BS: Liberal hate

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

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: 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: 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 - 11:17 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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
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: 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 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: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 06 - 04:36 PM

"Can you feeeel the looooove tonight..."

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 04:25 PM

"Knowledge implies consent"


Right?


8-{E

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 - 04:14 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:48 PM

Well, a "conservative" would certainly say that.

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 - 03:43 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 - 03:32 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 - 03:28 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.