How is murdering and thieving and torturing decent? Republicans are the indecent people. Liberals expose them for who they are. The real problem Republicans have with liberals is being exposed.
Yes. Swift Vets (lies), a Democratic "crossover" (vitriolic lies), and a call to respect the bigotry of "middle America". The truth is that people don't want "liberal crap"? That's their problem to admit. When the Constitution isn't good enough for people, what are we supposed to say? When truth is held to be un-American, and people endorse that idea, what is to be said of that endorsement? Why is it that people are expected to be nice to what seeks to hurt them? So liberals got beaten at the ballot box by a bunch of people who loathe the U.S. Constitution, equality before the law, peace among people, tolerance, and honesty. I also remember a time when people were supposed to be decent to one another. The turning point in politics comes from Lee Atwater (GOP man who is said to have regretted on his deathbed his actions in politics) and right-wing talk radio. Perhaps conservatives are tired of being called stupid, but I don't see what's praiseworthy about their behavior. All the 2004 election tells us is that bigotry has hardened in this country, and the bigots demand the respect of moral propriety. If folks don't like the tone of things, they shouldn't seek to perpetuate it. My question for "middle America" is simple: Why do you hate this country so much? What is so awful about truth, justice, and equality that the people would reject it? And it's not like the answer to such questions actually make sense. When that answer does make sense, then there's something to talk about. In the meantime, it is difficult to communicate with people who refuse communication. How long should liberals give conservatives their way? And when it all goes to shit, will liberals be held responsible for not doing enough to turn the tide? The fundamental nature of conservative politics is divisive. And now conseratives complain about division in the culture? It's what they wanted. So if it's somehow unfair to call dishonesty dishonest, then perhaps you have a point. You would propose that liberals undertake the new lie, that bigotry and self-destruction are the best course. That liberals "don't know what they're doing" is actually a hopeful sign, because what you describe is that liberals don't know how to roll over for falsehood and injustice. And frankly, somebody needs to stand up for America. How that came to be liberals, well, that's what this country's worth to conservatives. It always was true: liberals fight their fight in this country for the country. Conservatives fight their fight for themselves and screw the rest. How much would you like us to coddle the dishonest? And I do see that last note in your post, Counsler. You just happen to raise the issue in a manner that reflects very clearly the tenor of conservative politics. Ten years ago, your tone would be considered sarcastic, and the larger point to be drawn from your post would be to chuckle affectionately and trust that other people get the point. The current tone, however, omits that nod and wink, and as far as any liberal can tell from talking with conservatives, we're supposed to take such points literally. Then again, as you point out, liberals do answer to a higher standard. Caring about people who can't care for themselves is part of what we do, but I do admit we're puzzled by this growing obligation to care about people who simply don't feel compelled to give a damn about themselves, or who go so far as to be resentful toward anybody who gives a damn about them. It's almost like conservatives are saying, "Here, go whack off with this paradox while we wreck the place even more." So what would a liberal who knows what the hell they're doing look like to you? Advocate special rights for white male heterosexuals? Advocate Christianity as law? Tell the people whatever they want to hear, even if it's a lie? Promise what cannot, according to the Constitution, be delivered? Perhaps we could jump on the Bush bandwagon of oath-breaking. After all, Bush is not prepared to protect and preserve the Constitution until it is amended to his satisfaction. The truth is that conservatives are tired of America. Perhaps they should consider doing something about it that doesn't involve wrecking the place for everyone.
I have a hangover this morning; I knew that you, Tiassa, would be the sole responder to my post. I jumped from my bed, slapped my forehead (bad idea), and said "Shit! Tiassa! Respond to my post!" I said it like that. Its caveman speak. It means what it says. I haven't had my morning tea, yet. It's not even morning anymore, I missed morning by twenty minutes. And I wanted to wake up this morning and watch Good Morning America because that guy from that show, Desperate Housewives, was going to be interviewed. And I really like that show, don't you like Desperate Housewives? It is America's best new comedy this season. Anyways, on to your questions and... You know what? Maybe I should post an article for you to read. It seems more appropriate. Only gibberish is coming from my keyboard this morning, and you have written to me an article that is typically found on the New York Times op-ed page. I have an article for you. I hope you can take certain aspects of it into consideration and understand the ideas that I'm trying to convey by posting this article. I don't want to force my opinion on you; I just want you to understand why I hold that opinion. You don't have to believe it. You may even disagree on it, but hell, I have a hang over and you just want to hurt my head more. http://www.americandaily.com/article/3333
It's not about hurting your head. I did two beers and two mind-erasers last night. The latter was still in my bloodstream when I typed that. And yes, that's a bitter article. If that's in any way representative of America's bitch-list against Democrats, all I can say is, "I wonder when this nation pussified? After all, people always say Democrats will turn America into a big pussy, so how is it that the Dems are in the doghouse when America spreads its legs and says, 'Meow'?" For instance, my partner thinks I'm a liar because I don't tell her how I feel. Specifically, if I tell her what bugs me, we go 'round and 'round about how I have no right to feel that way. So when it comes up, then I'm simply "Fine. Don't worry about it." This is apparently dishonest, and why not? After all, it doesn't represent the truth. However, how is it that I'm supposed to answer for that? After all, one day she comes home and tells me she just got laid on the floor of a restroom at the local bar where she goes after work every day. Every day people buy her drinks and flirt with her. At least, that's what she tells me insofar as she's left with few excuses. "I don't know why I went to the bar, but it turned out to be a good thing ...." So one day in the middle of an argument, she complains that she has no life, that parenthood has taken her social life. I mentioned that I would kill for a shag in a restroom right about now, at which point she goes off about what a liar I am and how that never happened, and how she never said anything about it, and they were only ever kissing, and .... If only she sucked as much as Desperate Housewives .... It's not that I don't believe the article, Counsler, it's just that I'm rather quite stunned that this is what people have against the Democrats. Hell, the whole Zell Miller speech and the F-15 argument alone top that entire list. Y'all got conned. But y'all wanted to. I don't mean to hurt your head, but really--suddenly the classic dialogue of politics that we're all supposed to filter out is problematic for y'all? When did this nation turn into a giant pussy? Seriously. Going to war on a lie is not a big deal. Character assassination shown to be historically groundless is a good thing? And suddenly this oversensitivity somehow justifies the idiocy or compares to the dishonesty of the Republicans and their causes? It would seem you're trying to cause my skull a little pain. I don't know how to take you seriously on this point. Toughen up. The Dems reach their points of argument the same way your article author reaches his. It's part of the standard background noise of American politics. Would you give a lung-cancer patient some Robotussin for that nasty cough and just send him on his way?
Tiassa: I have something against the Republicans, too. I just haven't stated it yet. Is that me lying or omitting certain truths? You know what really pisses me off? John McCain. Not McCain in general, but what Bush did to him. A whisper campaign about Vietnam. McCain could be President right now, wouldn't that be awesome? And as for Zell Miller... Are you forgetting that he's a Democrat denouncing the Democrats? Or do you think he's a Republican? You have, in that instance, a Democrat insulting other Democrats. When John Kerry started crying about his Vietnam experience. Dishonesty of the Republicans? Dishonesty of the Republicans? As Mike Tyson would say, that's ludicrous (And we ain't talkin' about a rap group—like Jadakiss who says that Bush knocked down the towers). Let's talk about the draft and how that issue has suddenly been dropped. Could it be that the Democrats started talking about the draft to scare young people into voting for Kerry? Could it be that it was dirty politics? Maybe, I don’t really know. But it looks damn suspicious to me. You want to talk about Democrats; I don't really place much of the blame on them. I blame the liberal/conservative elites of this country. Someone like Cameron Diaz goes on Oprah and just mentions that "If you think rape should be legal, don't vote." What the fuck? You liberals have to keep your stars in check, just like how conservatives keep the Dixie Chicks in check. Get them to shut the hell up so that you can run a clean campaign without them. Really, I look at this issue as America’s issue, not Republican or Democrat. When it gets down to it, what we really need to do, and I am really serious about this; tell people to shut the hell up. You have a point, Tiassa, and you hit it right here: It fucking sucks. I know. I want dignity and fairness; but in the world of Fox, CNN, and Cops, people want cussing, fighting, insults, sex, slang, gangster rap, McDonalds and all that shit. My head no longer hurts, but it’ll hurt tomorrow. Cheers to you.
Not to me. A draft remains a good possibility. Even McCain is now all but calling for one (to paraphrase him, “We need tens of thousands more troops!”). Fat chance Bush’ll get enough volunteers to be cannon fodder, and the draft within the military is at the breaking point. I read the article you posted. The argument therein was weak. In the weeks before the election I spent time on military.com to see how the most conservative conservatives think. Mostly they focused on petty things, almost completely unable to see that their side was no better in that regard, just like the article. They all but ignored the larger picture wherein Bush is a war criminal.
Actually, I think Zell Miller is an excellent example inasmuch as we see how sleazy a Democrat must be in order to satisfy Republicans and "middle America". Remind me again, when was that? Ah, right. In other words, the solution is to shut down political discourse. Why am I not surprised? While I thank you for that acknowledgment, it doesn't much answer the issue. To look at statements from two posts of yours: Yes, the dishonesty of the Republicans. To start with, as long as people endorse the "background noise", it will persist. But if you think the "background noise" in any way compares to the lies of the Swift Vets, the disparagement of truth in America, the prosecution of a war on a lie ... I don't know what to tell you. Go to a car dealer. That he points out the gas mileage and the horsepower without mentioning the rollover danger is what we expect. If, however, you say, "Is that a bomb ticking in the backseat?" and he says, "This vehicle will not explode, and that is not a bomb," and then the car explodes in both your faces, are you going to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and say, "Do you have it in green?" Look, all I'm after is that there are the lies we are used to, and then there is the current escalation. Arguing about economic numbers is often the lie of half-truths, for instance. Bush pushes his job numbers, but they're mostly federal jobs--something that Republicans generally claim to have a problem with. What, because it's their man, suddenly what was foul is now right and proper? Exaggerating Bush's guard duty? Admittedly, if the administration hadn't made an issue of it early on, reporters wouldn't have been so determined to fry him with it. But none of it compares to how the GOP conducted it. Mere criticism was considered hateful. Pointing out reality was "hateful" because the reality was unkind. And the political equivocation held that this "hate" was equal to the hate of lying about a man in order to execute a 30-year grudge. Who really thinks these are the same things? Doesn't look nearly as suspicious to me as exploiting the stop-loss policy to an unheard-of degree in order to maintain the line that there will be no draft, while simultaneously understaffing the warriors you have in place overseas. And you know, if Cameron Diaz is representative of liberalism, how far do you want the other side to go in representing conservatism? After all, an odd little rule asserted for discussions online, Godwin's Law, generally prevents fair comparisons. Like that Goering quote. The comparison to Bush is called hateful not because it's false, but because it's harshly criticizing. That Bush is following that advice to the letter, apparently, is irrelevant. So ... yeah. If someone thinks Cameron Diaz is so powerful that it scares them, well, who gave Cameron Diaz that kind of power? I mean, it's not like she ran for California governor, or the Dems are talking about amending the Constitution on her behalf. I agree that it's America's issue, but leaving at that accomplishes yet another political equivocation. There's a difference between the background noise of politics and what the GOP did this year. Remember that Zell Miller was only reiterating what the GOP was already pushing for talking points. Remember that the GOP didn't want to discuss the reasons for Kerry's vote. Remember that the editorials of the day called the defense spending Kerry voted against "bad for the military". And remember that Dick Cheney himself sat before Congress and explained why the programs in question should be terminated. What did the American people miss? One man voted against a bad bill. The other, with no bill to vote on, sat before Congress and said why the F-15's (that Miller would later say defended New York) should be terminated. As to McCain? Even his darker conservative side doesn't bug me that much because the man knows the limits of his offices. What disappoints me about McCain is that he just sold his credibility. He had the chance to be honest before the election, and chose to play cabin boy to his party. That's really sad. I would love to hear him answer the question of why he wants the troops, for and with whom he has such great sympathy, to continue serving under a Secretary of Defense that he has no confidence in. What Bush did to him is over and done with, just like what the GOP did to the country in 2000 is over with. What McCain does to himself, well, that's a day to day drama.
Tiassa, while I agree with most of what you're saying... Oh, I agree. They have been dishonest to a point, but so have the Dems. That's what I'm getting at. While I agree with this statement, it is also a faulty one. People don't endorse it, they respond to it. The conservatives and the liberals throw things out into the wild and we talk about them at work, school, and home. I'm not endorsing it, I'm responding to it. Indeed. There are the lies that we all get, that we know are lies and that we don't respond to. What we do respond to are the false lies and the big lies and the misunderstandings. And then we go out, like we have all the facts, and spew our opinions at everyone and act like jackasses. No. Bush might have talked about his guard duty, but the dems felt it necessary to comment it on it over and over again, much like Kerry's Vietnam War record. I question the logic of a person who uses something that happened thirty years ago to run for President (The same goes for Bush). Cameron Diaz is a moron. I guess I didn't state it clearly enough: she makes liberals look like dumb asses. It is. McCain is my ideal candidate. If only he would have ran with Kerry. It's odd that my Microsoft word capitalized the word "War." I wonder why that is?
Zanket: Sounds like most of the liberals problems, too. Some of them are a little to thick headed, ya know?
Part of my political theory about what's wrong with the Democrats is that while Bill Clinton had success striking back at his critics, Bill Clinton was, well, Bill Clinton. Gore can't do it. Lieberman? Ha! Daschle, Gephardt, Dean, Kerry ... it betrays their auras. Edwards? He's sharp, but people don't seem to care. We'll see what comes. But in the end, the Democrats look really awkward when they play the sleaze game with the right wing. They should choose their own road, not let the GOP lead them along by the nose. And that's one of the reasons the GOP is generally responsible for lowering the bar. In my life I've watched the public respond affirmatively to Reagan's disrespectful bullsh@t, the Atwater school, the Gingrich revolution, the rise of right-wing talk radio to a national sensation, and of late the Rove School of politics. How I long for that charming condescension that Reagan flipped with such ease. It seems so small now, not nearly the disappointment of principle and integrity I remember from my youth. Seriously, I thought Reagan was a dick on top of everything else. And that's how he managed to do the things he did. It's like this current war; how Poppy comes out of this looking so clean is a testament to Junior's presidency. And the whole time, the Democrats have responded, and the GOP has said, "Aren't we all tired of this yet?" And then the people said, "Sure we are. Let's take it out on the Democrats because the GOP says they started it!" And the Democrats never learn. That's why the GOP hated Clinton, because he could call their hand and take them to the cleaners. But who else in the party can do that? Need the Democrats respond to the Bush dynasty with an attempted Clinton dynasty? Dear heavens, no. But each escalation is by the GOP. And the people claim to hate it. And then they latch onto it and respond affirmatively. After a while, they look like either liars or idiots. "Don't say you hate it. You love it. I can tell because you keep voting for it." And that, beyond the Democratic Party itself, is the secret of the appearance of liberal contempt for the masses. They're puzzled. They have no clue how to talk to people who don't want to listen. And how many people vilify liberals because of the Reagan-era transformation of the word into a curse? Yet as the litany goes, liberalism itself is responsible for most social progress. If the world were left to conservatism, we might still be feudal. The Dems get caught up in the dog and pony show, responding to each GOP escalation. The problem is that they claim a higher integrity. They ought to show it. Of course, that takes time to make the point, so in the end what the Dems need to do is focus on Congress, run firebrand candidates who have an outside chance at best for the presidency, and not worry about the scoreboard in the short term. If over the course of two decades they don't make their point clear, the country will probably come apart, anyway. In the meantime, if they pull it off, the people will see the repeated cycle of who's zooming who, and the GOP will be forced to humanize. And that's how you use the Democrats to save America from itself. In Oregon, as an example, the gay marriage backlash started when county officials (Multnomah, I think, but don't hold me to that) decided to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Conservatives called it bypassing democracy. Reality describes it as following what legal precedent you have: no prohibition, no reason why not, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. What the people have conceded to is the idea that they need to approve or disapprove of what is, technically, already standing. The dialogue lacks that point. Liberals dropped the ball. They need to stop responding to needle-narrow conservatism and start demanding useful dialogue. It is disappointing that Dems lie, but people demand to be charmed no matter how much they pretend to despise car salesmen and the like. In my lifetime, the "lies" of politics have gone from a general tone of the inherent dishonesty of salesmanship all the way up to claiming truth is un-American and legitimizing a repeatedly-debunked, decades-old grudge. And at each transformation, each lowering of the bar, the GOP has led the charge. We may be approaching a philosophical nexus in the next few years at which people actually will bank on the honest guy. Generally, though, an honest politician comes off as too wishy-washy to win office. Imagine that: Careful consideration is reviled in the administration of our civil affairs. How the hell did people come to think like that? But you and I know that the more honest a politician is, the less success s/he finds. The people keep sending the snake-oil salesmen to office. Is it really a scapegoat ritual at large? Are we really sending people we dislike to office in order to have someone to hate? They never should have mentioned it inasmuch as they never should have pulled the stunt with the carrier, which is when the administration revived the talk about Bush's guard record. As for Kerry's war record, well, that's the problem of public opinion polls. All indications seemed to point toward the people wanting someone with military experience. And as far as MS Word goes ... who knows? Flip a coin between oversight and intentional horsepucky. The industry has a weird sense of humor.
hey i was wondering in his elistment campaine moore mentioned that one seneter HAD a child over there and i was wondering who he was, what side of the fence he is and what he as said about the war. has he been surportive or critical of it. also to be really calouse is the kid still alive
That's what I implied, the liberals are no better than the conservatives in regard to the petty things. But in the larger picture, Kerry is not a war criminal like Bush is. This the conservatives ignore.
Asguard I'm looking around for that one; my copy of the film is with somebody else at present. In the meantime, check out what qualifies as "deceit" according to a Moore critic. As I understand that argument, the audience is too stupid to understand words and sentences; that one must pay specific attention to Moore's words is apparently too much to ask of someone slobbering for a chance to bash their favorite hated fat man.
ummm so?????????? if there is only one child of a member of congress serving IN iraq then there is only one child of a member of congress serving in iraq who gives a toss if the kid is an officer of an enlisted man. just because there are 6 more who "could be" called up doesnt really change the fact that one is hell after stating all that the site didnt even say if it was still one "person" in iraq or not which to be cinical leads me to assume that there is only one kid over there and the rest are over in the states
I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was good, but too sarcastic and too bent on being funny at times. Hijacking Catastrophe, which was about much the same thing, was vastly better.
It took me a long time to see it, I waited and waited. I was busting to see it because I wanted to see Mikey take Bush apart. When I did see it here (in Australia) it was with a particularly erudite Canadian friend who was visiting. She pointed out that it was basically a polemic. She was right. As much as I wanted to sit there with my jaw dropping at the exposure of the corruption in Bush's White House that warning about it being polemical kept ringing in my ears. And so it was basically preaching to the converted. If Mikey wants to change minds he's going to have to get past the converted and get to the convertibles Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and work really hard to win them over. A good, satisfying, polemical blast might get him Palmes d'Or or Oscars but if he really wants to do good he will try to reach those people in the middle who vote and who can make a difference. But I suspect he has been seduced by the liberal elites The baseball cap with the dinner suit isn't a good look. One or the other Mikey so we know you better.
I heard something a long time ago about how the criminals on COPS do not get punished or get reduced punishment if they allow themselves to go on TV. Can anyone help me verify this, maybe get a location for this information. Thanks much
Micheal Moore is too influential for me, I used to be a bush basher, but now I couldnt care less about politics, it has put me right off the point. ...Good work micheal moore ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Gambit Star: so if someone can actually infulance someone elses opionion then that means you should reverse YOUR opionion to balance it???????? how the hell does that make sence???? that is what lanuage is all about, that is what this SITE is all about. Making other people think about your point of view and vice versa in order for a greater spread of ideas. If you honestly think that being able to make people think is a bad thing why do you post HERE???? your trying to do the same thing, get your message across
Gambit Star said that he was put off by Michael Moore. Meaning that he doesn't like politics anymore because Moore made a shit film that sucked and really just made him come to the conclusion that all politics suck. That's why you should learn how to read. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
