Where are the radicals? It's an interesting look at radical liberalism. The problem is, of course, that Dr. Rossiter's propaganda is operating in a theater that considers Democrats liberal. Something inherently gets lost in the application. If you stick around here for a couple of years, NGM, your perspective might shift compared to what it is after just a few weeks. Our friend Iceaura is well aware of the people I referred to. He, too, has experienced those strange occasions when someone pretends to be victimized by the need to provide evidence to support a strange, even absurd thesis. After a while, one might think an honorable conservative thinker would tire of seeing his fellows embarrass themselves and their common cause by throwing tantrums because people don't believe every damn word they type. Stick around; it's entertaining for a while, and then it gets kind of sad. Greenwald's consideration is applicable in the mainstream political arena in the United States. Dr. Rossiter's analysis—in focusing on the radical—is not.
Tiassa: It's an interesting look at radical liberalism. The problem is, of course, that Dr. Rossiter's propaganda is operating in a theater that considers Democrats liberal. Something inherently gets lost in the application. Dr. Rossiter's ANALYSIS is, if anything too restricting in it's definition. From reading hundreds of posts from Liberals, I find that his ANALYSIS of the Liberal point of view is very much accurate to ALL Liberals. Nothing is lost. It's as accurate as your description and quote. I understand completely that you don't like being defined in this way, but as someone else said just a couple of posts ago; "I call em as I see em". Hell, just your use of the word "propaganda" above paints you exactly as I describe you below. The method you use to describe others who happen to disagree with you shows you to be a Radical Liberal. Like it or not, that's precisely what you are. Deny it forever. It won't change that fact. If you stick around here for a couple of years, NGM, your perspective might shift compared to what it is after just a few weeks. You say that as if I'm new to reading these types of postings on the net. I certainly don't have to be here in this particular group to see examples of the two primary groups of posters that are shown here. I've been on the net since before GUI's existed. I'm in many groups spanning many topics and forums. Nothing new is presented here. I do like the format of the forum and it's topic headers. Pretty nice breakdown. After you've seen more examples of my thoughts, you'll perhaps shift your perspective to be more in-line with fairness and reality. Maybe. I haven't seen many rabid Liberals such as yourself change, but I guess anything might be possible. Our friend Iceaura is well aware of the people I referred to. He, too, has experienced those strange occasions when someone pretends to be victimized by the need to provide evidence to support a strange, even absurd thesis. After a while, one might think an honorable conservative thinker would tire of seeing his fellows embarrass themselves and their common cause by throwing tantrums because people don't believe every damn word they type. Stick around; it's entertaining for a while, and then it gets kind of sad. Sorry, but I don't trust your evaluation of others. I've already seen examples of your lack of fairness and an almost frothing dislike for anyone who happens to not agree with you. Please, feel free to explain how you would actually repair what you think is broken. That would be a unique experience coming from a flaming Liberal. People like you point fingers at who YOU say broke the system, but never seem to explain how you would realistically repair it, in DETAIL. I look forward to seeing you prove that to be an incorrect statement. You'll have to do more than the usual hard-core Liberal and say something other than what the problem is. You'll have to explain a working solution. As a snide comment making, name calling, finger pointing Liberal, you'll set a new record in history if you do so. Before you waste the bandwidth, yes, I'm doing exactly what I accuse you of. I've made snide remarks about you, called you names and pointed all ten of my fingers at the Liberal point of view. I do so out of frustration. I've tried talking to you foaming-at-the-mouth Liberals in a civil manner and all I've gotten in return is what I have given you. In an effort to balance the scales and perhaps enable you to understand the words I use, I've reduced myself to speaking in the same rude, inconsiderate, accusational manner that is typical of your breed. I'm sure you'll understand me that way. I'm equally sure that you'll respond with nothing more than what you have already; more name calling, more innuendo, more snide remarks and NOTHING of substance. Greenwald's consideration is applicable in the mainstream political arena in the United States. Dr. Rossiter's analysis—in focusing on the radical—is not. Greenwald's outrageously opinionated, blatantly one-sided propaganda is exactly what I would expect from another flaming, frothing Liberal. Nothing new. Nothing of substance. Nothing true. Just more of the same, tired propaganda filled bullshit for the kook-aid class.
THERE ARE NO LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES! Just a bunch of stupid people that clinch to near-minded ideologies and demonized anyone that disagree with them while believing them selves some how different!
I couldn't agree more. As long as the public demands these very brief, one hour bullshit sessions, they'll continue to receive exactly what you've described. Here's something that WOULD work to identify the candidates, their opinions, their proposed plans and methods and their exact platforms; Have at least four, one hour sessions with professionals in each topic for EACH candidate on a one-on-one basis with the professionals. For instance, the first session could start with BOTH candidates in separate rooms, listening to the same professionals questions. Neither candidate could hear their opposing candidates answers. They would be questioned on the economy by a person who is a professional economist of 30 years or more. It would be live. THIS would give insight to what the candidates really know. The bullshit and politics would be cast aside and reality would set in. Of course, this will never happen. The reason? Because we keep proposing candidates who are politicians FIRST and people who really understand how to repair problems LAST. The power players would never let my idea fly. It would show ALL the candidates lacking in any intimate knowledge of what they are intended to oversee and supervise as a leader. Hell, look at what's happening now. The people keep ranting about how "They should put a REAL person in the Whitehouse. Someone who talks like a normal everyday person. Someone who isn't a Washington power player. Someone without the political baggage." Then, when a candidate that fills some of these conditions actually gets a place on the ticket, the public rips them a new ass for NOT being what they've already said they don't want. The public is fickle. The public is uneducated. Most people have no clue what happens between leaders in the real world, and yet they attempt to grade it. I'm old enough, secure enough and have isolated myself enough to no longer really give a shit which side wins. I find it amusing that nothing really ever changes. I keep hearing "CHANGE IS COMING", but that change never takes place. It's always more of the same old bullshit.
Well the 2nd time round he said 9-11 in every other sentence & that if you all did not vote for him it would happen again, what you did not all grasp was that it happened on his fucking watch not the democrat watch so he was to blame in the 1st place, he burried his head in the sand like a ostrich before 9=11 he did not want anthing to do with the middle east, then sudenly it bit him on the ass while at a childrens school & after being told about it, he stood at the childrens school for a full 9 minutes smiling & being his dumb ass self, before leaving if nothing had happened it was amazing to watch this on that michael moore film. The one thing i liked about biden is when he said the new york mayor cant say one sentence without throwing 9-11 in there, during the VP republican debates, i thought that was hilarious. The overwelming fact is half of your population voted for these morons 2 times, even though the democrats were the most sucessfull government for america this century, now if that is not dumb tell me what is not? Your now something like a zillion dollars in debt merryl lynch, morgan stanley, goldman sachs all fucked thanks to your zillion dollar debts, the entire country bankrupt & nearly 40% of your people are still willing to vote republican wow that is stupid.
There you go again .... There you go with self-victimization. And as to your condescension and presumption of superiority: • #54: It's truly sad to see that so many have done precisely as they were instructed to do via propaganda from the media. — And then you proceed to ignore what people have actually written in order to write their lines for them. • #60: Did you understand what it was you were watching? — Since you didn't actually address the debate in #54, but, rather, your own home-spun fantasy, Steve100's question was fair. Shooting back with condescension? Yes, you're so superior. • #73: Well, hell son, yell in the Kitchen and tell your women to bring you another beer while you chaw on some of your greasy man-stuff from the BBQ. — This is one of those occasions where it doesn't matter how long you want to boast of being on the net; you missed a certain vital component of this community's dynamic. As a result, you kind of made a fool of yourself. • #82: I'm done with you. Go sit in front of your TV and scratch something. — By this point you're merely flexing your imagined strength. I admit I love that line, "First, I don't drink beer". For someone who's been on the net as long as you claim, you tend to miss the point an awful lot. • #104: Don't attempt to become a paid professional at this. You won't find a job. — Your opinion is not fact. Someone who's been on the net as long as you have, and who takes part in such important foreign diplomacy ought to be well aware of that. You may not have liked Ice's evaluation, but you didn't do much to make your point, except tacitly assert your superiority with an explicitly condescending attitude. • #107: No, realistically, you're naive and ignorant. — So maybe he is being naîve and ignorant. Maybe he is seeing it in black and white. And maybe it would serve you better to demonstrate the point. • #111: Now you're just boring me. You think too much of yourself. — You're so superior, aren't you, that you can just claim to be bored and accuse someone of arrogance in order to refute a point. Understand, you're not winning much sympathy in this. • #112: That's all you had to say. — As one who has been part of this community for a long time, I can say with some confidence that the only people who are impressed by that kind of dismissal are those who would be your cheerleaders, anyway. • #118: As for your last comment, I have to respond in kind; Bite me. — When you treat people with such disrespect, what, really, do you expect? You are, in fact, behaving as a neoconservative and a right-wing whacko. Expecting everyone in the world to see exactly what you do—thus alleviating any need to actually explain the basis of your position—is a very convenient tactic widely exploited (beaten into the ground) by the neoconservative hawks throughout the Iraq War, and a standard of right-wing talk radio. • #119: That's a nice way of saying that you're full of shit. — In the first place, Bells can take care of herself. To the other, though, it's not like you're insulting Ice or Joe, or even myself. Again, this is an error of your inexperience with this particular community. See, treating certain prominent liberal voices around here as you do is par for the course; we're accustomed to that sort of bullshit from repeated exposure by those who came before you. But when you lash out at one of the more broadly-respected members of our community, you whittle down the respect you might be earning from fellow non-liberals, slowly isolating yourself and whatever blind cheerleaders you pick up along the way. Now, maybe you just don't like Bells. Fine. But she repeatedly raised an aspect of the situation that does not make sense according to your outlook as expressed in #54. Consider that it has been acknowledged by several members that the debate was artificially constricted. Extending that notion to your assertion in #71 that Palin "said exactly what her handlers told her to say during this farce", I, personally, would be fascinated to hear your analysis of why she repeatedly retreated to energy issues several times in the first part of the debate: I mean, she didn't even try. She went on the attack and changed the subject back to energy issues, which is her alleged strength. Seriously were her handlers simply unable to give her a script to recite on certain issues? Did they tell her, "If Ifill asks a question that we haven't given you a script for, just fall back to energy issues"? This is a question you dismissed, and as long as it remains unanswered, it leaves a hole in the outlook you expressed in #54 and #71. • #121: So, the result of your personal attack and pointless, bullshit questions was to recieve the only answers you deserve. You seem to be nothing more than another net asshole. Go fuck with someone else. I'm not in the mood for your childish bullshit. — And there you go, portraying yourself as some sort of victim. I mean, it's not like you were ever rude and condescending, or ignored what people wrote in order to denounce them for some script of your own devising. Right? • #125: It's pointless for you and I to discuss this. — What's really interesting about this post is that it is, after a fashion, accurate. Except it is a projection. • #126: When I see post after post of opinions from people who haven't a clue about the reality of a real-time "debate" such as this one, it pisses me off just a little. — Given your claim of long years on the net, it seems strange that you haven't realized that you're overstating the case. In this post, you assert, "To place much importance to that farce of a 'debate' would be a real mistake." In #54, you asserted, "Anyone who makes any decisions about who should run the USA based on that mirage of meaning is a fool." And both of these points are correct, insofar as they go. But they're not necessarily applicable. I doubt anyone taking part in this discussion made any decisions based on this debate. Furthermore, since you've spent so much time on the net, how do you fail to recognize that posting opinions is such a major component of a website like this? It's a major part of what this community does. You noted, "Then people who have almost no idea of the real workings of political life get on with their posts about how 'stupid' one of the candidates are." Thing is, NGM, smart people can be stupid. If you've never noticed this before, I don't know what to tell you. Governor Palin might actually be smart about something; the public wouldn't know because they've never seen it. But, yes, her performance has been so problematic that conservative faithful have called for her to step down. She has been, prior to the debate, woefully unprepared. And for this debate, it's not clear she was prepared. Running for vice-president at this time is a very stupid idea for Governor Palin, and if she can't see that, well, that tells us something else. In the context of what she's trying to pull off, she is way over her head. Now, maybe some of us would be more sympathetic to her plight, except the stakes are really high this time, and she's been something of a condescending ... well, bitch. (She's a pit-bull with lipstick after all.) • #135: Son, blow that crap out of your ass. Start talking facts and you might impress me. — Since you offer no facts for your own part, your bluster and bullshit are merely that. Can you back your vitriol with fact? Can you justify your condescension with substance? Thus far, you haven't. Indeed, NGM, by the time we get to Greenwald's examination of "the right's two-pronged religion of rage and self-pity", you have already made yourself into something of a case study. One of the interesting things I noticed about your paragraphs in #139 is that it is based entirely on unsubstantiated characterizations. In that sense, you haven't given much cause for faith in your interpretations. Now, as we consider #142— —the best you can do is offer unsubstantiated generalizations, beat your chest, and play the victim. Ah, that explains it. Nebulous "liberals" from somewhere else; you are all their fault. Well, you make what decisions you make, NGM. At least we know what's important to you. Thanks for making the point. Keep tilting windmills, sir. You're such a victim. _____________________ Notes: "Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate". NYTimes.com. October 2, 2008. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html Heffner, Christopher L. "Ego Defense Mechanisms". Psychology 101. AllPsych Online. April, 2001. http://allpsych.com/psychology101/index.html
In 2004 instead of voting for john kerry a silver star & purple heart war hero you voted a AWOL bush in a time of natinal crisis & you vote in a man who cant make a sentence without fluffing his lines & or adding in them there caves or those evil dooers or those bad folks, all because the republicans made him out to be a coward, amazing, kerry a very intelligent man but no you want dick cheney & halibuton & bush & his oil men, you bought bullshit, liars, and imbeciles & con artists. You know if sept 11 happened in the uk instead of america & buckingham palace was targeted by a plane, the chances of the government in office ever being elected again this century would be zero we dont forget failure or idiots, the government would have even resigned my guess would be, and there party would either be disbanded or would become a joke party nobody voted for, but thats the uk.
Sorry to have to disagree with you, almost all of our current problems can be traced to Democratic Legislation, and Expansion of Government and Social programs, with out the means to pay for the expansion and underestimation of cost over run of those programs. Starting from FDR onwards, the Democrats want to be judged by their good intention, not the result, and good intention no matter how good that goes bad, are still bad, and are even worse because no one want to look at the intention in the first place, and find out that it really wasn't going to stay a good intention, in the long run. Social Security has become a catch all, with benefits for a whole host of people besides those who are retired. And those additions to the program along with the Government Borrowing the money out of the SS program have bankrupted the program, they are paying out the money as fast as they are taking it in. Medicare and Medicaid are in the same boat, the real cost compared to the estimated cost was 15 to 1, and they have expanded this programs way beyond the medical care for the Retired. The Democrats are the ones who instituted these programs, and the Democrats are the ones , who spent the Nations Moneys like drunken sailors on shore leave, and they have spent the nations moneys on credit by mandating these programs far beyond their original intent. But they have been joined by a shit load of Republicans, who are far from conservative,(American Definition), there is still a core of Conservatives in the Republican Party, as shown in the Vote for the Pork America is the Ass Bail Out, brought to us By the Democrats...Pelosi, Reed, and Barny Franks, who have just covered their ass, and that of their fellow thieves. They have done nothing to clean up the mess caused by them in rewarding the members of their party with choice assignments to the Fanny May and Freddy Mac, to skim millions in bonus's, by pulling a ENRON type accounting scandal, and making sure that they received their bonus's, and now are being placed in charge of the clean up, and guess what, the clean up isn't going to work, WHY? because they don't want it to work.
Well if kerry was running again & not osama i would probably vote democrat if i was american, but seeing osama is running & he had a muslim father & spent many a happy childhood in muslim schools in good old indonesia i would very reluctantly vote for mcain, even though i think he will start world war 3 with the russians though i do agree with his idea of starting a democratic league of nations i think that is a great idea get rid of the russians & chinese in debating loony countries like iran, burma, north korea, zimbabwe the cunts just block everything, if mcain give a quick timetable to get troops out of iraq he would win, but he seems hell bent on staying there, me i would let them all kill eachother, its there religon if there idea of religon is to blow eachother up let them be. There is to much hollywood acting in US politics, just to pass this bail out bill practically every day there was like 30 politicians gathered round the same microphone playing turns each to spin a line of bullshit into this one mike, in the uk it would be one person, its pure theatre in america. The root of the problem is the money wasted in iraq its undermining every aspect of american life, no country can afford to have a 100,000 troops in a warzone for 6 years, there has to be a get out plan, me i would put the sunnis back in charge & kick the shia leaders back to iran where they belong, the sunnis can supress the rest of the loonies.
You sure love to spin your wheels in a rut. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. I don't see myself as a victim of any kind. Not now, not ever. Well shit, that blows away about 2,000 words of your rant. If someone talks about something they have no way of knowing, and I call them on it, you call it condescension and a presumption of superiority. Hey, you fucking twit, I couldn't care fucking less what you think of me. You're wrong. You haven't even come close to who I am. You're so wrapped up in your canned bullshit that you don't even see what you've written. You're like a parrot. You repeat the same tired bullshit over and over and over and expect it to shine as fresh as the day it fell out of your ass the first time. It doesn't. Your parroted lines are just that. Tired. Buzz off asshole. I have better things to do than talk to someone who can't even think of a new statement to make. You're nothing but a re-run. Go talk that tired shit to one of your fellow parrots. Have a cracker Polly. If you ever DO want to open that snapped shut trap you call your mind and actually discuss something without parroting your typical rabid Liberal bullshit, then address a post to me. Otherwise, just continue to spout the same lines you have so far, for the millionth time. You're like used toilet paper. Full of shit and not really good for anything else. Eat your crackers and go talk your meaningless bullshit to another parrot.
I think that you are assuming reason rather than emotion guides people's choices. I'd like to think that is the case, but I'm often disappointed.
Yet another post with no content except insult of another poster. and another. and another. It occurs to me you may be under the illusion that you have some special expertise at insult, that we have not seen here before, worthy of display. I assure you that is not the case. I bet you haven't. Ever. Anywhere. Got a link ? An actual issue. I have seen some fairly major changes, at least they seem pretty important to me, occur as a result of one person rather than another being elected to powerful office. The Iraq War, for example, is unimaginable under an Al Gore administration. Likewise the establishment of the current Homeland Security bureaucratic monstrosity, and the partisan degradation of numerous Federal agencies. So the US is about three trillion further in debt than the worst that would be expected from Gore, and that would have covered the current bailout, even supposing Paulson's scam would have worked under less cooperative Federal oversight. So we are faced with real choice here, even if the best that can be expected is a muddled dealing with snowballing wreckage from the last real choice. The worst that can be expected is quite a bit worse than that.
(chortle!) Nobody will ever come close to whatever the hell it is you imagine yourself to be. Poor you. Let us know when you're ready to have a real discussion.
I think the Dems would be happy to be judged by the results from FDR to Reagan. I'm not so sure the Reps would be as happy to be judged by the results from Reagan on.
Sorry, but you don't read too well. The majority of Americans did not vote for George Bush the first time and the second time is questionable. I don't know how I can say that in any simplier terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Nearly the majority voted for Bush, we are talking at least 49% of Americans are so stupid they would die from drowning in a rain storm if told to look up with their mouths open. The other 51% of americans we know are on average not that much smarter.
iceaura: Yet another post with no content except insult of another poster and another and another. Man, you're deep. Obviously your too much into yourself to even realize that you just did exactly what you accuse me of. Did your folks have the same parents or are you naturally stupid? It occurs to me you may be under the illusion that you have some special expertise at insult, that we have not seen here before, worthy of display. I assure you that is not the case. I sure haven't seen anything original from you. Tell whoever is reading this for you to keep reading. I have more information about you below. I bet you haven't. Ever. Anywhere. Got a link ? Yeah, you're original alright. Still nothing from you but insults. Sound familiar, jerk-off? An actual issue. I have seen some fairly major changes, at least they seem pretty important to me, occur as a result of one person rather than another being elected to powerful office. The Iraq War, for example, is unimaginable under an Al Gore administration. Al Gore? Are you living is some sort of time warp? Al Gore? That's hilarious. An Al Gore Administration.....What a laugh! Thanks man, it just went from deep bullshit to fantasy. How old are you kid? Likewise the establishment of the current Homeland Security bureaucratic monstrosity, and the partisan degradation of numerous Federal agencies. Now I love that sentence. When people use statements like that, it's because they're trying to impress someone with their vocabulary. It's not important to you to form a sentence that actually conveys a point, just that you can use a couple of great big ole words. Well Golllllly, Goober, you done used a mouthful thar! Well shuckins, weuns down here hardly ever git to hear big city folk use them thar biggin words. Dude, you are so full of shit, your eyes are brown. Please, I can figure out what you mean to say about the HS setup, but you'll have to explain what you mean by "partisan degradation of numerous federal agencies". What exactly is it that you think "partisan degradation" means? Hmmmmm? Come on Goober, splain dat to me. I'll try to quit laughing at you long enough to read your explanation. I can't wait. The last time someone said something like that within my hearing, it was in a little store in Kentucky. One of the local toothless wonders was telling his buddy about the city. During the story, he used about twenty words that were unnecessary and didn't really mean squat. Much like you do. So the US is about three trillion further in debt than the worst that would be expected from Gore, and that would have covered the current bailout, even supposing Paulson's scam would have worked under less cooperative Federal oversight. Oh for fucks sake man, you're still playing with yourself about Gore? Get over it man. Stop dicking around with the past and tell me specifically what you would do to repair what problems you see now. So we are faced with real choice here, even if the best that can be expected is a muddled dealing with snowballing wreckage from the last real choice. The worst that can be expected is quite a bit worse than that. Man, you take that seriously fucked up statement and have someone translate it into English for me. This place is actually pretty fun. I expected to come in and have some serious discussions about current events and all I've found so far is Goober and the Twit both mumbling bullshit. I'm sure there must be at least one Liberal here that can make complete sentences with meaning and at the same time, present some sort of feasible argument about repairing the current problems as they see them. So far, none have done so. Just petty bullshit, name calling, harping on Liberal slogans and repetitious slams of the Republican party. I'm getting bored fast. Here's a challenge for you, Goober. Tell me with regular sized words that you actually understand, what you see as the top 3 problems facing the new Administration and how YOU would resolve those problems. No finger pointing. No name calling. No bashing of any groups. Just name the 3 top problems and what YOU would do to fix them. I'm betting that you can't keep it that simple. If you do manage to, you'll find that I'll respond in kind. If you again resort to your usual bullshit, I'll respond in kind. Get it?
You know, we aren't the ones that have to prove themselves to the public. I wouldn't want myself to be in charge of the country. It's not an ordinary job, and I don't want an ordinary person. Palin is trying to appeal to people for being folksy, not for being analytical. Until I see something like that, she deserves every criticism that has been made.
