 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Liberal hate
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 08:32 AM Comment is invited on the following: "Then I wrote about Stephen Colbert and his unfunny performance at the White House correspondents' dinner. Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 -- a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley ("You wouldn't know funny if it slapped you in the face") and ended with Ron ("Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER") who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you're a genius ... But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated. The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801323.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 08:33 AM Also from the same "If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation." Tell me again the difference between the Far Right and the Far Left? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,Guam Date: 09 May 06 - 08:45 AM Politics shouldn't be looked at as opposite ends of a stick. It should be looked at as a circle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: artbrooks Date: 09 May 06 - 08:47 AM Rude jerks are rude jerks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 08:50 AM Art, Agreed. The question now is whether the Far Right will destroy the Republican party faster than the Far Left will destroy the Democrats. Might actually be a good thing- We could use a good centrist party- McCain/Leiberman ticket? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 09 May 06 - 09:13 AM I have to agree with his analysis of how Nixon got elected,( but I'm not sure it prolonged the Vietnam war beyond what a centrist Democratic president would have done.) The Primary races will be where we will know if we Dems. are shooting ourselves in the foot again. On another thread, somewhere, Bill D. spoke of the unlikely hope that the Dems. will have a civil, positive primary instead of ripping each other apart. As I recall, he said it was the best hope for a significantly more moderate regime in Washington. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 09 May 06 - 11:39 AM Idiotic vituperation certainly does ot conform to party lines or even wings of the political spectrum. On this forum, by and large, the illogical spray of vituperation has mostly come from the right side of the spectrum, but certainly not entirely. Ihave gotten vituperative about Bush's idiocies a few times, and I can only plead extreme frustration at the corrosive influence he has exerted on our national solvency, spirit and goodwill internationally. Not to mention the erosion of freedom as a concomitant of "war" against a generalized planetary condition. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 09 May 06 - 12:41 PM "Liberal hate" is just another of those politically framed phrases. It belongs on a bumper-sticker if it belongs anywhere at all, certainly not in rational discourse. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 01:06 PM Hillary is working for Rupert Murdoch now. He's hosting a fundraiser for her in July. She's almost as good as elected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 09 May 06 - 01:09 PM Oooo!! Carol, are you sure??? :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 May 06 - 01:10 PM Murdoch is a threat to civilisation and democracy in the same style as Berlusconi, but more effective. If he is going to make Ms Clinton his puppet, then the invocation "God save America" had better be sincerely invoked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 01:15 PM It's true, Amos. Check it out... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12692606/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 09 May 06 - 01:47 PM hmmm...we shall see. I think there's more to hear about this relationship than that one article shows. If Hillary is at all involved or gives the appearance of being beholden to Murdoch, MUCH will be made of it by the pundits. and by the way, bruce---- HOW did you choose the title of your provocative little thread and what is it supposed to imply? It sure doesn't sound like it was just an interesting comparison of extreme views on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 09 May 06 - 01:53 PM Good point, Don... Actually when it comes down to it, the entire spectrum of the Bush administartion's thinking can probably be boiled down to about half a dozen bumber stickers... I've been behind cars that have 'um all... This is, IMO, why Bush continually shoots himself in the foot... He has biases and refuses to listen to other folks opinons... It's either his way of the highway so he surrounds himself with tiny circle of advisors with a tiny number of ideas... Anyone who has ever run a successful business knows this is a recipe for disaster.... Think the Texas Rangers or Harkin Energy here... Now I'm sho nuff no Clinton lover but he did spend a lot of time listening to the opinions of Republicans and met with the Republican leadership in Congress on a weekly basis... Maybe that's why the US didn't have all these screwed up thing happen to it during Clinton's term... Actually, when it come to down-right hatred aropund here I see alot more of if from the Bushite goons... They, like their leader, don't want to have disussions... They just want the progressives to shut up and will use any tactics to try to accomplish that task... I don't see these tactics being used by the progressives here... Oh sure, the get pissed off when I call them on their little ball games but, hey... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 01:53 PM Didn't you read the first post? "The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred" "The hatred is back." "That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 01:59 PM "Actually when it comes down to it, the entire spectrum of the Bush administartion's thinking can probably be boiled down to about half a dozen bumber stickers... I've been behind cars that have 'um all..." I see the liberal ubermenscc are at it again. A pity you did not bother to read the text of the first post, Bobert and Don. "Actually, when it come to down-right hatred aropund here I see alot more of if from the Bushite goons... They, like their leader, don't want to have disussions... They just want the progressives to shut up and will use any tactics to try to accomplish that task... I don't see these tactics being used by the progressives here..." Again, the point of this posting by a liberal writer was that the Left is busy destroying any chance of making any difference in the next electio- BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Digital Lynch Mob By Richard Cohen Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Page A23 Washington Post, for those too holy to bother reading before commenting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: M.Ted Date: 09 May 06 - 02:10 PM The Democrats lost because Bobby Kennedy was dead, and there was no other peace candidate with acceptance outside of the peace movement. Humphrey , as LBJ's VP, he couldn't credibly run against his own boss's foreign policies, so the "peace" vote was lost--Even at that, Nixon, who had a "secret peace plan", nearly defeated himself, and ended up with fewer votes than he'd gotten in 1960, and was saved by third party canditate George Wallace who pulled conservative voters from the Democrats(sounds funny to say that today)-- Vietnam was the Democrats war, and the party was split because it was a disaster. This time around, it is the Republican party that is split by a war. Oddly enough, the conservative Democrats who stood by LBJ are now the conservative Republicans who now stand by Bush--and, just like then, they feel angry and alienated by their party-- If we use the 1968 election as a bellwether for this next one, the years ahead may be bleak indeed-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 02:12 PM Amos, Thank you for your reasonable post. I was looking for a discussion of this, not the usual anti-Bush rants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 02:14 PM Oddly enough, the conservative Democrats who stood by LBJ are now the conservative Republicans who now stand by Bush They can change their party but they can't change their stripes, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 09 May 06 - 02:20 PM Well, *I* read it, and I saw the words Cohen used, and he didn't say "Liberal hatred"....that was your formulation. Cohen did not even specify that he thought all his emails were from Liberals. The fact that some people are hung up on Colbert, (whom I don't care for much) is interesting, but says little about the larger picture. I think if you are going to 'invite comment' in such an ambiguous manner, YOU should tell us...clearly... what YOU think it all implies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: number 6 Date: 09 May 06 - 02:25 PM A country brimming with 'Hate'?? sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 02:38 PM Fine, BillD. I will request that the thread be renamed "Liberal Lynch Mob" My opinion is that the Liberals are doing their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I consider Richard Cohen to usually be wrong, and was surprised at his earlier article about Stephen Colbert. It seemed reasonable, and on a much higher moral standard than usually presented by liberals ( IMO). I was impressed. When he wrote this one, I wanted to find out what others thought. Amos had a good comment, and Bobert and Don showed that they had no idea what the post was even about. Do I get to ask about all the insulting references to conservatives throughout these threads now? Or are conservatives something less than human, as Bobert has stated in the past? Lesser animals who need not be treated as if they had rights or human dignity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 09 May 06 - 02:51 PM To be completely straight with you, BB, I found Colbert to be funny only in some places. But I found the underlying frankness of his barbs to be refreshingly honest, and I thought it was courageous of him to speak truth to power in so uninhibited a fashion. The two-talking-heads-of-Bush was actually funnier, as entertainment. But Colbert was miles ahead in what he was actually saying. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 02:56 PM Amos, A valid assesment, from your viewpoint. The previous article referred to was Cohen's comment " it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302202.html I have NO requirement for anyone to agree or disagree with Cohen's assessment- but I find the REACTION to be indicative of the major problem with the Left at this time. ANYONE, regardless of past views, who does not toe the PARTY LINE is apostate, and to be attacked. Seems like a brake to a free discussion of viewpoints and the merit of different ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 02:57 PM ( from the above ref.) "In Washington he was playing to a different crowd, and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 09 May 06 - 03:05 PM Cool your jets, BB. Richard Cohen says, first, that he didn't read all of his e-mails, and secondly, he says that "the e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred." That's what Cohen says. I'm quite sure that there were a few who took him to task in less that polite terms, but he's presumably a journalist, and should be used to that. The main thing his column is whining about is that he got a lot of e-mails from people who disagree with him. Trying to characterize people who disagree with him as full of "liberal hate" (although it would appear that appending the word "liberal" as an adjective to the word "hate" was your idea), as if were some sort of irrational characteristic of all liberals is pure political posturing. So who's not reading what, here? The beauty of the Colbert stand-up routine is this: all through his tenure as president, Bush has been insulated from protests or from people expressing their opinions where he has to, if not actually take notice, at least be aware that not everyone thinks he's God's gift to American government. The establishment of "free speech zones" where protesters can demonstrate all they want, blocks if not miles from where Bush is, so he doesn't have to even be aware that it's going on, and his refusal to speak with Cindy Sheehan, are ample indications that Bush doesn't give a rat's ass for the opinions of American citizens. He doesn't want to govern. He wants to rule. So Colbert comes along and lays it on him in circumstances where he has to sit there and listen to it for a change. Bloody good for Colbert! Cohen has a hissy fit in his column, and gets a lot of e-mail from people who disagree with him. So he dismisses his readers' disagreement as "liberal hate." Although, once again, the use of the word "liberal" in this context seems to be more your idea. A lot of the current crop of conservatives simple can't stand to have people disagree with them, so they try to blow off criticism with some ad hoc epithet like "liberal hate." But here's a clue: criticizing the government is the traditional duty of the press. If the press won't do their job, then I guess it's up to stand-up comedians. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 03:12 PM Don, 1. Richard Cohen is hardly a conservative 2. He is a member of the press. His comment was the Colbert was rude- You may agree or disagree, but he has the right to make that value judgement. MY pupose was to see what others thought of Cohen's statements, that the worst enemy of Liberals were themselves.- OBVIOUSLY, you are part of the lockstep crowd who look on any critiscm of Bush as gospel. That is fine- but it does NOT tell me your opinion about Cohen's statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 09 May 06 - 03:26 PM Colbert was only rude in the most refined sense of the word. HE used no crude language, he gave no ad hominem slurs, and his setups, when he got them right, were well done. I enjoyed the film of his remarks a lot. I diagree with Cohen -- I think Colbertwas being, not rude, but boldly up-front with a kind of sarcasm that has a long tradition in political humor, and he made no jokes that Bush did not quite well deserve. If Bush is man enough to stand in a carpeted D.C. office and send American youth into battle, he's man enough to stand up to the worst Colbert has to offer -- you would think the former would be much harder to confront, to anyone of conscience. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 09 May 06 - 03:34 PM Well, I read the column and whereby I usually find a lot to agree with in Richard Cohen's columns this one seemed to be a toe-the-line, cut-your-hair & quit singin'-the-blues or face another loss... As a progressive, I feel that if the Dems can't come 'round from their Bushliteness then they deserve to lose the '06 election... It is their election to loose and as per usual they are going to do the best they can at doing just that... But if one looks historically at just how the Republican Party has gona about winning elections it has been from riling people up with red herring issues such as flag burning, abortion and gay rights and they do play on people anger very well... The NASCAR dads are a perfect example of very angry people who vote... The brownshirt goons here in Mudcat and outside of Mudcat are about as angry a bunch as I've even encountered... They are as bad and as angry as the rednecks who fought the civil rights movement in the south but guess what: they voted and still do so, hey, maybe the Dems are trying to piss off progressives thinking that Greens and Indpendants will be motivated to vote against the Repubs... Hey, it has worked for the Repubs who now have Southern Man in their posket inspite of the fact that Southern Man has been hurt bu the Bush policies??? Go figure??? Hey, if the Dems' looze 'casue the pissed off too many p0rogressive or loose 'cause they give in, at least there does seem to be an over change in their strategy towerd the formulas that have worked so well for the Repubs... And, hey, I've met this Webb guy in Virginia and though he ain't a Green, I could vote for him against George Allen whoes only attribute is that his daddy was the coach of the Washington Redskins... Other than that, George Allen hasn't shown me much as a leader... Loyal follower, yeah... But leader, no... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 03:37 PM Actually, Colbert wasn't rude at all. Even pointing out Bush's low approval ratings (the thing Cohen seemed to find the most rude in his original column), Bush himself made jokes about. I thought Colbert was very funny. But I'm not a "liberal", so I don't really have any perspective about whether or not "liberals" are their own worst enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 03:37 PM Thanks, Bobert. Other than the fact that we disagree about WHO the brownshirts here are, we seem to be seeing the same things |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 03:40 PM CarolC, "Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully." And your comments about the REACTION to Cohen's article? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 03:44 PM He wasn't a bully. He was far more gentle with Bush than the people who roasted Clinton were. But if he attends a "roast" (as the "roastee"), he should expect to get "roasted". Re: your question, I also notice that Cohen himself says he only read a small number of the reactions to his article. So I find myself taking anything he says about them with a large grain of salt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 03:45 PM I should rephrase this... But if he attends a "roast" (as the "roastee"), he should expect to get "roasted". It should read... But if Bush attends a "roast" (as the "roastee"), he should expect to get "roasted". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 03:50 PM "Usually, the subject line said it all. Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn't funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was -- as was most of the press, I found out -- George W. Bush's lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 06 - 03:50 PM Barbed commentary at the Press Awards is par for the course. Bush, et al, knew that, going in. (Besides which I suspect that dubya missed the significance of quite a bit of Colbert's jousting.) I thought that Colbert, funny or not, was swinging as hard as he dared and connecting as often as he could. In my opinion, he gave those present a number of points to think about. And as for being funny- Colbert may be a funny man but most of his stuff was funny only in being shocking. Even I cringed a little from time to time. I think that Colbert made his political position abundantly clear. If you noticed, upon leaving the podium he nodded to Bush, bowed to Ms. Bush and kissed Helen Thomas. What I liked best about the evening is that it reminded me that we still have a country where this kind of thing can still happen. Long may his ilk wave, so to speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 09 May 06 - 03:51 PM "Rude?" Well, BB, politics can get pretty rude. See Karl Rove. And your trying to dismiss what I wrote by characterizing me as "you are part of the lockstep crowd" is a shining example of exactly what I'm taking about. Pure political rhetoric which often contains little more that ad hominem attacks. Those who have something solid to say don't have to resort to that sort of thing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 03:57 PM Ebbie, And your take on the REACTION to Cohen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Metchosin Date: 09 May 06 - 03:58 PM Watching Stephen Colbert, my impression was his performance was not so much a roasting of Bush, Bush was just the prop, but a direct attempt to skewer the American news media. Well done. That some of are now squealing on the spit, liberal and conservative alike, is of no surprise, its about time they squirmed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 04:04 PM Metchosin, And your take on the REACTION to Cohen's comments? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 04:05 PM Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. This is hardly the same thing as spewing hate. Cohen seems to be trying to give the impression that "most" of them were hateful without admitting that he can't back up the claim that they were hateful. I think Cohen definitely has an ax to grind. Good point, Metchosin. Cohen was probably pissed off with Colbert for taking the press to task, which I though he did quite well (while at the same time being very funny). I suspect that Cohen is still pissed off about that. And my guess is that this is the reason for both of his columns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 09 May 06 - 04:17 PM Bruce--It doesn't sound like many here are understanding your question. I HOPE his assessment that we liberals and progressives will do ourselves more damage than good is incorrect. I FEAR, however, that he is right on the money. Seeing that most, though not all, people who have posted here so far have REACTED rather than responded only adds to that fear. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Peace Date: 09 May 06 - 04:21 PM Liberals, Conservatives, same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: M.Ted Date: 09 May 06 - 04:27 PM Colbert's fans are younger people, who watch cable, get most of their news from the internet, and don't subscribe, or pay a lot of attention, to newspapers. For that reason, even George W. Bush probably enjoys seeing Colbert do his routine more than Cohen does-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 04:32 PM MTed, And YOUR take on the REACTION to COHEN'S comments? Janie, I knew it was to much to ask for a reasonable discussion. But even in the face of virtual impossibility, some hope still persists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 09 May 06 - 04:37 PM But own up, Bruce--if you weren't anticipating a reasonable discussion, then what WERE you looking for:O) Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 06 - 04:44 PM I expected all the lockstep liberals to jump on the title, and pay no attention to the post at all. Amos surprised me- Bobert and Don did not. Actually, I did want a discussion. IMO, the next election is the Democrats to lose- they will find some way to insure that most people vote for the Republican ( whoever that is). But IF they won, they might have to actually deal with the problems of government, and I would be interested in what they plan to do- Hold to the path of Left Correctnes, or actually deal with the real world. As I stated, a centrist party/(McCain/Lieberman)would get half the Republicans, half the Democrats, and all the undecideds- and walk away with the election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 06 - 04:51 PM I'd like to note that I thought that dubya inviting his 'double' to stand beside him and speak out loud his (ostensible) thoughts was a brave thing to do. I've seen the double on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno many times and his portrayal of dubya is unflattering- and yes, rude. What do I think of the reaction to Cohen's columns? A couple of thoughts, I guess. As Cohen said, it appeared that most of the nasty stuff came from the same blogospheres. (A good many of them may have been Jerry Springer fans, too!) If a website mocks a person or an event and urges its readers to blanket the person with emails the response can inundate the address. Which is why many people - candidates, politicians of all stripes, newspeople - don't pay much attention to blanket emails, giving far more weight to individuals writing their own thoughts. I sometimes lose track of the fact that the numbers of readers in the world of the internet are mindbogglingly huge. If only three people, say, in each town or city of the Western Hemisphere read any given column and wrote the author, the response would be overwhelming. I dunno. I tend to think of the 'far right' as being the illiterate, (I say 'illiterate' by the way, because in my opinion one of the hallmarks of liberal thinking is the desire to see all people be able to read and think and communicate. So there.), rude, hate-spewing, one-size-fits-all, black versus white crowd. I may be wrong. We do know that there is a lot of hate in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 09 May 06 - 04:51 PM Bruce: We don't seem to have any concrete data on the reaction to Cohen's remarks. He refers to a lot of email he hasn't read as being full of hate, which seems...premature, to say the least. I woudl think he would want to read it before he characterized it in sweeping, emoitional terms. Such being the case, I imagine ther eis a bell curve of reactions -- a small number agreeing fully, a small number disagreeing vehemently, and a large number agreeing or disagreeing mildly. Maybe he should submit it to the Supreme Court...from what I saw of Justice Scalia, he was laughing heartily at Colbert's "Sicilian" gestures. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 09 May 06 - 04:53 PM and all the undecideds They wouldn't get this "undecided" (me). McCain and Lieberman are far too beholden to the corporate and other special interests who gave us the debacle in Iraq to get my vote. I would probably have voted for McCain in 2000 if he had gotten the nomination, but he has let me down and now I don't trust him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 06 - 05:41 PM Oh, I forgot - I also wanted to note thata great many of the responses that came from any given blogosphere in all likelihood had not read the columns or even seen the Press Awards show but had read ONLY the blog's take on it. Which is another reason that mot much value is put on such 'opinion'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 09 May 06 - 05:59 PM My take on the REACTION to Cohen's comments is that it was a VERY heavily biased sample ....mostly of those who LOVE seeing Bush skewered and have a pretty strange notion of 'humor'. I do NOT think it represents a good sample of your average Liberals. Most liberals were probably more amused to see Bush actually have to sit & listen to what so many are coming to believe, than they were at the actual routine. Oh....I would MUCH rather have seen Jon Stewart do the roast for similar, but 'funny' remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 09 May 06 - 07:08 PM I saw the clip of Colbert's routine. It wasn't much different from dozens of similar comedy routines I've heard in which Bush is the subject. What made it a double-barrelled snort is that Bush had to sit there and listen to it. If Cohen thinks it was "rude," well he has a right to his opinion. Do I hate Bush, BB? You make a lot of assumptions about people. No, I don't hate Bush. I think he's closed-minded, agenda-driven (the agenda fed to him by his puppet-masters), and generally incompetent. He's a lousy president and history will judge him as one of the worst. I can give you a whole litany of reasons, both domestic and foreign, why that's the case, but you already know them, even though you are not willing to accept the obvious. But do I hate him? No. I can't think of anyone I actually hate. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: michaelr Date: 09 May 06 - 07:19 PM ...the next election is the Democrats to lose Yep, and they will if they run Hillary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 09 May 06 - 08:45 PM Well, they won't run Hillary, michael... Even thje Dems recognize that she is too much an inside the beltway'er...Insdide the beltway'ers just don't win the White House these days... I'm seein' an Edwards/Warner ticket, maybe Edwards/Richardson to pick up a couple Sotheast states.... But take it to the bank... No Hillary... Even the dumbass Dems ain't that dumb... They won't evn have her on the ticket at all... No Edwards/Clinton... Heck, why do the Dems need a Senator from New York on the ticket??? They don't... They need to bust the Southern Strategy if thay have any chance to win and that means stack the ticket with Southerners... The blue states are going Dem anyway so why Clinton??? Politics 101... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: M.Ted Date: 09 May 06 - 10:02 PM Sorry, Bruce, I forgot--I think that Cohen is being sanctimonious, and and a bit dishonest--those columnists love it when they get a box full of email--I think Colbert is funny--even when he makes fun of my side--and I think most of the people who wrote him just think Colbert is funny, and thought he was a jerk for busting on him-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 09 May 06 - 10:12 PM Regardless of the likely bias of the sample of those who e-mailed, Cohen is drawing attention to what could be a very real problem for the Democrats if we are not mindful of it. It has happened enough times before! And those who bother to blog and e-mail political sites are also more likely to vote! And this current Administration and their ilk are as dangerous as Hitler, IMHO. I know that is pretty extreme, but all the evidence points clearly in a rigorously fascist direction. If you have not read Charlie Savage's article in "The Boston Globe" revealing Bush's incredible end-runs around Congressional law (and the constitition) with his unprecedented use of signing statements, read it now, or catch today's edition of "Fresh Air on NPR. Even if a more progressive Republican regime were voted in, they still have to account to the neo-cons, and would only slow this country's slide in that direction, not halt or reverse it. Given the number of votes that progressive third parties like Bobert's "Greens" and progressive independents will draw away from the Dems., it is particularly important that Dems. understand even during the primaries that we are all on the same team. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 09 May 06 - 10:17 PM Come on, folks, Bruce is just mad that his beloved leader was stupid enough to participate in something like that and was obviously clueless about the stuff Colbert had thrown at him. Nor do I find Cohen particularly liberal, that's Bruce's touch again. Don't let him draw you into this non-issue. Bush once again made bewildering, willing fool of himself at a time when he desperately needs to show people he's serious. It was incomprehensible that Bush would dare come up with something this bizarre as his way of reaching out to America in a time when the country is about to lynch him for killing 2400+ innocent Americans with many, many more on the way. There's nothing wrong with hate provided you know what you're hating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 09 May 06 - 10:29 PM Yeah, AR... Everyone allready knew that Bush was a regular guy... So why go to extremenes to point out his regular-ness??? These is some difficult times than need a cut above "regular guys"... Bad move on Bush's handler's parts.... That is what I have been sayin'... Bush suffers from not enough opinions... But that is very much his, or his daddy's, doin'... In ore ways than one... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 10 May 06 - 12:13 AM BB-- Do you have a transcript for what Colbert said at the correspondents' dinner? If not, you are just operating on what Cohen said--which makes your thread premise perilously close to hearsay. As BIll has pointed out, "liberal hate" is your own formulation--not Cohen's words. As such, it is (unsurprisingly) intellectually dishonest on your part. I have watched Colbert's show several times. Have you? His MO is an (excellent) parody of a "conservative" fire-eater. By exaggerating the Bushite attitude, he lampoons it--often deftly. You have no way of knowing if those who criticized Cohen's column will eventually vote Democratic or sit the next election out--and that is a far more significant question than real or imagined "rudeness". Cohen has to write columns. Columnists exaggerate--is this a revelation for you? I read the column. It was pretty feeble--didn't have the horsepower to leap to Cohen's conclusions. Well, even columnists have bad days. But as has been pointed out, he did get response--and they always like that. Possible subtexts: As other posters have suggested, Cohen didn't like Colbert's skewering of the press. Also, Cohen wants to be sure Bush invites him to the dinner next year. Mission accomplished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: M.Ted Date: 10 May 06 - 12:45 AM When a president's popularity is down in the Nixon numbers, his party pays the price--and Bush's party knows it. The next election, and the one after, will be a referendum on Bush--political pundits are bandying the term "Perfect Storm" about--there is anger out there, lot's and lots of it-- Janie brought up the inevitable comparison between the current administration and the fascists--remember what happened to them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: michaelr Date: 10 May 06 - 02:33 AM Hey Bobert -- I don't disagree with any of what you said except "the Dems ain't that dumb". I need to see proof that they ain't, cos I think they is. As for Colbert's performance, maybe the Brits are right in saying Americans don't get irony... I say he's a American hero. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 07:34 AM Ron, Read Janie's post. YOU have missed the entire intent of this thread. "Do you have a transcript for what Colbert said at the correspondents' dinner? If not, you are just operating on what Cohen said--which makes your thread premise perilously close to hearsay. As BIll has pointed out, "liberal hate" is your own formulation--not Cohen's words. As such, it is (unsurprisingly) intellectually dishonest on your part." Intellectually dishonest to want to know what people think about the premise that the Democrats will tear themselves apart, rather than take the easy win in the next election? You, sir, have a problem with comprehension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: M.Ted Date: 10 May 06 - 10:19 AM You can't tell people what to say, Bruce-you have a point of your own that you are trying to leverage people into agreeing with--ain't gonna happen-you're trying to make a point about liberals--wake up and smell the coffee! This is all about failure, corruption, and incompetence in the Bush administration--Liberals have nothing to do with the President's failure. In fact, as some have pointed out, they've played along with along with the Bushman, way too much-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Peace Date: 10 May 06 - 10:28 AM The failure and corruption M.Ted speaks about has been rampant in Washington for decades. And it hasn't seemed to matter which group was pulling the strings. It has certainly hit new levels under Bush (the national debt comes to mind), but the process has been going on for a heckuva long time. The buck stopped on Truman's desk. It seems to have been stopping there ever since. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 10:31 AM MTed, I DO NOT CARE about what Colbert said, or did not say. IT DOES NOT MATTER. I DO NOT CARE what percentage of the people emailing Cohen thought what. IT DOES NOT MATTER. I WAS TRYING TO DISCUSS THE PREMISE, PRESENTED BY COHEN, THAT "But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated. The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls." Is this really such a subtle point? Or are SOME of the Liberals here SO kneejerk and lockstep that they cannot understand? Amos has an excelent thread about people's opinion of Bush- THIS IS NOT IT. As for " you are trying to leverage people into agreeing with" I DO NOT CARE if you agree with me or not- I WANT TO KNOW ***OTHER'S*** OPINIONS ON THE THREAD TOPIC- "war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies." I think I can make a good guess at many people's opinions on Bush, any criticism of him, and any attempt to keep discorse on a polite level. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE THREAD TOPIC- NOR HAVE MANY OF YOU MADE THE ATTEMPT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 10 May 06 - 10:32 AM Well, MTed, the Bush folks have always had to have someone else to blame... This is the Karl Rove approach to all failures... I remember during the 1st term that they blamed Clinton for just about everything.. They rode that horse into the ground just as the pigs drove the horses into the ground in "Animal Farm"... Then came the 2nd term with scandals and failing policies under every rock and since they had worn out poor 'ol Clinton, Bush revived his daddy's ol' stratergy of making, ahhhhh, Intellegent people (intellectuals) the new boogie man de joir and that's seems to be the evolving stategy for the Bush folks... Even the skit with Bush playin' to be a dumb as is really is was kinda a pea-ender-the-shell reverse psychology attack on intellectuals... Yeah, Bush was sayin' to his base, "This is what them intellectuals think I'm like... Hahahah..." Very clever, if all yer tryin' to do is entertain folks who really aren't thet bright... Daddy Bush taught his boys well... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 10:34 AM "Seeing that most, though not all, people who have posted here so far have REACTED rather than responded only adds to that fear." Be afraid, Janie. Be VERY afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 06 - 10:46 AM and here you've neatly summed up the message of the Right, bb! :-) freda (not scared) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 10:49 AM freda, Have you bothered to read this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 10:55 AM "Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie - PM Date: 09 May 06 - 04:17 PM Bruce--It doesn't sound like many here are understanding your question. I HOPE his assessment that we liberals and progressives will do ourselves more damage than good is incorrect. I FEAR, however, that he is right on the money. Seeing that most, though not all, people who have posted here so far have REACTED rather than responded only adds to that fear. Janie " In case it is too much to ask that people posting actually try to READ the thread... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 06 - 11:29 AM Here is one answer: Whence It Came "This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell? "At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails. "Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head. "P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush." "Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 10 May 06 - 11:52 AM Hello? Fellow Liberals & Progressives? I don't participate much in the political discussions here, but I think about this stuff alot, and I vote. I continue to think Bruce (and Cohen) are raising an issue that is important for the Dems. to address (even if it is a bad example--I don't know--I don't know Colbert or Cohen from Adam--no TV.) Not all Democrats are liberal Democrats. The majority of those who vote in presidential elections in this country (I think) are pretty moderate. If Democrats in general, and liberal Democrats in particular, do not take care to modulate the differences within our ranks, but instead rip each other apart in the national media and on the trail of the primaries, then the Democratic nominee, and Democratic candidates for Congress, will not garner the swing votes and otherwise third party votes that will be needed to win both the Presidency and Congress. Keep in mind that MOST people in this country who are eligible to vote--DON'T vote. Keep in mind, also, that we probably all tend to associate with like-minded people. We liberals, therefore, are probably not in a good position to judge how most moderates will perceive the choices. Also keep in mind that failing to listen and then RESPOND thoughtfully and intelligently to concerns of moderates and moderate conservatives is not likely to influence people to vote as we might like. Reactionary is reactionary--whether it is reactionary left or reactionary right. When the emotions get behind the wheel of the bus, the bus is liable to wreck. The emotions belong ON the bus--but not in the driver's seat. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: M.Ted Date: 10 May 06 - 12:39 PM Kneejerking and lockstepping are mutually exclusive, Bruce--you can't march in a lockstep if your knees are jerking--You have been listening to the empty rhetoric the right for so long that you actually think that it means something-it doesn't-- The idea that the Democrats are just hurting themselves by being angry at all things Bush is the last desperate ditch effort of a failed administration to silence it's critics. It is a bit like telling a lynch mob that they are only hurting themselves. Cohen's contention is wrong for a lot of other reasons--for instance, if only 38% of the populace identify themselves as Democrats( and an even smaller number of those as liberals) the 70% disapproval can't very well be "partisan politics", can it? No--the anger isn't coming from Liberal spin doctors--the anger is coming from those who bought the program-- Judging by the all of the anti-Hilary talk, she is the one that the right fear most--and they should fear her, because she can keep the 70% together-- As to Cohen, he's a Washington journalist--this essay was a bone thrown to the Rove team--The press do that, in exchange for access-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 12:48 PM kneejerk- "If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation." Lockstep- all running together in the same direction, regardless of where it leads to You are still missing the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 06 - 01:32 PM Bruce, have you followed my link? I'd like your ideas on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: John Hardly Date: 10 May 06 - 02:14 PM "The Democrats lost because Bobby Kennedy was dead, and there was no other peace candidate with acceptance outside of the peace movement. Humphrey , as LBJ's VP, he couldn't credibly run against his own boss's foreign policies, so the "peace" vote was lost--Even at that, Nixon, who had a "secret peace plan", nearly defeated himself, and ended up with fewer votes than he'd gotten in 1960, and was saved by third party canditate George Wallace who pulled conservative voters from the Democrats(sounds funny to say that today)-- Vietnam was the Democrats war, and the party was split because it was a disaster. This time around, it is the Republican party that is split by a war. Oddly enough, the conservative Democrats who stood by LBJ are now the conservative Republicans who now stand by Bush--and, just like then, they feel angry and alienated by their party-- If we use the 1968 election as a bellwether for this next one, the years ahead may be bleak indeed-- " I agree with much of this. I differ in the notion that conservative Republicans back Bush. They really never have. The most that can be said is that Bush successfully divided Republicans (as nobody before had) into conservatives -- as had always been defined that way, and neo-conservatives which are, in effect, pro-war liberals. :^) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 06 - 02:39 PM lol, John. Them's fightin' words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 10 May 06 - 02:50 PM gee, bruce...you need a new career-- interviewing politicians and asking them interesting questions, then TRYING to get them to answer the question you asked, instead of plugging in their favorite answers and changing the subject. You are working WAY too hard at asking a multi-layer question with embedded referential meanings. Most people, from professional politicians to press sectretaries to opinionated Mudcatters, would rather have a simpler, direct question..."Do you think that Democrats really ARE shooting themselves in the foot?" "Do you think Colbert's respondents represent an accurate cross-section?"...etc. You began by "inviting comment" and the C&P, and that's what you got. It took you half a dozen posts to clarify the direction you intended. Most folks read these posts FAST, whether you do or not, and you gotta make your intent clear. Even then, you really can't control someone wanting to bounce off at a different angle with THEIR concern about an event. You remind me of Cris Matthews trying to interview Trent Lott...*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 03:17 PM BillD I made the error of thinking that there were thinking people here. In all but a few cases, I have been proven wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 06 - 04:11 PM Ebbie, I did read to site. I don't agree with all of it, but understand the anger. Now, please let me know why you think that anger is worth losing the election over? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 10 May 06 - 04:39 PM BB, isn't it possible that what you and Cohen are assuming is anger and hatred is actually motivation, and that, far from liberals losing the next presidential election, this indicates that there is a substantial number of people in this counrty who are sufficiently fed up with the Bush administration and are eager to throw the bums out? It certainly shows that a lot of people tend to agree with the things Colbert was saying. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 10 May 06 - 05:00 PM I differ in the notion that conservative Republicans back Bush. They really never have. The most that can be said is that Bush successfully divided Republicans (as nobody before had) into conservatives -- as had always been defined that way, and neo-conservatives which are, in effect, pro-war liberals. :^) I agree with a lot of this. But I do know several "old school" (paleo) conservatives who backed GW Bush (and still do), because he was on their "team" and they felt he could win. For many people (on both sides, really), that is enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 10 May 06 - 05:28 PM " error of thinking that there were thinking people here." sorry, bruce, but that is condescending and verging on supercilious. If you take NO responsibility for a rocky start to your theme, then I suggest that castigating folks instead of just explaining is not likely to get them to bow to your superior wisdom. Try "I may not have made my point clear, let me try again...." As you may have noticed, a lot of people in here 'think' a lot. Sometimes they think faster than they read....that is not being stupid or inept, it is partly a function of internet hurrying. Not thinking in YOUR patterns is not a sin....and there are better ways to make your different views known. I submit that you may not have paused to absorb the entire thrust of MY earlier post...*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Greg F. Date: 10 May 06 - 05:52 PM Exactly right, Carol- a goodly number of the brain-dead view national and international politics as some sort of football match devoid of real consequances. They've never developed past the stage of pre-adolescence. Hence the state the U.S. is in today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 10 May 06 - 07:32 PM >>Also keep in mind that failing to listen and then RESPOND thoughtfully and intelligently to concerns of moderates and moderate conservatives is not likely to influence people to vote as we might like.<< You make it sound as though moderates don't think for themselves but only react to how they perceive liberals to be behaving towards them. That's actually quite insulting. I think moderates are intelligent enough to make up their minds about Bush quite apart from what anyone else thinks. If they have had enough of Bush, then they have had enough of Bush. If they have had enough of GOP scandals, then they have had enough--period. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of moderates at this point. Moderates have to vote their hearts and minds like everyone else. Do you care how moderates feel about you or act towards you when you vote for a president or do you vote based on how you feel about that person and what you believe that person stands for and can accomplish? I voted for Kerry not because I gave two shits what conservatives or republicans think of me, but because I wanted Bush out of there. This Congress is a disgrace and the bums have to go and I don't care if moderates or republicans or conservatives are with me or not. That is how I will vote. If they disagree, that is their right but they do not influence my vote in any way. And I think any moderate would tell you much the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 10 May 06 - 08:22 PM I ain't buyin' Cohen's line here... Every election cycle progressives gotta go thru this same ol' crap of being made the scapegoats of the Dems... Yo, DNC: Bite me... Yo, Richie Cohen: Bite me... In these 49/48/3% elections it would seem that the Dems would do a little courtin' an' less blamin'... Sure, we don't like Bush... But we don't like you being in bed with the corporatists either... Yer move and trying to make us the bad guys ain't gonna win nuthin'... Grow some friggin' balls... Bobert (Green and proud of it, gol danged it...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 10 May 06 - 08:42 PM Nice rant, Bobert! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 10 May 06 - 08:45 PM Thanks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 10 May 06 - 08:54 PM I note that BB has lumped me and a whole bunch of others together with what he considers to be "knee-jerk liberals." That shows how wrong one can be when trying to pigeon-hole someone in order to simply dismissing their opinion as not worth listening to. I used to be a conservative. Not a neo-conservative, but what some have characterized as a paleo-conservative. Then, I became a moderate. Recently I've been regarded as a liberal. And there are those here who, I am sure, consider me to be a flaming, knee-jerk, frothing-at-the-mouth liberal. Well, let me put it this way: my political/philosophical position hasn't really changed all that much. But the country has shifted way to the Right. And I know enough history, and can read the signs well enough to know where that's taking us. So if the fact that I object to many of the actions of the Bush administration makes me a "knee-jerk liberal" in the minds of some folks here, then so be it! Responding quickly to something does not necessarily mean that one is "unthinking." It may indicate that one has thought already. If I respond very quickly (to cite only one example of the many possible) when it's revealed that detainees are being tortured, and the president, instead of rising up in fury, putting an immediate stop to it, and prosecuting those who both authorized and committed the atrocities, he, at the very least, merely mumbles and looks the other way, then I don't think that's because I'm just another of those "knee-jerk liberals." That sort of thing—and quite a number of others that the Bush administration is not just allowing, but instigating—are not permitted to happen in MY America!! Angry? You're damned straight I'm angry!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 10 May 06 - 09:14 PM Here ya go, BB. A compendium of long tales of wankery from the gifted wanker Richard Cohen. Just to save you time in perusing the enormity of Cohen's wankery, there's this and this and this and this and this and this. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 10 May 06 - 09:34 PM BTW, I think some person or organisation ought to institute a Jonathan Swift prize for the best political satire of the year. For the inaugural year, I'd nominate Colbert, hands down. I suspect that Swift's "A Modest Proposal" didn't get too many chuckles from his contemporaries either, but it's an acknowledged masterpiece. As was Colbert's number there. Cohen seems to think that he deserves to be humoured, even impelled to guffaws of gentle-natured laughter, by the reigning "comedian" who makes light of such innocuous subjects as the lack of WoMDs that were to be the cause celebre for an unprovoked invasion that has cost well over 2400 servicemen's families the ultimate price in the last couple of years. Sorry to say, Colbert, some things just ain't too funny ... you know, like roasted infants ... but Cohen may not be too aware of this, being seemingly on the short end of the stick as far as literacy goes. Cohen got his own balls toasted good, and he comes out and whines, "That's not funny!!!!" It's about time that Cohen figured that out, and when (and if) he ever does, he might be a better person for it. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 10 May 06 - 10:09 PM Wow, Cohen is a bigger moron than I initially gave him credit for: >>>A cabdriver who passes up a young black male is seeing more than race. He is also seeing sex and age. The three together fit the profile of the most common type of Washington criminal, and the cabdriver acts accordingly. In a different city, a different kind of person would be passed up. The thinking that goes into that decision is quite different from the thinking that made white cabdrivers of old Washington pass up blacks of any sex or any age simply because they were black. It does no good to simply label as racist those whose motives are otherwise, those, in fact, who may be of the same race.<<< Some might agree with this thinking it sounds reasonable. After all, racism between black and white has left whites jaded. Black commit a lot of crime in America so there you have it. Can't blame whites for being antsy. But let me introduce you to America's institutionalized racism when it is directed at Asian-Americans and let me do it by rephrasing Cohen's words. This form of racism is so touchy and so ingrained that many whites (males in particular) swear it does not exist or is at best merely a mild "cultural bias": "A white man who sexualizes young Asian females is seeing more than race. He is also seeing sex and age. The three together fit the profile of the most common fantasy of a desirable female, and the white man acts accordingly. In a different country, a different kind of women would be sexualized. The thinking that goes into that decision is quite different from the thinking of white men who, say, sexualize Asians of any sex or any age simply because they are Asian. It does no good to simply label as racist those whose motives are otherwise, those, in fact, who may be of the same race." Or let's word it another way: "A white man who desexualizes the young Asian male is seeing more than race. He is also seeing sex and age. The three together fit the profile of the most common type of geek or nerd, and the white man acts accordingly. In a different country, a different kind of male would be desexualized. The thinking that goes into that decision is quite different from the thinking of white men who, say, desexualize Asians of any sex or any age simply because they are Asian. It does no good to simply label as racist those whose motives are otherwise, those, in fact, who may be of the same race." IOW, it doesn't matter why it is done, it based on race—period—and is therefore racism. Cohen doesn't seem to get it and his reasoning doesn't sound liberal to me. It sounds perfectly colonialist and patronizing. Let's see how he likes being passed up on the streets or shooed from stores knowing it is because he is white. Let's see how he likes being bombarded by images of white women lusting after non-white men in movie, television, magazine, advertisements because they are clearly seen as sex toys for non-white men while white men are almost never shown at all and when they are, they are always sexless geeks who don't/can't date anyway. And I'll tell him, it's not just his race but his age and sex too. I'm sure he'll feel a whole lot better about it. IOW—that's just how it is so accept it and shut up and some of your kind even agree with me. Thanks for that oh-so-liberal perspective, Mr. Cohen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: dick greenhaus Date: 10 May 06 - 10:17 PM BB- I think Mr. Cohen voiced an opinion. With which I happen to disagree. The thing that interests me is WHY, if Colbert's shtick offended the Administration, he was hired (or invited or whatever) in the first place. Surely, anyone who's seen his show would know what to expect. Any public person exposes his/herself to often-pointed criticism--W just seems to have exposed himself more han most. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 10 May 06 - 10:51 PM I believe whoever invited him to present at the event was NOT actually familiar with the contents of this show, but only with his general reputation. Unfortunately I forget where I gathered this impression, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 10 May 06 - 10:55 PM Ar282...lemme get this right- you want to rewrite the man's words in a different context, claim they mean basically the same thing, then shoot down his original point based on YOUR rewrite? The situations you use to parody Cohen simply are not comparable. " it doesn't matter why it is done, it based on race—period—and is therefore racism." total nonsense! It...(meaning the process of instant 'profiling' by someone like a cabdriver) IS based on more than race...which is all Cohen was saying. They don't fret about young, black women, or even OLD black men. Is race partly involved? Of course it is, as a huge majority of holdups of cab drivers IS committed by young men of ethnic minorities. The cab drivers are playing the odds...breaking the law, but making bets on what potential customers look dangerous to them. Further, you are severely distorting the concept of racism when you profile any remark or action 'seeming' to be related to race that way. Racism, properly considered, is generalized opposition to and denegration OF a group based solely on race and, usually, ranking one race as intrinsicly better than another....not just 'noticing' characteristics. I could easily decide to be careful about entering certain neighborhoods without making wholesale judgments about the race of the folks there. My actions would be 'taking race into account', but not necessarily be racist. You can disagree with Cohen's analysis,,,but do it fairly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 10 May 06 - 11:27 PM AR282--Huh? Doing a little projecting, friend? I'm talking about the power of effective listening and communication vs. ranting and venting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I completely fail to see how that insults anyone's intelligence or ability to think for themselves. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 10 May 06 - 11:31 PM Bill D: Ar282...lemme get this right- you want to rewrite the man's words in a different context,.... He quoted Cohen. You can go check out the wankery for yourself if you want; enlightenment is just a blue click away (in my previous post). Say what you want about Ar282's "rewrite", the original's there ... and Cohen is hoist on his own petard. Read 'em all ... and weep for the state of our so-called MSM punditry. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 10 May 06 - 11:51 PM Here's some more perspective on Wanker Supreme (not to mention clueless berk; see above links) Cohen. And a bit of insight as to why he was so popular with e-mailers.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 10 May 06 - 11:54 PM BB-- The phrase "liberal hate" is, in fact and unsurprisingly, intellectually dishonest--as I said. Cohen never said it. You did. Sorry if you don't like the description. Pobre cito. If you want to discuss his column please be so good as to refrain from inventing your own incendiary phrases. Or be a little more accurate. "Radical leftist hate" is plausible. Even that is probably off--radical leftists are more likely to be blinded by idealism than hate--if the candidate is not perfect, they may well stay home. But after all, in 2008 Bush will be a bad dream--to Republicans as well as Democrats. Liberals will recognize this. Cohen's 1968 parallel fails. Sorry. Liberals can--and do--think--and are not blinded by hate. They recognize that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good. The lesser of 2 weevils. Etc. You may possibly recall that not every liberal thought John Kerry was the answer to all prayers. But they voted--in large numbers--for him. Had it not been for the Bush regime's mastery of the hate and fear approach in a spectacularly successful--and despicable--propaganda campaign--including the smearing of a good man----Kerry would have won. But I'm sure it was fine with you. It's a long way to 2008 yet. Cohen wrote a feeble column. Interesting that you seem to think it's significant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 11 May 06 - 07:19 AM BillD, I take full responsibility for my failure to make clear the intent of this thread. Thank you, Amos and Jeanie, for seeing what I was saying in spite of my not spelling it out. I did NOT post a thread on Cohen's first article, as I saw no purpose in it ( see this thread, if you want to know what would have been said)) I did think the second one brought up a point worth discussion, but the KNEEJERK reaction of some people here has made that unlikely. It AIN"T ABOUT Colbert, Cohen, OR Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST Date: 11 May 06 - 07:44 AM It's about BB !!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 11 May 06 - 08:12 AM wrong again, GUEST Another kneejerk reaction... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 11 May 06 - 09:27 AM Very insightfull, Ron... Yes, part of the Bush "family" propaganda story line is that the problems in the country are creted by "intellectuals"... Daddy Bush was the master of tyrying to pigeon hole ***eductaed*** folks into this scarey band of misfits and trouble-makers... It no wonder that Bush won't write the checks to fund "No Child Left Behind (Unrecruited)"... So with this skit that Bush the Junior did was purdy much a reverse psyhology attempt to sneakily play to his base of angry NASCAR dads by sterotyping what Bush thinks that "liberals" think of him... It remains to be seen if it worked with them bnut appears to have not worked on the general population as the polls numbers stayed at 33%... Yeah, the Bush folks have tried to come up with things for their boyu to do to get the numbers up but the problem that Bush has has little to do with his likeablity or his regular-guyness but his failed policies... And with the next election cycle coming into play there is little, if any, chance, that Bush can turn things around since he can no longer even trust the Republican controlled Congress to follow lockstep... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: balladeer Date: 11 May 06 - 09:32 AM I live in Canada, simultaneously outside of, and totally invested in, US affairs of state. I rely on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to help me see through the theatrics of CNN and Fox reportage. I did wonder what the White House was thinking when they opened the door to Stephen and let him freely have at the captive Bushies. And then I reflected on the joy of free speech. That Stephen said what he said and was not "disappeared" for it - when all is said and done that is what makes the US a great country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 11 May 06 - 09:33 AM Bobert, "So with this skit that Bush the Junior did was purdy much a reverse psyhology attempt to sneakily play to his base of angry NASCAR dads by sterotyping what Bush thinks that "liberals" think of him." Could you possibly tell me what you are talking about???? WHAT SKIT? Earth to Bobert.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 11 May 06 - 11:36 AM BeardedBRuce: Bobert, "So with this skit that Bush the Junior did was purdy much a reverse psyhology attempt to sneakily play to his base of angry NASCAR dads by sterotyping what Bush thinks that "liberals" think of him." Could you possibly tell me what you are talking about???? WHAT SKIT? Dubya's "double" skit at the NPC dinner. Do pay attention. And try to read a bit (other than Freeperville and such). Then you might have known about the skit. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 May 06 - 01:34 PM >>AR282--Huh? Doing a little projecting, friend?<< Are you? >>I'm talking about the power of effective listening and communication vs. ranting and venting.<< You imply that liberals do this and it costs liberal candidates votes. I say that is pure BS. People vote for who they like not because liberals or conservatives act this way or that. I sincerely hope you've never voted for a candidate for any other reason but what that candidate is offering. >>There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I completely fail to see how that insults anyone's intelligence or ability to think for themselves.<< You think you're being fair and balanced when all you're really saying is, "C'mon, guys, be nice or these idiots will vote for the wrong people again." I'd rather be hated than patronized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 May 06 - 01:59 PM >>Ar282...lemme get this right- you want to rewrite the man's words in a different context, claim they mean basically the same thing, then shoot down his original point based on YOUR rewrite? The situations you use to parody Cohen simply are not comparable.<< They are, in fact, identical. His statements about black males in America are America's own institutionalized racism when directed at black males. It's not expressed that way at Asians because they are the "model minority". So it is expressed in a different way. Black males are portrayed as self-absorbed pro athletes or gangstas, etc. Asian males are simply not portrayed--only the women. In the end, the message is the same: "That's how it is so get used to it." >>" it doesn't matter why it is done, it based on race—period—and is therefore racism." total nonsense! It...(meaning the process of instant 'profiling' by someone like a cabdriver) IS based on more than race...which is all Cohen was saying. They don't fret about young, black women, or even OLD black men. Is race partly involved? Of course it is, as a huge majority of holdups of cab drivers IS committed by young men of ethnic minorities. The cab drivers are playing the odds...breaking the law, but making bets on what potential customers look dangerous to them.<< Again, it is that jaded attitude that enables you to state this without seeing the inherent racism. Suppose you meet a white woman who only dates black men. Is she a racist? Yes, I definitely think she is. Now suppose she says, "It's not race. It's the person he is inside that counts. If he was a two-faced abuser of women, I wouldn't waste two seconds with him even if he was the hottest black man I ever saw." Sounds reasonable until you ask, "But if he was the person he is right now, this person you claim to love so much, but he was white or at least not black, would you still be with him?" You will find you cannot get a straight answer (which means no, she would not be with him--he has to be black--first and foremost). When a cabbie doesn't pick up a young black male, it is because of institutionalized racism--not necessarily his own innate racism. Cohen has completely bought into institutionalized racism to the point where he confuses it with more blatant forms of personal racism. Since it is not personal, it can't be recism and therefore it is okay for a cabbie to pass up young black males trying to flag him down for a ride just as it is okay for white men to journey to Bangkok and the Philippines to screw the Asian girls. "Its expected of us so it okay to behave that way. It is how the world works." Even if that is true, that does NOT make it okay. >>Further, you are severely distorting the concept of racism when you profile any remark or action 'seeming' to be related to race that way. Racism, properly considered, is generalized opposition to and denegration OF a group based solely on race and, usually, ranking one race as intrinsicly better than another....not just 'noticing' characteristics.<< So the white man who goes to Asia to use it as his personal whorehouse not a racist? And I suppose he would have no objection to Asian men coming to his country in droves behave this way in his country. I suppose this white man must really respect Asian people and consider them equals. I suppose I could consider a black man to be equal to me in every possible way but I'm still not going to give one a ride anywhere because--well, you know how they are. >>I could easily decide to be careful about entering certain neighborhoods without making wholesale judgments about the race of the folks there. My actions would be 'taking race into account', but not necessarily be racist.<< But you're talking about a high crime area where everyone has to be careful. That's not the same as looking at a black individual and thinking, "I'm not giving this guy a ride, he's a young black male and they commit holdups." You're now making him the representative of the high crime area you'd never go into. >>You can disagree with Cohen's analysis,,,but do it fairly!<< I did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Amos Date: 11 May 06 - 02:08 PM Both Bush's "doubles skit" -- which I thought was genuinely funny == and the Colbert roast are available on Google Video. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Janie Date: 11 May 06 - 03:31 PM The topic was Liberals. If the topic were conservatives I would say the same thing. If the topic were moderates, I would say the same thing. All of us are influenced in our choices by any number of factors, including, though certainly not limited to, information and opinions we hear from other people. How much credence we may give to what some one else has to say can be effected (affected?) by how objective, logical, or rational that person seems to be, and how open they seem to be to hearing the validity of viewpoints that may not coinside with their own. I do not assume that all moderates have identical opinions, nor do I assume that all moderates have views that will necessarily be opposed to those of a liberal or conservative. One of the reasons I mostly stay off of the political threads is that so many people, regardless of their orientation, appear to me to be closed systems that hear and comment only on those parts of another's post that confirm their already closely held opinions and beliefs (be those positive or negative). These discussions tend to be more about fingerpointing and righteous indignation than communication. People simply reacting to one another. Cognitive and emotional distortions abound. Insults fly. However, I do not assume that is true of every person who votes. If I have a conversation with some one about politics (or gardening, or anything else), I assume that each of us has the potential to share information and/or perspectives that might influence the other. I was implying nothing. But you are free to read implications into it if you choose. I have no control over that. And this is an excellent reminder to myself of why I usually think better before I post to these threads. So I'm out of here. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 May 06 - 04:41 PM >>The topic was Liberals. If the topic were conservatives I would say the same thing.<< And you'd still be wrong. Conservatives do not influence whom I vote for. I vote for whom I think will do the best job. Nor do I think all conservatives don't listen. Really, I don't care if they do or not--they're not the person I voted for. THAT person had better listen to me, I don't if anyone else does. >>How much credence we may give to what some one else has to say can be effected (affected?) by how objective, logical, or rational that person seems to be, and how open they seem to be to hearing the validity of viewpoints that may not coinside with their own. I do not assume that all moderates have identical opinions, nor do I assume that all moderates have views that will necessarily be opposed to those of a liberal or conservative.<< You DID say that the bad actions of liberals has an adverse effect on how moderates vote. That may be true in some cases but you can't talk to those kinds of people anyway. I say it has nothing to do with the vast majority of moderates--they will vote for a candidate for roughly the same reasons I do. >>One of the reasons I mostly stay off of the political threads is that so many people, regardless of their orientation, appear to me to be closed systems that hear and comment only on those parts of another's post that confirm their already closely held opinions and beliefs (be those positive or negative).<< You participate as much as the next person from what I see. It's bad enough to have this holier-than-thou approach but then to contradict it on top of that. Wake up, you're no better than the rest of us who aren't afraid to get dirty. >>Cognitive and emotional distortions abound. Insults fly. However, I do not assume that is true of every person who votes. If I have a conversation with some one about politics (or gardening, or anything else), I assume that each of us has the potential to share information and/or perspectives that might influence the other.<< How can you get that out of it if you don't want to participate? >>I was implying nothing.<< You were. Maybe it wasn't your intention but if you think about what you said, you were implying that. >>But you are free to read implications into it if you choose.<< Since you refuse to admit you were implying anything, I guess I have no choice. Every statement has implications. >>I have no control over that. And this is an excellent reminder to myself of why I usually think better before I post to these threads. So I'm out of here.<< Being that no one attacked or flamed you--at least I didn't--that's pretty thin-skinned. You can't debate someone if you leave in a huff when they disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 11 May 06 - 04:44 PM Ar282...you keep inventing new hypotheticals and suggesting they demonstrate your claim. What does a white man's choice of Asian prostitutes have to do with cautious cab drivers? Your rewrites are certainly not identical, in that cultural views of various races vary widely, and treatment of 'young, black men' needs to be examined on its own merits. "...it is that jaded attitude that enables you to state this without seeing the inherent racism." Jaded? ME?? That's a new one. Anyway, I make a careful distinction about the use of the word 'racism'...you seem want it to cover ANY case where the race of the individual is obvious. Calling it 'institutionalized' to avoid having to prove a specific case is slippery logic. OF COURSE there is widespread racism...OF COURSE it is wrong for a cab driver to bypass a young black man.....just as it is wrong for a young man to hold up a cab driver. The fact is, young black My over-riding, basic point is, that you are trying to apply the term 'racism' way too broadly. If every perceived inequity between two ethnic groups is called racism, we lose the ability to accurately portray the more serious offenses. I knew a woman who applied for several jobs and was not hired. She intimated it was racism, whereas those who knew her were not surprised at all, because she is just not a very personable individual! You have to reserve serious labels for serious situations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: DougR Date: 11 May 06 - 07:41 PM I don't know if Cohen reported that he DID receive some positive emails. I for one wrote him an email telling him that although I rarely agree with him, on this column I was in full agreement. Not that the "comedian" didn't have the right to do what he did, of course he did, but I also added in my email that I would have been equally incensed had the "comedian" treated Clinton the same way. And I'm certainly no fan of Clinton. I felt that the "comedian" was disrespectul of the office of the president. Would anyone on this forum wish to be similarly treated in such a gathering? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 11 May 06 - 09:14 PM Would anyone on this forum wish to be similarly treated in such a gathering? I wouldn't. But then again, I wouldn't put myself in such a position in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 May 06 - 09:43 PM CarolC is right. Bush wanted it, he got it. I remember when Clinton held some kind of dinner and invited Don Imus of all people. Imus gets up to speak and lambastes Clinton mercilessly about Monica Lewinsky--nasty remarks. Clinton is sitting there clearly displeased with Imus. Some people attacked Imus later and he responded on his radio show saying, "They invited me. They know what I'm like." As much as I hate Don Imus, I agreed with him on that one. Clinton invited the guy and, yes, he knew what he was like. If he didn't, he should've. He does now, at any rate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Donuel Date: 11 May 06 - 09:45 PM Bill, there are few people on Earth who can split a split hair as well as you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 May 06 - 10:21 PM >>Ar282...you keep inventing new hypotheticals and suggesting they demonstrate your claim. What does a white man's choice of Asian prostitutes have to do with cautious cab drivers?<< Once again, different races face different types of racism from whites (from others also but we're nto talking about them right now), different stereotypes. The cabbie who refuses to stop for a black male fare is working off the same institutionalized (or societal, if you wish) racism as the white man who goes to Asia to get laid. Both believe it is acceptable behavior--not necessarily laudable but more of a "and if it were you, what would YOU do?" kind of thing. The only difference between the two examples is that one pertains to work and the other pertains to pleasure. Both otherwise function on stereotyping another race to the point of no longer considering them equals, as fellow human beings. >>Your rewrites are certainly not identical, in that cultural views of various races vary widely, and treatment of 'young, black men' needs to be examined on its own merits.<< And I highly encourage you to do so because you will find that, in the end, the message is the same: "This is the way we see you. It is the way we will always see you. It's nothing personal but that's just how it is. Accept it and quit complaining, we're really not interested in confronting this inequality because it makes us feel uncomfortable being that we benefit so much at your expense and do not wish to give up that advantage and we're going to get mad and call you a damned PC whiner and a loudmouthed jerk looking for attention if you don't shut up. Now shut up!" >>Jaded? ME?? That's a new one.<< Yes, you. The racism isn't directed at you and a large segment of society will agree with you even if reluctantly so you apply it without compunction. I call that jaded. >>Anyway, I make a careful distinction about the use of the word 'racism'...you seem want it to cover ANY case where the race of the individual is obvious. Calling it 'institutionalized' to avoid having to prove a specific case is slippery logic. OF COURSE there is widespread racism...OF COURSE it is wrong for a cab driver to bypass a young black man.....just as it is wrong for a young man to hold up a cab driver. The fact is, young black often bypass guys who look like them!<< Talk about trying avoid having to prove a specific case of slippery logic! Give me an example of what you're talking about. Tell me how many black men you know who bypass other black men. >>My over-riding, basic point is, that you are trying to apply the term 'racism' way too broadly. If every perceived inequity between two ethnic groups is called racism, we lose the ability to accurately portray the more serious offenses.<< The offenses already are serious. The stereotypes are sexual in their nature and intended to go for jugular. It is tne media that propagates these stereotypes and yet offers nothing to counterbalance them. It becomes "Waiting for Godot" for minorities. They see the stereotypes and feel their effects on themselves and their people and wait in vain for something to counteract it and nothing comes. They wait for it from the same media that dishes on them. Without those counterbalances many of them have nothing by which to judge the truth and works as much on them as it does on that segment of society that has accepted these stereotypes as true even if no one wants to talk about it. >>I knew a woman who applied for several jobs and was not hired. She intimated it was racism, whereas those who knew her were not surprised at all, because she is just not a very personable individual!<< This is anecdotal and useless for me. Institutionalized racism is nothing that personal. It is its impersonal nature that makes its machinations against this or that minority so devastating because it seems to be objective, has no bone to pick, and so must be true. >>You have to reserve serious labels for serious situations.<< I'd rather reject the serious labels for the most serious situations. As a minority, you get labeled enough in this society. Way more than enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 11 May 06 - 10:25 PM The whole point of those dinners is that they are what is called, "roasts". The whole point of a roast is to "roast" someone. Roasting is what Imus, and Colbert were doing to Clinton and Bush. That was the reason they were asked to be there... to roast the "guest of honor" at the dinner (that would be Clinton in Imus' case, and Bush in Colbert's case). "Roasting" is where someone does a whole routine that consists entirely of making fun of the "guest of honor". That's what a "roast" is. That is what they are for. Personally, I find the whole concept of "roasts" rather distasteful. But people keep having them, and the "roastees" keep showing up for them. And as long as that is something they all agree on, I don't see how anyone can take offense at what happens there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 11 May 06 - 11:13 PM BB-- "It ain't about Colbert, Cohen or Bush". Wrong--and I think you know it. You continue your intellectual dishonesty. It is in fact particularly about Bush. Cohen's thesis is that "the anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle". What is the cause of this anger? Bush---his conduct and the fact that the US (and the world) will have suffered 8 years under the most despicable US regime since, probably, Buchanan. So you are either a poor reader, or, since I believe your reading skills are actually quite good, you are being intellectually dishonest--again. Actually, as I have been saying for a while now, I think at this early point the 2008 election is McCain's to lose--if he makes it through his own primaries and his health holds up. But this has nothing to do with Cohen's misdiagnosis of the political situation--and everything to do with the fact that McCain is demonstrably a man who thinks for himself, knows for damn sure what war really is--and therefore will not start one by choice--, and is no smarmy worm like our current beloved leader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 11 May 06 - 11:21 PM DougR: Would anyone on this forum wish to be similarly treated in such a gathering? Well, if ever I am an arrogant, lying a$$hole that managed to get many thousands of men, women, and children killed through incompetence, lust for power, and possibly actual malice, you have my permission to roast me similarly. In fact, I'd hope you had the good sense and integrity to do so. You know, Doug, what would have been really funny? If the crowd there had taken out buckets of tar and feathers, and ridden the Doofus-In-Chief out of town on a rail. Now that's entertainment.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 07:30 AM " am not a member of the White House Correspondents' Association, and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this year's on C-SPAN). The gala is an essentially harmless event that requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association. But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They don't have to be there --" The WHITE HOUSE DID NOT INVITE COLBERT. Bush was invited by the White House Correspondents' Association. Which has nothing to do with the premise of this thread- That the LIBERALS are more intent on destropying each other in the name of orthodoxy than in winning the election. The title of this thread refers to the Liberal HATE for each other, NOT their hate for the conservatives- THAT I can understand ( from their point of view). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,TIA Date: 12 May 06 - 07:40 AM BB, you gotta hang out with liberals more. If you did, you'd realize that their distaste for the activities of the Bush Crime Syndicate is far greater than their distaste for each other's "orthodoxy" (if there is any at all). Note my pointed avoidance of the word hate in either case. And, I thought the thread title came directly from Cohen. Where in his column does he discuss "liberal hate for each other"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 12 May 06 - 07:58 AM Have the rules changed 'round here that using capital letters is no longer SCREAMING??? Jus' curious??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 08:06 AM Bobert, I was screaming. Many of the comments here have been off-topic ( which is ok, but non-informative) and making claims that are false to justify points that are not being debated. Sorry if my human frustration with not getting a reasonable discussion of a topic of interest came out- I guess I should go back to only looking at Fox News(*) for my thoughts, instead of trying to find out what people THINK about something. * NOTE: This is hyperbole- I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS (shouted) though YOU have accused me many times of doing so, without any evidence. Am I being too subtle for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 08:12 AM GUEST, TIA, Cohen said "The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred" "The hatred is back." "That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated." *I* titled the thread "Liberal hate", which I thought was a good summary. I apologize to all if I did not make it clearer the point I wished disussed- I thought it was apparant from the quote in the opening post. I seem to have been wrong. If any object to the thread title, than *I* want to make sure that threads about CONSERVATIVES are only titled according to what Conservatives WANT them to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 11:43 AM "Bill, there are few people on Earth who can split a split hair as well as you." Don...I thought about that all evening, and during my walk this morning. *grin*....I was going to just say something like "I take that as a compliment", but it just came to me: Those aren't hairs...they are ropes! They are issues composed of many, many strands, and I fret when folks seems to view them as simplistic, nondivisible points. Generalized blanket statements like AR282 is making about "institutionalized racism" gloss over the complexities of understanding a problem. I just try to unravel and examine the strands. Ar282...Boy, it is hard to explain succinctly why I quibble with your analysis! I suppose we just must disagree about our basic premises. I think you are labeling WAY too many complex behaviors and actions under one term which is so emotionally loaded. "Racism" is a serious charge in this society, and to categorize all subconscious behavior that 'might' be suspect that way just doesn't take into account other motives. I KNOW there is racism...I do not LIKE racism.....I have been active for many years in combating racism, but there are few issues more complex and hard to sort out. It is many, many shades of gray, not just black & white. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 02:12 PM The WHITE HOUSE DID NOT INVITE COLBERT. Bush was invited by the White House Correspondents' Association. He knew it was a "roast", and he and his handlers also knew what the White House Correspondents' Association "roasts" are for, and what happens at those events. If Bush didn't want to get roasted (in the same manner that he's seen other presidents get roasted), he shouldn't have agreed to attend the event as guest of honor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 02:44 PM And when YOU make a phone call, YOU know that the phone company keeps records, and sells that information. SO, YOU agree that it is OK for the government to be one of the many buyers, and use the information as it pleases. Or you should not have agreed to the phone company providing you phone service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 02:49 PM I actually don't know if my phone company does this, beardedbruce, although I would like to know. I use a company that is still fairly small, and I understand that some of the smaller ones don't do this. But you have raised a good point. It would be good if people could choose, when they sign up for a phone service, whether or not to allow their information to be sold to the government. As of right now, people don't have that choice, unlike the president, who can easily choose not to attend roasts. People need telephones, the president doesn't need to attend roasts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 02:54 PM Not JUST the government- This information is available on the commercial market. The Government is just buying what others have already gotten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 02:58 PM This information is available on the commercial market. Some of it is, and some of it isn't. Some of the information is being collected specifically for the government. But I do think people should be able to choose whether or not their information will be made available to other parties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 03:06 PM "Some of the information is being collected specifically for the government. " Phone number called, where called from, time hooked up- ALL on your bill, and commercially available to anyone who wishes to purchase it... What specifically does the government get beyond that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 03:28 PM A database that was created specifically for the NSA by at least one phone company. The software was created just for them. So technically, it's not my information that is uniquely available to them, it's more a system of using my information that is uniquely available to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 03:32 PM "it's more a system of using my information that is uniquely available to them. " EVERY commercial user of purchased databases has "a system of using my information that is uniquely available to them." Look at your bulk/3rd class mail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 03:43 PM Perhaps you're right about that. There is a big difference, however, between commercial interest having access to and collecting that information, and a government doing the same, for reasons that I figure ought to be obvious to anyone who considers him or herself to be a "conservative" (using the US definition of "conservative"... big government = bad). Having said that, I don't like the fact that anyone can collect, sell, and/or use that information whether I like it or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 03:44 PM You would say that the government, for the purpose of the public good, has FEWER rights than commercial entities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 03:48 PM Well, a "conservative" would certainly say that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 12 May 06 - 04:10 PM Hmmmmm??? Wonder how one thinks one can scream one's way into, ahhhh, getting other folks to participate in a "reasonable" discussion??? I'll put the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to work on this one... Warning: thread drift.. Ahhhh, BillD... Have you ever turned Paradise trees... I have one that somehow got into it's mid that it wnated to corkscrew 2 complete revolutions before straightening out??? Prolly purdy cool inside and the tree is coming down anayway??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 04:14 PM Bobert, "Wonder how one thinks one can scream one's way into, ahhhh, getting other folks to participate in a "reasonable" discussion???" My screams were an expression of my frustration at the knee-jerk reaction by some to what I THOUGHT was a reasonable request. Or, as I posted: "I was screaming. ... Sorry if my human frustration with not getting a reasonable discussion of a topic of interest came out-" I wonder how you can reply to a post with so little awareness of what was written? Or were you intentionally being a nasty SOB? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 04:22 PM Paradise Tree? The only Paradise tree I know is tropical. You got one that far North? Nope...have never had any of that wood. I have no idea what the timber is like. (always 'interested') Geez, Bruce & Carol...you DO go on at length at strange angles... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 04:25 PM "Knowledge implies consent" Right? 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 04:29 PM Yes, but nobody can split a hair like you do, Bill. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 12 May 06 - 05:15 PM >>Ar282...Boy, it is hard to explain succinctly why I quibble with your analysis! I suppose we just must disagree about our basic premises.<< Or maybe deep down, you see what I'm getting at and you're afraid you might have not only bought into racism but may have hurt people because of it without realizing it--until now. So you stay and quibble as much as you hate to. It reminds me of that one song from "The Wall": "I want to go home/Take off this uniform and leave the show/But I'm waiting in this cell because I have to know/Have I been guilty all this time?" >>I think you are labeling WAY too many complex behaviors and actions under one term which is so emotionally loaded. "Racism" is a serious charge in this society, and to categorize all subconscious behavior that 'might' be suspect that way just doesn't take into account other motives.<< Because those motives don't matter. What matters is the end result of the person who has been victimized. You're a cabbie who pases a black man standing in the rain trying to flag you down and then you punch out and go home. Doesn't affect you at all. Meanwhile, there's a pissed off man standing in the rain trying to get home too. And he KNOWS why no one will pick him up. He's the one who has been hurt and it is because of his race--nothing more--because if he wasn't black, he'd be home by now. And he knows it. >>I KNOW there is racism...I do not LIKE racism.....I have been active for many years in combating racism, but there are few issues more complex and hard to sort out. It is many, many shades of gray, not just black & white.<< And what about affirmative action--the practice that denies whites equal access to certain schools and classes--do you favor that? Is it racism or are there many more factors that make it justifiable to tell a white person: "Yes your grades in high school were excellent, yes you passed the entrance exam with flying colors, yes you scored far higher than the black, Native and Hispanic students and, yes, you also took time to come down here early and enrolled in the class before them. But we're going to admit them and turn you away. It's not racism, it's far more complex than that. We have to right wrongs here. How long do we practice this? For as long as there is racism." Tell that to Jennifer Gratz and see if she buys it. In fact, tell that to white America and see how it flies. It's never racism until it is directed at you and then you see that it is nothing but. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 06:03 PM "Because those motives don't matter. What matters is the end result of the person who has been victimized." I was trying NOT to continue the quibbling, because, as I said, you & I have different 1st premises & definitions....I, for example, disagree with the juxtaposition of your sentences. I agree wholeheartedly that end results do matter. If a situation unfairly creates victims and causes discrimination and problems, I will help you right it. I was on a picket line in Hattiesburg Mississippi in 1964 when voting rights were being denied to more than half the population. I even was the deciding factor in getting a black state senator elected to office in Kansas against an avowed racist in the late 60s. But I disagree that the motives don't matter. What I saw in Mississippi was RACISM. It was also wrong! I have since seen people 'dissatisfied' with actions & decisions - some of whom I agreed with and some whom I didn't, who got the short end of the stick because of actions were sometime wrong & unfair, but that were NOT racist, but were simply dumb, economic, greedy or careless. I might also try to right those wrongs, but HOW I do it can differ a lot when I can discern motives! (yes, sometimes you can....especially when the culprit admits it.) "And what about affirmative action--the practice that denies whites equal access to certain schools and classes--do you favor that?" As a matter of fact, I have serious problems with the application of some types of affermative action....not with the concept, because I am totally in favor of those who have been discriminated against and who would not otherwise get a fair shake getting the 'break' when things are basically equal otherwise...test scores & such. I just do not favor 'packing' and quotas which do a disservice to the public by passing over those with MUCH better credentials for jobs and school entry.....Special aid and schooling should be given to help the unqualified GET qualified and be able to compete on a level playing field. I'd love to see a society where it was hard to find discrimination and racism, but I'm not going to buy into a setup where all dissatisfaction is labeled racism. Just too simplistic and unrealistic. I assume you disagree....and thus I suggest again that we differ on 1st premises, are are unlikely to be able to debate too deeply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 12 May 06 - 06:53 PM >>I was trying NOT to continue the quibbling, because, as I said, you & I have different 1st premises & definitions....I, for example, disagree with the juxtaposition of your sentences. I agree wholeheartedly that end results do matter. If a situation unfairly creates victims and causes discrimination and problems, I will help you right it. I was on a picket line in Hattiesburg Mississippi in 1964 when voting rights were being denied to more than half the population. I even was the deciding factor in getting a black state senator elected to office in Kansas against an avowed racist in the late 60s.<< Do you see the danger of your thinking proccess? "I stood up for civil rights, I'm not a racist. Therefore, when I shoo a black man out of my store it can't be racism because I have proven I am not a racist." The real danger is that you are far from alone in feeling that way. That's why I call it institutionalized racism--it's general societal consensus that becomes part of how we do business. It's the worst form of racism precisley because so many refuse to recognize it as such. Because you're not burning a cross on someone's lawn doesn't mean you're not hurting them when you decide with everyone else that their kind DOES in fact commit a lot of crime or do cause property values to fall. And that softer attitude towards that racism creates an atmosphere for the hardcore variety to rear its head. >>As a matter of fact, I have serious problems with the application of some types of affermative action....not with the concept, because I am totally in favor of those who have been discriminated against and who would not otherwise get a fair shake getting the 'break' when things are basically equal otherwise...test scores & such. I just do not favor 'packing' and quotas which do a disservice to the public by passing over those with MUCH better credentials for jobs and school entry.....<< And where do you draw the line? When it's suddenly you getting short-ended? Did Jennifer Gratz deserve to go the the U of M law school or not? Was the decision to shut her out racist since it was based on a racial quota? >>Special aid and schooling should be given to help the unqualified GET qualified and be able to compete on a level playing field.<< Why? They can get qualified right now if they want to. There's really nothing preventing it. The Jim Crow South is dead. That form of racism is pretty dead. The racism now is much more subtle and "friendly" these days. And, in its own way, far worse because the results are often the same and it is far harder to eradicate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 12 May 06 - 08:38 PM Hmmmmmm? Pushing 100,000 deaths from Bush's war against the Iraqi people and, yeah, I'm mad a s Hell but I've also adhered to the unwritten but acceoted rules here at Mudcat in not screamin' at fellow Mudcatters... Yet here we have a danged "skit" where no one even neeeded minor medical attention and we have all this SCREAMING... I think someone needs a little anger manangement counselin'... Hey, that's the way it looks from here... Okay, I'll admit that when I first came here I did a lot of SCREAMING as well... Then a few folks PM'd me and told me that I was hurting my arguments by SCREAMING and so I have not done it since those days and, hey, I reckon mu arguments are just as effwective, or more, 'cause they sho nuff tend to piss off the Bushites here... And, yeah, what AR said... The racism is a lot more sophisticated these days... Practice makes perfect, you know... Lester Madox wouldn't be able to learnt up the ***new 'n improved*** racism... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 10:27 PM do I see the danger of my thinking process?...Why, no, I don't believe I do...because you have misrepresented how I think...Your example, as before, is a "straw man" argument, making up a hypothetical case, and shooting IT down. Yes, of course some folks have 'refined' their racism and discrimination...Lester Maddox won't use axe handles this time. But every example of a black man not being 'accommodated' is not automatically racism. Why is it so hard to see that? Even if 84% of the time it were, it is not ALWAYS....and in order deal with that 84%, ot 71% or 53%,we need VERY much to not make the worst possible assumption. It is easier to educate when we are not accusing. Even those who are sympathetic can be lost if their attempts to do 'right' are denigrated. Tell them "we need to do more" or tell them "that isn't helping much" if you must disapprove of their actions, but sneering "racism" for everything will lose you credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 13 May 06 - 01:32 PM Phone number called, where called from, time hooked up- ALL on your bill, and commercially available to anyone who wishes to purchase it... I've checked it out. This statement from you is incorrect. According to the law... "Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered. The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060511/ts_nm/security_usa_phonecalls_dc_1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: CarolC Date: 13 May 06 - 01:48 PM Oops. I gave the wrong link. Here's the right one... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ebbie Date: 13 May 06 - 03:01 PM By 'records' of phone calls, are we talking about the kind of information that the phone company reports to you every month when it tells you how much that month's activities cost you? If that's what it means, why aren't we simply saying that the phone bills with their pertinent information are being turned over to the federal government? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Stringsinger Date: 13 May 06 - 03:43 PM Stephen Colbert has a sophisticated kind of humor that not everyone is going to get. There may be a little of Andy Rooney or Dave Barry in it. I thought that his performance was clever and satirical. I don't think it was delivered in a hateful manner. He was puttiog the White House on. It was intended as a "roast" but turned out to be a satire or parody on the concept of a "roast" in general which is a strange idea to begin with. I think that it was truly funny because the people for whom the satire was aimed laughed in spite of themselves. That's quite an accomplishment for a humorist. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 14 May 06 - 02:12 PM BB-- "I titled the thread 'Liberal Hate" which I thought was a good summary". Uh, your credibility is...shall we say..not the best. I suspect strongly that you knew it was an inflammatory--and inaccurate--phrase-----and you didn't care. You only wanted to get a rise out of Mudcatters. Now I wonder why that should cross my mind. Your intellectual dishonesty continues to shine. Face it. Bush started a war BY CHOICE. Such "leaders" belong in the lowest circle of Hell. Many of us will never forgive him--and have no use for his supporters--does that by any chance include you? If so, you (and Teribus) should be detailed to explain to the families of every dead "Coalition" soldier from now on exactly why their soldier died. We know however, that in January 2009 Bush will be gone. And he is already the lamest of lame ducks. Liberals are not 1968 radicals--however much you and Cohen may want to believe they are. As I said earlier, the 1968 parallel fails. Interesting that you have no evidence to assert it applies. Criticism of a newspaper column, you may be surprised to learn, does not establish your case--which seems to consist entirely of overheated columnist rhetoric. If you are going to hate something, I would think war is a good choice. And that is what the Democratic left wing hated. That, of course, does not stop you from smearing it--in the grand Bushite tradition. So continue to have at it. By the way, your "apology" is not convincing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 14 May 06 - 04:26 PM Ron, he first post, stating what I wanted comment on, is about LIBERALS. And the HATE that they express to those who do not toe the PC line. "Uh, your credibility is...shall we say..not the best." My credibility has little to do with YOUR opinion. And what does MY credibility have to do with what the rest of you think about the topic under discussion- LIBERAL HATE? "I suspect strongly that you knew it was an inflammatory--and inaccurate--phrase-----and you didn't care. You only wanted to get a rise out of Mudcatters." I consider it quite accurate, or you would not be so upset about it. SO, If a thread title is inflammatory, you will insist on it being removed? (LARGE planks in YOUR eyes) TRY to read the Mudcat sometime with a less biased viewpoint. Me- "Sorry if my human frustration with not getting a reasonable discussion of a topic of interest came out-" Ron- "By the way, your "apology" is not convincing. " You really are an idiot at times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 06 - 04:36 PM "Can you feeeel the looooove tonight..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 14 May 06 - 06:45 PM "[T]he first post, stating what I wanted comment on, is about LIBERALS. And the HATE that they express to those who do not toe the PC line." The reason you're not getting the comments you're looking for, BB, is that the basic assumptions you're operating on are badly flawed. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 14 May 06 - 09:41 PM BB-- I'm sorry the truth offends you. It's not the first time. Situation normal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 May 06 - 10:02 PM Like I said, where in Cohen's column does he discuss "liberal for each other" (BB's words) ? Looks to me like that phrase (and concept?) is purely your invention BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 06 - 10:27 AM Ron, The TRUTH does not offend me- YOUR assumption that YOU have a lock on "Truth", and need not bother to understand what the other person is saying. You offend me. GUEST, TIA, AGAIN: I apologize to all if I did not make it clearer the point I wished disussed- I thought it was apparant from the quote in the opening post. I seem to have been wrong. If any object to the thread title, than *I* want to make sure that threads about CONSERVATIVES are only titled according to what Conservatives WANT them to be. If I had titled the thread "Digital Lynch Mob" would that have made it easier to understand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 15 May 06 - 12:49 PM which "conservatives"? "If I had titled the thread "Digital Lynch Mob" would that have made it easier to understand?" Oh, I DO hope you meant only to make a silly joke there. I could write a number of thread titles that were more explanatory AND neutral in tone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 06 - 01:29 PM BillD, THAT was the title of the article that Cohen wrote..... I am blamed for NOT using his title- now you will complain that I AM using it??????????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 15 May 06 - 01:47 PM ////////////////////// Bill D - PM Date: 09 May 06 - 01:47 PM ..... and by the way, bruce---- HOW did you choose the title of your provocative little thread and what is it supposed to imply? It sure doesn't sound like it was just an interesting comparison of extreme views on both sides. |||||||||||||||||||||||| beardedbruce - PM Date: 09 May 06 - 01:53 PM Didn't you read the first post? "The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred" "The hatred is back." "That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated." /////////////////////// beardedbruce - PM Date: 12 May 06 - 07:30 AM That the LIBERALS are more intent on destropying each other in the name of orthodoxy than in winning the election. The title of this thread refers to the Liberal HATE for each other, NOT their hate for the conservatives- THAT I can understand ( from their point of view). |||||||||||||||||||||||| Bill D - PM Date: 15 May 06 - 12:49 PM which "conservatives"? "If I had titled the thread "Digital Lynch Mob" would that have made it easier to understand?" Oh, I DO hope you meant only to make a silly joke there. I could write a number of thread titles that were more explanatory AND neutral in tone. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Digital Lynch Mob By Richard Cohen Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Page A23 Washington Post, for those too holy to bother reading before commenting. And can I ask that you insure those threads about conservatives are to be "more explanatory AND neutral in tone" ? Or are conservatives something less than human, as Bobert has stated in the past? Lesser animals who need not be treated as if they had rights or human dignity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 15 May 06 - 11:38 PM BB-- The truth is that "liberal hate" is an inaccurate portrayal both of liberals and of Cohen's column. Cohen's column seeks to establish , as I said earlier, that "the anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle". You seek to equate leftists with liberals, thereby smearing liberals as being radical true-believer leftists who will only support a candidate if he's perfect. As usual, you have provided no evidence--as distinguished from a columnist's mumblings---to support your view. And that's the truth. So sorry if it offends. And since I believe you know there is a difference between liberals and radical leftists, this makess your assertion of "liberal hate" intellectually dishonest. Again, so sorry if that term offends you. Pobre cito. The shoe fits--like a glove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 16 May 06 - 07:31 AM From my posts here: Comment is invited on the following: Amos, Thank you for your reasonable post. I was looking for a discussion of this, not the usual anti-Bush rants. When he wrote this one, I wanted to find out what others thought. Amos had a good comment, and Bobert and Don showed that they had no idea what the post was even about. I have NO requirement for anyone to agree or disagree with Cohen's assessment- but I find the REACTION to be indicative of the major problem with the Left at this time. ANYONE, regardless of past views, who does not toe the PARTY LINE is apostate, and to be attacked. Seems like a brake to a free discussion of viewpoints and the merit of different ideas. MY pupose was to see what others thought of Cohen's statements, that the worst enemy of Liberals were themselves.- OBVIOUSLY, you are part of the lockstep crowd who look on any critiscm of Bush as gospel. That is fine- but it does NOT tell me your opinion about Cohen's statements. And your comments about the REACTION to Cohen's article? Metchosin, And your take on the REACTION to Cohen's comments? MTed, And YOUR take on the REACTION to COHEN'S comments? Actually, I did want a discussion. IMO, the next election is the Democrats to lose- they will find some way to insure that most people vote for the Republican ( whoever that is). But IF they won, they might have to actually deal with the problems of government, and I would be interested in what they plan to do- Hold to the path of Left Correctnes, or actually deal with the real world. Intellectually dishonest to want to know what people think about the premise that the Democrats will tear themselves apart, rather than take the easy win in the next election? I DO NOT CARE about what Colbert said, or did not say. IT DOES NOT MATTER. I DO NOT CARE what percentage of the people emailing Cohen thought what. IT DOES NOT MATTER. I WAS TRYING TO DISCUSS THE PREMISE, PRESENTED BY COHEN, THAT… DO NOT CARE if you agree with me or not- I WANT TO KNOW ***OTHER'S*** OPINIONS ON THE THREAD TOPIC- "war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies." I think I can make a good guess at many people's opinions on Bush, any criticism of him, and any attempt to keep discorse on a polite level. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE THREAD TOPIC- NOR HAVE MANY OF YOU MADE THE ATTEMPT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION. From BillD: "gee, bruce...you need a new career-- interviewing politicians and asking them interesting questions, then TRYING to get them to answer the question you asked, instead of plugging in their favorite answers and changing the subject." BillD, I take full responsibility for my failure to make clear the intent of this thread. Thank you, Amos and Jeanie, for seeing what I was saying in spite of my not spelling it out. I did NOT post a thread on Cohen's first article, as I saw no purpose in it ( see this thread, if you want to know what would have been said)) I did think the second one brought up a point worth discussion, but the KNEEJERK reaction of some people here has made that unlikely. It AIN"T ABOUT Colbert, Cohen, OR Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 16 May 06 - 09:11 PM BeardedBruce: ANYONE, regardless of past views, who does not toe the PARTY LINE is apostate,... Sorry to hear about your condition. I understand it can lead to erect... -- ummmm, uhhh, sorry, my misread. Nevermind..... *** /end Emily Litella schtick *** MY pupose was to see what others thought of Cohen's statements, that the worst enemy of Liberals were themselves. Oh, he's full'o'sh*te. Thought that was obvious from the links I provided. Matter of fact, there's some that would say that the liberals' worst enemy might be the wankers like Cohen.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 06 - 09:18 PM Okay, BB. What do you WANT us to say? Write out a proclamation, and those who agree can sign it, those who don't, won't. Simple as that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 16 May 06 - 10:15 PM Yo, BB... When you scream I jus' bypass yer posts, as do lots of others... If you really want folks to listen to you, you have got to get a grip on yer anger... You may mot believe this but about 90% of folks here in Mudville don't lijke being screamed at and won't read yer stuff... Yer down to 'bout 3 folks, me not included, who will read yer stuff, because of yer rude behavior... Hey, if I could learn to put forth my postings without SCREAMIN', then you can, too... Yeah, you may think that by screaming at folks you are winning debating points but you are wrong... All you are doing is drivin' folks away.... I mean, look at this thread... Less and less folks want to have anything to do with MadmanBB.... But if you think that you can scream yer way thru it, fine... Like I have mentioned, Einstein said that repeating a behavior expecting different reults in "insane"... Jus' a little advice... Tone it down, feller, and let the content of yer arguments and not the volume (as in decibels) be yer strength... Jus' my advice... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 06 - 09:10 AM Bobert,, "You may mot believe this but about 90% of folks here in Mudville don't lijke being screamed at and won't read yer stuff... " Pot calling the kettle... I did not start this thread yelling. I did let the contents and not the volume speak- and you were not capable of understanding UNTIL I YELLED! Arne, Thank you for your opinion, from the latter part of your post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 06 - 09:54 AM This thread is not about this administration, but about the sad-sack knee-jerk mobthinkers who hate it, and who in their passion against it are willing to throw so many important principles to one side in order to act out their version of "correct" thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 06 - 10:00 AM Don, You are one of those here telling us what and how to think, NOT me. I wanted to know what people thought about the topic, and you have been going on about a different topic. Hate Bush, or not- I DON'T CARE. That is NOT the topic of this thread. I still would like your opinion on what Cohen SAID- NOT on Cohen, his politics, the topic Cohen had commented on that caused the LIBERAL HATE that was expressed, or the price of eggs in Ethiopia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 17 May 06 - 10:38 AM BeardedBruce: Arne, Thank you for your opinion, from the latter part of your post. Now a question for you. Second thought, three: 1). Why should we care (or even bother with) what wankers like Cohen say? 2). Why do you care what wankers like Cohen say? 3). Did you think that Cohen made more sense than a soggy bag of granola? If so, I'd say this just confirms the rather obvious fact that we can safely ignore him. Now then. Care to discuss what Colbert said? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 06 - 01:15 PM BB, your premise seems to demand that anyone who plays your game must agree that liberals are composed of nothing but "blind hatred." I don't agree. So when you insist that the game be played on your playfield with rules that you set, I think you can probably understand why I don't particularly care to play. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 06 - 01:33 PM Don, Not my premise, it is presented by Cohen. I never said blind- I QUOTED from Cohen "The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred" "The hatred is back." "That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated." "anyone who plays your game must agree that liberals are composed of nothing but "blind hatred." " The "NOTHING" is YOUR assesment, not mine. As Amos has pointed out, "the use of plural nouns does not automatically indicate "all"; it can equally well indicate "some", as in "Scientists Discover Cats Like to Swim"." I have NO requirement for anyone to agree or disagree with Cohen's assessment- but I find the REACTION to be indicative of the major problem with the Left at this time. ANYONE, regardless of past views, who does not toe the PARTY LINE is apostate, and to be attacked. Seems like a brake to a free discussion of viewpoints and the merit of different ideas. From Cohen:"If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation." "So when you insist that the game be played on your playfield with rules that you set, I think you can probably understand why I don't particularly care to play." I only insist that the rules apply to BOTH sides equally. If you wish to reserve the right to redefine MY terms, I get to redefine YOURS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 06 - 02:26 PM Okay. I do not agree with Cohen. Nor do I agree that there is a liberal "party line." Anyone who knows anything about "the liberal position" knows that the major problem that liberals currently seem to be having is that they can't agree on much of anything. No, let me correct that. They agree—more or less—on a lot of general principles, but all too many liberals tend to be "one-issue" oriented and have difficulty making common cause with other liberals unless their issue is the paramount one. How can one fail to "toe the party line" if the main problem liberals have is that there is no "party line?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 06 - 02:36 PM "No, let me correct that. They agree—more or less—on a lot of general principles, but all too many liberals tend to be "one-issue" oriented and have difficulty making common cause with other liberals unless their issue is the paramount one. " Good point. Perhaps this is what causes what I see as self-destructive behaviour- When one group does not give the priority to a specific point that another group thinks it deserves, the two groups end up fighting each other rather than looking for commnon ground. As for "How can one fail to "toe the party line" if the main problem liberals have is that there is no "party line?" " I think you mena how can one "toe the line..."- Correct me if I am wrong. In the case above, there are as many "party" lines as there are issues, each one of paramont importance to some group with ihe party. Thus, ANY deviation from the TOTAL of the "party lines" is cause for "vituperation", as Cohen says- and whichever group that issue was important to will feel that the apostate viewpoint is unacceptable. It seems to me that this can only lead to fragmentation , and the continued ( since all other points can't be discussed without upsetting someone) running AGAINST the conservatives, rather than presenting a group of viable goals ( that all would have to agree to) and a path to accomplish them to the electorate, and running FOR something. IMHO, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 06 - 04:40 PM Granted, there is a fair amount of "running against the conservatives." In fact, my own position is that I, personally, would prefer to see just about anyone in charge of the country than the current administration, and I can give you a long list of reasons why, but, of course, you've undoubtedly heard them all before. But when I say "just about anyone," that, of course, has its limitations. Someone who holds the same views or someone even further to the Right, no. But I don't see how anyone who isn't an outright dictator could do a worse job, or a more Constitution-shredding job of governing the country than the Bush administration is doing. After the failure of Barry Goldwater to gain office, and the various black eyes, that Nixon left them with, the different conservative factions began to realize that if they were ever to gain any kind of power in the foreseeable future, they would have to find common cause with other factions ("The Big Tent," I believe, is what they called it) and begin to work together. It took them a couple of decades, but finally the anti-abortion crew, the tax-cuts for the rich cabal, the religious Right, and the various others agreed to make their own individually hobby-horses secondary to the conservatives-in-general attaining power. Once that was accomplished, then they could decide how to divvy up the spoils. It's the divvying up of the spoils that's what's going on now, and it looks like they're really making a pig's breakfast of it. Many influential liberals have recently begun to realize that the conservatives had the right tactic. The environmentalists and the peace oriented groups and the abortion-rights and the national health-care folks and the others are going to have to start working together if any of them are ever going to accomplish their goals, and the non-religious are going to have to put their animosity aside and be willing to work together with the burgeoning number of progressive Christians who sick of the religious Right claming to speak for all Christians. It's happening. But your word, "hate"—or Cohen's word—is a little too strong, I think. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 17 May 06 - 08:40 PM Very good points, Don... Yes, it would appear that liberals and progressives are more willing to find common ground because of the complete corrupt and inept manner in which the current Republicans have been ***ruling****, as opposed to ***governing***, the country... The problem with this isn't in liberals and progressives getting past their one-issue-ness (which I really do think is as one-issue-ness as it might seem) but that the Democratic Party hasn't made the overatures necessary to draw many liberals and progressives who don't have any particular level of trust in the party... Bill Clinton certainly didn't play to the liberal component of the Democartic Party... Might of fact, Clinton was the perfect Nixon Republican... Especially after the right wing ganged up on his health care proposal... No, it was politics of pragmatism... Sure, he had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress but, hey, he lacked the balls to call on the liberals and progressives... Too bad... That was a bad move... At least we would have perhaps been having policy discusssions rather the witch hunt.... But as a Green, yeah, I'm still purdy steamed at the Dems and inspite of liberals and progressives joining hands there is no assurance they are holding hands with the Dems.... Yeah, the ball is very much in the Dem's court here... And if the Dems think that the liberals will come 'round, like they always try to badger us to do, the Dems are going to have to take on "Big Money" and tell the corportists that if elected, there will be a new sherriff in town... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Ron Davies Date: 17 May 06 - 10:57 PM BB-- Well, OK, --you may not be intellectually dishonest--you may be ignorant instead. You may not realize there is a difference between radical leftists and liberals. But your attempted assertion that liberals hate anything but the "party line" is patently absurd. Just look at the 2004 election. If you don't think that environmentalists, labor activists, civil rights advocates, and other "single issue" groups came together--and voted for Kerry--though he was a long way from the ideal candidate--you haven't done enough reading. (In certified leftist rags like the Wall St Journal). It's fairly obvious to me why Kerry lost--despite the willingness of various liberal groups to come together behind him. 1) the magnificently successful (and despicable) propaganda campaign by the Bushites to tell the US public what to fear---terrorists and homosexuals. (And, no doubt, especially homosexual terrorists) 2 the willingness of the UN to act as honest broker between the various Iraqi factions--making possible an Iraqi face (Allawi) on the opposition to the insurgency--and thereby giving the lie to the assertion of the US Left that Iraq was Vietnam Quagmire II. (As I've said before, Bush therefore owes his 2004 election to----the UN.) Your and Cohen's attempt to draw a parallel between 1968 and 2008 fails--totally. As I've said, neither of you have yet come up with any evidence to support it. A columnist's meanderings does not, I'm sorry to say, constitute proof. But if you don't realize there is a difference between liberals and radical leftists--of the 1968 variety--you are indeed ignorant. You would have been better off to leave Cohen's original "Digital Lynch Mob" as your title--at least you wouldn't have to try to defend your own--indefensible--title. Just think a little before you post--at least before you put your title in. It would help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 17 May 06 - 11:17 PM Bobert: Yeah, the ball is very much in the Dem's court here... And if the Dems think that the liberals will come 'round, like they always try to badger us to do, the Dems are going to have to take on "Big Money" and tell the corportists that if elected, there will be a new sherriff in town... Yeah. There's something to be said for the wisdom of the phrase "If we don't all hand together, we will surely hang separatedly". BUT: That being said, I refuse to reward self-destructive behaviour (in my eyes), and have had to repeatedly turn down the DNCC when they've been calling me for another donation this election. They need to get a spine and get with the program of making themselves an actual opposition party capable of taking over and fixing things, before I give them money again. Simple. And direct. The Cohen wanker is a wuss (and an eedjit and useful fool), and is a prime example of the kind of thing that will kill the Democratic party chances of taking over. Kind of like his friends in the DNCC and DLC.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bill D Date: 17 May 06 - 11:18 PM why is this still going? as far as my comments about thread title, I didn't SAY I was 'complaining'.... all I tried to say was that you 'loaded' the title with inflammitory phrasing , and even using Cohen's article title would have been both confusing AND irrelevant to asking what you eventually got around to asking. You are letting your quest to make everyone respond exactly to your phrasing and emphasis interfere with getting reasoned responses. You don't accomplish much by trying to back those who seem to disagree with you into semantic corners and tossing sarcastic remarks at me.. to wit: "Or are conservatives something less than human,...." ...answer: no, just less than humane in their rhetoric sometimes...*wry grin* I am not going to try to unravel this convoluted bit of overlapping, embedded issues any longer. It takes too long to write anything of value now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Arne Date: 17 May 06 - 11:20 PM "Don't hand together" should have been "don't hang together". But you knew that, being the literate audience. Shame on me for getting cocky and not proof-reading.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: beardedbruce Date: 18 May 06 - 06:40 AM "Many influential liberals have recently begun to realize that the conservatives had the right tactic. The environmentalists and the peace oriented groups and the abortion-rights and the national health-care folks and the others are going to have to start working together if any of them are ever going to accomplish their goals, and the non-religious are going to have to put their animosity aside and be willing to work together with the burgeoning number of progressive Christians who sick of the religious Right claming to speak for all Christians. " Thank You! I agree entirely that this is the only path that will lead to a resurgence of the liberals in the politics of this country. Thank you, Don and Bobert, as well for discussing the topic of the thread. Ron, Do you even bother to READ my posts? " But your attempted assertion that liberals hate anything but the "party line" is patently absurd." I QUOTED from Cohen "The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred" "The hatred is back." "That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated." I have NO requirement for anyone to agree or disagree with Cohen's assessment- but I find the REACTION to be indicative of the major problem with the Left at this time. ANYONE, regardless of past views, who does not toe the PARTY LINE is apostate, and to be attacked. Seems like a brake to a free discussion of viewpoints and the merit of different ideas. From Cohen:"If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate From: Bobert Date: 18 May 06 - 08:56 AM Correction: in regards to liberals I wrote "...I really do think as one issue-ness as it might seem..." ahould have read, "... I really don't think as one issue-ness as it might seem..." And jus' to add to that, I believe there are a number of issues that progressives and liberals find common ground other than Iraq, global warming, civil rights, campaign financing and anti-corporportization to name jus' a few... Bobert |
