, the VC's ranks swelled with angry peasants tired of being treated this way.
Like a salty old sarge said to me way back in my days at Ft. Benning: You can't occupy folks what don't wanna be occupied, no matter how much on the side of good you are.
Welcome to Iraq, the new West Bank. And mark my words, something really bad is going to happen in Iraq soon.
And just to dispell the rightie arument of "who the fuck do you think you are" over the above comment, here's another Vet echoing the same sentiment:
">Hearts and Minds My Ass
Grrr...no preview here, so sorry:
Try this link by cutting and pasting it:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/
csNe...0.1133666302937
Sorry.
Fair enough, there is never 100% view eithjer way. But if you take the numbers, a Vietnam analogy falls short. The Iraqis themselves are taking more and more responsibility for their own security, and they don't want Arab intevention to screw up their chances.
I assume there will be a chorus of voices declaring defeat and counseling surrender, but the facts just aren't there to support that course - quite the opposite.. And our efforts at reconstructing Iraq *does* get the hearts and minds.
Keep in mind the tremendous cost in the long run if we give up after 6 months because of resistance by a minority, in small parts of the country.
So, the numbers show we're winning, but there is resistance, but overall, we're winning.
Time to bug out?
Sorry, Texx, but I never agreed to "bug in." So at this point all I can do is let Bush and his people either succeed or fail. And vote Democrat in the 2004 election.
Fair enough.
Which bings me full circle to my original post of :
----"I voted for Clinton, and I voted for Bush, and I'll vote for Bush again simply because the democrats offer no real alternative for a moderate inependent."----
I've gotten arguments that reflect the platforms thus far from the dems : "Everything is a disaster, we don't know how we're going to fix it, but we will, trust us."
(That is, when they're not doing the CYA boogie in their flip-flops)
My original post is more a question to you activated democrats than it is a request for an update on current events.
Just suppose, in a perfectly disastrous world, election day '04 sees a stabilized Iraq, no attacks on US soil, an economy with sustained upward trend? What then?
We can disagree whether conditions at present indicate these possibilities, but if I were a democrat hoping to swing votes, I'd be working on my Plan B.
Texx,
I'm an old vet, but I think you're right. This isn't a new Nam. What we've got here is a new front for the intifata. Imagine Iraq going through what Israel is going through, only it will be our GIs under fire and our tax dollars being spent on blown up infrastructure. That's a chilling thought.
But if you need a bigger picture on why you should vote Democratic, all I can say is to look at this administration honestly. They refused to let us see the energy policy meetings because, as most in DC think, it contained a plan to deal with the Taliban in order to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. They've kept a lot secret including, I think, their overall economic policy (really, is "cut taxes" a plan?) which is to starve the governemnt until we have no choice but to repeal much of the New Deal. I could go on, but I've foloowed politics closely since 1968 and I've never seen such a venal, dishonest bunch. But look for yourself. When you do you'll be as sickened as the rest of us here. In 2004 you can vote conservative, or you can vote Republican, but you can't do both.
----I'm an old vet, but I think you're right. This isn't a new Nam. What we've got here is a new front for the intifata. Imagine Iraq going through what Israel is going through, only it will be our GIs under fire and our tax dollars being spent on blown up infrastructure. That's a chilling thought.-----
GI's are the ones best equippped to fight this war, and Iraq is just one front - and a logical place to start undermining their home support using Osama's own strategy. Iraq has a majority that does not want Islamic law or baathist rule, and they don't want Arab interference in their national future.
The obvious will prevail, that we are their best hope to secure their future, and they'll fight for their future if they think they can win.
OTOH, we can accept the myth of the mighty, unconquerable Arab warrior, accept their bluster and promises as de facto defeat.
-----But if you need a bigger picture on why you should vote Democratic, all I can say is to look at this administration honestly. They refused to let us see the energy policy meetings because, as most in DC think, it contained a plan to deal with the Taliban in order to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. They've kept a lot secret including, I think, their overall economic policy (really, is "cut taxes" a plan?) which is to starve the governemnt until we have no choice but to repeal much of the New Deal. I could go on, but I've foloowed politics closely since 1968 and I've never seen such a venal, dishonest bunch. But look for yourself. When you do you'll be as sickened as the rest of us here. In 2004 you can vote conservative, or you can vote Republican, but you can't do both.-----
I don't care if they had plans to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, I consider oil in the same light that our enemies do, as a means to an end. Their end is economic power, ours is to keep the engine of the western economy secure.
If you find the administration ruthless in those aims, fine. But, they are so far successful. If the democrats reveal a plausible approach, I'm all ears.
So far, I've seen nothing that will swing the election in the worst-case scenario which I've described previously. If the admin sickens you, or you feel they are trting to dismantle various programs, then by all means, vote democrat.
But, if I choose to vote conservative, I have no choice but to vote republican - because the democrats have become the leftist party, while the repubs have become more center. And that's why that'll likely win in '04.
As Reagan said: "the party left me".
Tex,
If you really believe that Democrats are "leftists" and that Republicans, this bunch of Republicans, are centrist, then you're too far gone for any logic I can think of.
But if a country without medical help for the elderly and poor, without a basic minimum income for retired people, without adequately funded public schools, firemen, police, highways, foot soldiers, and homeland security is the kind of country you look forward to, then by all means, pull that lever for the Republicans. Just remember when you're in shit up to your ears that an old vet on the internet warned you this storm was coming.
Peace be with you, Tex, and good fucking luck.
Texx is spinning straight from the RNC talking points. He's a classic troll.
Well, I AM a leftist and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
It's not like all you "centrists" and "rightists" are doing a bang-up job running things.
It seems y'all keep chasing your tails to no avail. And then you blame "the left" for all our problems, but, really, how long has it been since the "left" had any real power?
Umm...how about never?
So what's wrong with being a leftist?
---If you really believe that Democrats are "leftists" and that Republicans, this bunch of Republicans, are centrist, then you're too far gone for any logic I can think of.---
Oddly enough, conservatives consider him too liberal.
---But if a country without medical help for the elderly and poor, without a basic minimum income for retired people, without adequately funded public schools, firemen, police, highways, foot soldiers, and homeland security is the kind of country you look forward to, then by all means, pull that lever for the Republicans. Just remember when you're in shit up to your ears that an old vet on the internet warned you this storm was coming----
It appears you fear a cutback in overall government spending. Each of the affected particulars are worth debate alone, but let's start with schools, and the fact that we spend more per pupil than anyone else and everyone complains about the results. Solution? Spend more!
---Peace be with you, Tex, and good fucking luck.---
Good fucking is not a matter of luck.
----Well, I AM a leftist and I'm not ashamed to admit it.----
Nor should you be
---It's not like all you "centrists" and "rightists" are doing a bang-up job running things.---
We're still here. Check back next year, though.
---t seems y'all keep chasing your tails to no avail. And then you blame "the left" for all our problems, but, really, how long has it been since the "left" had any real power?---
In certain areas, they have a certain dominating influence, but yes, overall their footprint is that of a squirrel, but easier to track - just look for any mass slaughter, and you'll find a hard leftist defending it.
--Umm...how about never?
So what's wrong with being a leftist?---
What's wrong with being a squirrel?
---Texx is spinning straight from the RNC talking points. He's a classic troll.-----
Then there's no need for you to give me attention, eh?
Your postmates likely appreciate your protective nature, that of a howler in high tree, the caved canary, a squirrel poised to chatter at the approach of the big dog.
Beware. The. Troll.
Sorry, Texx, but there's not even a microgram of substance in the above comments you've just made.
Maybe because all you do is glom your tired cliches off some right-wing rag or from Rush,
you're not even aware how silly and rote they seem, the same boring and specious arguments that righties spew out like schoolkids reciting the state capitals. You've reduced your ideolgy to a series of knee-jerk bumper sticker slogans. How clever! How brilliantly simple! Just scream them out so loudly that rational discourse is impossible.
Funny how you criticize "lefties," when in fact the "new" right has taken on the tactics that the Bolsheviks used prior to their revolution in Russia: Repeat the same lies and slogans, loudly, drowning out all other voices, and eventually the drooling peasants will believe them. Whether the slogans are true or not is of no consequence-- raw, naked power is the great legitimizer.
Thank you for your canned wisdom, oh drooling peasant.
---Sorry, Texx, but there's not even a microgram of substance in the above comments you've just made.
And with a casual, abstract dismissal of numerous arguments, the world is made safe again. Whew, that was close, good thing you showed up!
----Maybe because all you do is glom your tired cliches off some right-wing rag or from Rush,
you're not even aware how silly and rote they seem, the same boring and specious arguments that righties spew out like schoolkids reciting the state capitals. You've reduced your ideolgy to a series of knee-jerk bumper sticker slogans. How clever! How brilliantly simple! Just scream them out so loudly that rational discourse is impossible.-------
Well, you're discousing here, aren't you? Your premise is flawed, so your discourse is empty at best. This is not the way to swing votes, believe me. If someone presents an opposing argument, you can either argue the issues or you can simply state that the holder of opposing views is basically ignorant.
---Funny how you criticize "lefties," when in fact the "new" right has taken on the tactics that the Bolsheviks used prior to their revolution in Russia: Repeat the same lies and slogans, loudly, drowning out all other voices, and eventually the drooling peasants will believe them. Whether the slogans are true or not is of no consequence-- raw, naked power is the great legitimizer. ---
Kinda like "No Blood For Oil!" and other deep reasonings, eh?
---Thank you for your canned wisdom, oh drooling peasant.---
Anytime, confident, intelligent elitist.
Next time, try addressing my points to be taken more seriously. This "Anyone who does not believe the way I do is an idiot" doesn't do a thing to advance whatever agenda you may have, unless that agenda is to dodge salient arguments for which you have no actual rebbutal.
Kinda like "No Blood For Oil!" and other deep reasonings, eh?
Funny you should mention this particular left-wing mantra. Funny how my own personal military experience can prove the validity of the statement.
I have SEEN American blood shed for oil. Seen in with my own two "squirrelly, daygum liberal leftie" eyes, I did. Cleaned it up. Put it into containers to be shipped home so families could bury it.
1987. The USS Stark. Sailing in the Gulf to protect the shipping lanes. Struck by two Iraqi-fired French Exocet missiles. 37 dead. I was part of the team that cleaned up the "blood." Also the body parts of those young sailors who died that May evening from the blast, from smoke inhalation, and from drowning.
What do you think they were protecting in that there shipping lane, Texx? Iranian shoes? Afghan quilts? Bahrainian beef? Qatari falafels? Iraqi art? Saudi punk rock records?
Why no...it was oooooiiiiiiiiiillll!
So maybe "no blood for oil" isn't such a silly mantra.
Every time I hear right-wingers sneer that "ooooiiiiiil" mantra I think of those 37 dead sailors who gave their lives to protect your cheap gasoline, and I honor them by telling arrrogant asswipes like you and your cohorts to sincerely go fuck yourselves if you think otherwise.
Am I wrong, big boy?
Do you have any more right-wing b.s. I can deconstruct for you, Texx?
----Funny you should mention this particular left-wing mantra. Funny how my own personal military experience can prove the validity of the statement.
I have SEEN American blood shed for oil. Seen in with my own two "squirrelly, daygum liberal leftie" eyes, I did. Cleaned it up. Put it into containers to be shipped home so families could bury it.
1987. The USS Stark. Sailing in the Gulf to protect the shipping lanes. Struck by two Iraqi-fired French Exocet missiles. 37 dead. I was part of the team that cleaned up the "blood." Also the body parts of those young sailors who died that May evening from the blast, from smoke inhalation, and from drowning.
What do you think they were protecting in that there shipping lane, Texx? Iranian shoes? Afghan quilts? Bahrainian beef? Qatari falafels? Iraqi art? Saudi punk rock records?
Why no...it was oooooiiiiiiiiiillll!
So maybe "no blood for oil" isn't such a silly mantra.----
Is there something about oil that makes it unworthy of concern and protection?
It is "all about oil", because it's an economic weapon. You wouldn't want hostiles controlling your water would you? How about land, would your anti-battle cry be "No Blood For Land!!"?
----Every time I hear right-wingers sneer that "ooooiiiiiil" mantra I think of those 37 dead sailors who gave their lives to protect your cheap gasoline, and I honor them by telling arrrogant asswipes like you and your cohorts to sincerely go fuck yourselves if you think otherwise.----
You misunderstand. My son gave security and assistance to the Cole, and he slogged to Baghdad with USMC 3/1/1. He knew it was about oil, he knew the stakes, he knew what needed protection.
Along the way, of course, people were liberated, but that's beside the point.
---Am I wrong, big boy? -----
That's for you to figure out, grasshopper - I can only offer a different view.
---Do you have any more right-wing b.s. I can deconstruct for you, Texx?---
Probably, we'll just play it by ear, eh?
Good for your boy--tell him "thanks" for me. I personally love the Marines because I work for them. They do our dirty work and we Americans sometimes forget that--yet it is good to see this generation of young people more appreciative of our young people in uniform than in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Depsite the virtriolic nature of our discourse towards the end, I think it's obvious that no side of any argument holds all the "truth."
But in the last two years I've grown tired of righties (perhaps not you) questioning the patriotism and loyalty of "liberals" and "leftists" and "the left." This democracy in which we live has always been about compromise and balance--but that does not mean that the extreme margins on the right and left should be silenced.
In fact, the vitriolic discourse and lack of civility by both sides is actually an excellent indication that our democracy remains strong and vital. Remember back in the day when Hamilton and Adams fought bitterly with the Jeffersonian faction; that Federalist/anti-Federalist battle is, to a certain extent, still being waged under different names in this country. Democracy is equilibrium, it is balance.
The difference these days in the post-9/11 atmosphere--at least in my view--is that the other side is not my enemy or "the" enemy of the USA. They are my neighbors and friends. I might not like the views of the right, and I oppose most of their views with every fiber of my being, but they are not my enemies. I might even hate some of them. But they are not my enemies.
I wish the other side felt the same. But I have heard enough to know that many do not feel so enlightened as I do; I've been called a "traitor" and "America hater" and even "enemy" enough to actually feel dismayed by that level of hatred.
So I often come out swinging.
---Good for your boy--tell him "thanks" for me. I personally love the Marines because I work for them. They do our dirty work and we Americans sometimes forget that--yet it is good to see this generation of young people more appreciative of our young people in uniform than in the 60's, 70's and 80's.---
They are a very motivated bunch in Infantry, and I appreciate your concern and respect for the fact that, no matter the political diffences - they always deliver. They are the strongest link in the chain. And, my respect for your contribultion is the same regardless of how we may view poltical diffrebces.
After all, isn't that what it's about? If we do not argue, then democracy will become flabby and unfit.
----Depsite the virtriolic nature of our discourse towards the end, I think it's obvious that no side of any argument holds all the "truth."---
Ain't that the truth. But, the center eventually rules in a world where politics is the most dangerous of powers.
--But in the last two years I've grown tired of righties (perhaps not you) questioning the patriotism and loyalty of "liberals" and "leftists" and "the left." This democracy in which we live has always been about compromise and balance--but that does not mean that the extreme margins on the right and left should be silenced. ---
I believe both sides try to define patriotism to fit their agendas, and semantics don't interest me, it's a deflecting issue. I just want this country to answer to those that have sacrificed thus far, and I try to weigh and choose to best answer that mandate.
---In fact, the vitriolic discourse and lack of civility by both sides is actually an excellent indication that our democracy remains strong and vital. Remember back in the day when Hamilton and Adams fought bitterly with the Jeffersonian faction; that Federalist/anti-Federalist battle is, to a certain extent, still being waged under different names in this country. Democracy is equilibrium, it is balance.---
haha - things ain't changed much have they?
Political argument is the life blood of this country, our most important passion.
----The difference these days in the post-9/11 atmosphere--at least in my view--is that the other side is not my enemy or "the" enemy of the USA. They are my neighbors and friends. I might not like the views of the right, and I oppose most of their views with every fiber of my being, but they are not my enemies. I might even hate some of them. But they are not my enemies.---
Of course not. In a world where ideas rule, we need everyone to be upfront, and clear. In this age of hyper-communication, brevity and gist rule. If there are lles, we will find them.
--I wish the other side felt the same. But I have heard enough to know that many do not feel so enlightened as I do; I've been called a "traitor" and "America hater" and even "enemy" enough to actually feel dismayed by that level of hatred.--
If you s
(cont)
--I wish the other side felt the same. But I have heard enough to know that many do not feel so enlightened as I do; I've been called a "traitor" and "America hater" and even "enemy" enough to actually feel dismayed by that level of hatred.--
If you state an opinion, someone will label you. Or, they will shoot at you. Thankfully, the norm here is the former, not the latter.
--So I often come out swinging.---
Don't we all, but it's our national sport. semper fi
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
