PDA

View Full Version : Note to Conservatives: I am not out to destroy the world.


Hamlet
01-19-2005, 11:42 AM
I made a mistake yesterday. While driving the office's pool car, I grew bored of the sports talk radio show that I usually listen to, and decided to try the pre-programmed stations of the car. Within an hour of listening to talk radio, I was told that, because of my political views: I hate America, I want the United States destroyed, I want democracy to fail, I want to oppress Christians, I want the social fabric of America to be rent apart, I want to destroy the family, and I want thousands of U.S. troops to die.

Wow, I'm a busy guy. Who knew?

So, a quick word to conservative talk radio "personalities", especially Eileen Byrne, Dennis Prager, and Rush Limbaugh:

I do not hate America, I love it.

I do not want America destroyed, I want it to be a beacon in a dark world.

I do not want democracy to fail, I want it to flourish, but I do not believe America has the right to violently invade countries in the name of democratization.

I do not want to oppress Christians, I want a proper separation of church and state.

I do not want to destroy the social fabric, I want it strengthened by the recognition of the value of diversity.

I do not want to destroy families, I want to strengthen them by recognizing the right of homosexuals to marry.

I do not want U.S. troops to die, I want each and everyone of them to return home safely and to be treated well by our government.


The sooner we can stop with the brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with you, the sooner we can start building a better, stronger, more united country. So stop spreading lies about what I want, stop protraying yourselves as victims of some massive liberal plot, and stop with the creation and destroying of strawmen to get ratings. And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". But, thank God, Dio does not have a talk radio show.

And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much.

Elysian
01-19-2005, 11:48 AM
Can I add to your rant?

To the Christian announcer who said: "Evolution is a THEORY, NOT a FACT"

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BITCH

Did you not take eighth grade biology? Do you not know that a THEORY has been proven several times, unlike a proposition, which has not? Did you not read how bacteria EVOLVE to become more resistant to drugs like penicilin? Do you not know how roaches become resistant to poison? Did you not read the section I did about the moths in England that evolved from white to black to deal with the polution? You must have not read the same book I did, did you read any book at all? Or are you just a moron who believe whatever shit Falwell et al are spewing?

I swear, sometime I wish the scientific community would rename their categories of proposition/theory/law so these religious nuts (not everyone who is religious is a nut, okay? Just the ones with this attitude) wouldn't have the ammunition!

Incubus
01-19-2005, 11:55 AM
Hamlet, it goes both ways, particularly here on the SDMB. Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world. What I think is a big shame is how much partisanship there is in the country right now, and how entrenched everybody is in their own beliefs. It feels like both sides are drifting father apart and trying to alienate themselves from each other. All I hear about these days is 'red states' and 'blue states', what is this, a fucking civil war?! :mad: I'd much prefer a 'middle of the road' approach where everyone can bring something useful to the table instead of accusations, complaints, and scapegoats.

:(

Lord Ashtar
01-19-2005, 11:56 AM
All I hear about these days is 'red states' and 'blue states', what is this, a fucking civil war?!
Not yet. Give it time.

Frank
01-19-2005, 12:08 PM
And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much.
Destroying a conservative's world, one radio station at a time.

Try As I Might...
01-19-2005, 12:10 PM
Gee... and Air America doesn't engage in the "brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with them."

Oh, and include Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and a variety of others who purport that the Republican party is trying to remove all vestiges of democracy from our country...

Not too mention, it also appears to me that most threads in the Pit show a strong leaning towards demonizing any person who might support Bush. (See any thread that begins with genocide, bushbots, et cetera.)

We live in one of the most divisive partisan times we have seen in a loooong time--at least since Vietnam. Both parties adhere to the truth when it suits them and discard it just as easily.

The age of the statesman has unfortunately left us in this country. Where are our leaders? Where is the next Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Lincoln, Kennedy, or FDR going to come from? Agree with them or not--they were leaders. Who was the last great statesman in this country? Now we have politicians who appeal to public images created by banks of political marketing specialists. We have candidates that follow party lines. Really, was either Kerry or Bush appropriate candidates for presidency? Were they the best our country has to offer? Come on.

We need to get back to the point where political disagreement can be accepted. Demonization occurs on both sides now more than ever. Partisanship is at an almost all-time high. It sucks. I love my country, too. I love my Constitution. However, just because I am conservative, many people accuse me of trying to destroy it.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 12:12 PM
And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio...Well, i don't want to speak for him or anything, but most of the evidence i've seen on this board suggests that Diogenes is not, in fact, a liberal.

World Eater
01-19-2005, 12:20 PM
The sooner we can stop with the brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with you, the sooner we can start building a better, stronger, more united country. So stop spreading lies about what I want, stop protraying yourselves as victims of some massive liberal plot, and stop with the creation and destroying of strawmen to get ratings.

This will never....ever......happen. We're a divided country, and the split is only growing.

Please tell me who or what can unite this country.

Metacom
01-19-2005, 12:25 PM
To the Christian announcer who said: "Evolution is a THEORY, NOT a FACT"

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BITCH

Did you not take eighth grade biology? Do you not know that a THEORY has been proven several times, unlike a proposition, which has not?
Um, no. Theories can't be proven--they can be disproven, and they can be supported by empirical evidence (lots of it, in the case of evolution), but you can't prove a theory. And before anyone attacks me, yes, I "believe" in evolution.

Metacom
01-19-2005, 12:29 PM
Well, i don't want to speak for him or anything, but most of the evidence i've seen on this board suggests that Diogenes is not, in fact, a liberal.
What the hell, it's the pit...

How would you characterize Diogenes the Cynic?

gobear
01-19-2005, 12:30 PM
This will never....ever......happen. We're a divided country, and the split is only growing.

Please tell me who or what can unite this country.

We're not that far gone. Our differences will heal just as they did after the 60s. Talk aobut your divided country, 2004 has nothing on 1968, when the country was polarized into olfd and young, left and white, white and black, hawks and doves. We had two assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, we had the Vietnam War, and we had a large, disaffected youth movement. Some historical perspective would do some of you a world of good.

Just wait until Al Qaeda detonates a dirty bomb in downtown DC or starts a smallpox epidemic in NYC--you'll see the country pull together then.

El_Kabong
01-19-2005, 12:38 PM
Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world.

Maybe some do. I don't. My political stance tends toward the liberal, but I don't believe conservatives are out to destroy the world. I believe there are many people who try to hide their interest in lining their own pockets, or a childish desire to attract attention to themselves, under a political label, and that this behavior is common amongst political loudmouths of all stripes.

Most of all, I believe that most of poltically-oriented talk radio is utterly worthless as a discussion forum, and that its hosts should just shut the fuck up.

Hamlet
01-19-2005, 12:39 PM
Gee... and Air America doesn't engage in the "brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with them."

Oh, and include Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and a variety of others who purport that the Republican party is trying to remove all vestiges of democracy from our country...Let me check the OP .... Nope. Nothing in there about Air America being blameless. Maybe I should check the OP again. Nope, Couldn't find anything praising Bah-bra or Moore. Wait a minute...... There's something in the OP about some liberals doing it too? Whodathunk.


Not too mention, it also appears to me that most threads in the Pit show a strong leaning towards demonizing any person who might support Bush. (See any thread that begins with genocide, bushbots, et cetera.)Hey, I made that point in the OP too! Thanks.

We need to get back to the point where political disagreement can be accepted. Demonization occurs on both sides now more than ever. Partisanship is at an almost all-time high. It sucks. I love my country, too. I love my Constitution. However, just because I am conservative, many people accuse me of trying to destroy it.You know, by and large I think the majority of demonization on this board of those who voted for Bush is along the lines of their ignorance of the issues rather than their desire to destroy the country. I'm not sure which is worse to be called: stupid or evil, but I'd rather the namecalling stop altogether.

This will never....ever......happen. We're a divided country, and the split is only growing.

Please tell me who or what can unite this country.Well, I don't know about you, but for while there in late 2001, early 2002, I thought our country was pretty united. After 9/11, I thought our country was united more than it had been in years, and that there was an opportunity for great things to happen. The invasion of Afghanistan enjoyed bi-partisan support, the rhetoric on the "news channels" was comparitively tame, and, in our little neck of the world, there seemed to be a bit less political sniping going on.

The potential for, and a minor actualization of, unity was there. Although it took a horrible national tragedy to bring it about, there was hope we would be a more united country.....

No such luck.

But I think that can happen again. Looking back at my own personal take on history, I think it is certainly possible for this country to be less partisan and more cooperative. It's just we blew the one big chance we had.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 12:51 PM
What the hell, it's the pit...

How would you characterize Diogenes the Cynic?Well, if you were angling for some flaming, i'm afraid you'll be dissappointed.

Diogenes seems to me to be a leftist, not a liberal. Exactly what flavor of leftist is sometimes a little difficult to tell. At times, he seems to be espousing democratic socialist positions, especially on many economic questions. At other times he offers a more libertarian viewpoint, particularly on social and cultural isses. I certainly think he's further to the left that what passes for mainstream liberalism in America. Then, at other times, he comes across as an authoritarian Trotskyist. :)

Again, this is based only on my observations here. I don't want to speak for him, and if he does, in fact, consider himself a liberal, then that's how it is.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 12:53 PM
Talk about your divided country, 2004 has nothing on 1968, when the country was polarized into old and young, left and white, white and black, hawks and doves. gobear, known to his friends as Elmer Fudd.

Jimmy Chitwood
01-19-2005, 12:57 PM
Gee... and Air America doesn't engage in the "brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with them."

Oh, and include Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and a variety of others who purport that the Republican party is trying to remove all vestiges of democracy from our country... .

Does the ellipsis in your username replace the phrase "I can't read through an entire OP without a kneejerk?"

Try As I Might...
01-19-2005, 12:59 PM
Let me check the OP .... Nope. Nothing in there about Air America being blameless. Maybe I should check the OP again. Nope, Couldn't find anything praising Bah-bra or Moore. Wait a minute...... There's something in the OP about some liberals doing it too? Whodathunk.

...Hey, I made that point in the OP too! Thanks.

But I think that can happen again. Looking back at my own personal take on history, I think it is certainly possible for this country to be less partisan and more cooperative. It's just we blew the one big chance we had.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't get that from the OP. I take it you are suggesting i should have gleaned all of your fairly sacrastic remarks quoted above from this...
"And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". But, thank God, Dio does not have a talk radio show."
I appreciate the clarification. It appeared to my feeble mind to be an afterthought. I just wanted to point out that there are quite a few people (absenting Dio) who do have access to the mass media and make similarly idiotic accusations against conservatives.

However, I agree with your clarified response that we are divisive and both sides deserve blame. I agree that it is sad that both sides could not retain the unity found post 9/11; however, elections will do that.

GoBear. I totally agreed with everything you said.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 01:01 PM
Does the ellipsis in your username replace the phrase "I can't read through an entire OP without a kneejerk?"Heh heh.

Especially since the OP took considerable pains to point out that the rant applies to people at all points of the political compass.

lieu
01-19-2005, 01:05 PM
I would agree that a good leader has been lacking for awhile in either party and that disaffection with either party's choice has contributed in large part to the partisan gulf. As much as I am angered over Bush's decisions I can't say Gore or Kerry struck me mid-campaign as being any more capable or of possessing greater vision.

For all the reasons mentioned above we've faced as of late a serious dearth of leadership among our elected. I'm hoping real hard that someone capable will come forth while our problems and other's perceptions aren't insurmountable.

World Eater
01-19-2005, 01:24 PM
We're not that far gone. Our differences will heal just as they did after the 60s. Talk aobut your divided country, 2004 has nothing on 1968, when the country was polarized into olfd and young, left and white, white and black, hawks and doves. We had two assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, we had the Vietnam War, and we had a large, disaffected youth movement. Some historical perspective would do some of you a world of good.

I'll have to trust you on this as I had yet to exist. I still can't envision anything (aside of an attack) uniting us.

Just wait until Al Qaeda detonates a dirty bomb in downtown DC or starts a smallpox epidemic in NYC--you'll see the country pull together then.

A horrific attack would do far more harm (the economy, the ensuing bullshit, erosion of rights, etc), then good (uniting country for 2 years).

mhendo
01-19-2005, 01:33 PM
A horrific attack would do far more harm (the economy, the ensuing bullshit, erosion of rights, etc), then good (uniting country for 2 years).Not only that, but the whole situation right now feeds straight into the hands of the morons running this country.

If there are no attacks (for whatever reason) then they can claim that their strategies are working, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

If there is an attack, then this will simply be seen as evidence that their strategies are not being pursued vigorously enough, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

It's a beautiful thing, if you're an administration chickenhawk.

World Eater
01-19-2005, 01:40 PM
Not only that, but the whole situation right now feeds straight into the hands of the morons running this country.

If there are no attacks (for whatever reason) then they can claim that their strategies are working, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

If there is an attack, then this will simply be seen as evidence that their strategies are not being pursued vigorously enough, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

It's a beautiful thing, if you're an administration chickenhawk.

And don't forget that us "sane" ones are the ones responsible for ruining the country, ha!

1927...........1928...........1929.............1930.................

gobear
01-19-2005, 01:45 PM
gobear, known to his friends as Elmer Fudd.

Be vewy, vewy quiet, I'm hunting weftists, hehehehehehehehehehe!

JohnBckWLD
01-19-2005, 01:58 PM
Where are our leaders? Where is the next ... Lincoln ... going to come from? Agree with them or not--they were leaders.Ironic in that in Lincoln's second inaugural speech (March 1865), he said this:Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."Not exactly the words of a leader in my opinion...more like a fire and brimstone sermon. If you're going to look for leadership, try finding it in yourself -- not elected officials of any generation.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 02:10 PM
I do not deserve to be compared with talk radio morons. I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 02:14 PM
Well, if you were angling for some flaming, i'm afraid you'll be dissappointed.

Diogenes seems to me to be a leftist, not a liberal. Exactly what flavor of leftist is sometimes a little difficult to tell. At times, he seems to be espousing democratic socialist positions, especially on many economic questions. At other times he offers a more libertarian viewpoint, particularly on social and cultural isses. I certainly think he's further to the left that what passes for mainstream liberalism in America. Then, at other times, he comes across as an authoritarian Trotskyist. :)

Again, this is based only on my observations here. I don't want to speak for him, and if he does, in fact, consider himself a liberal, then that's how it is.
I'm pretty far left economically and a social libertarian (that includes gun rights despite my personal distaste for much of the gun culture.

I have never been a member of any political party.

Psycho Pirate
01-19-2005, 03:27 PM
I do not deserve to be compared with talk radio morons. I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.
Never? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5605035&postcount=46)

You apparently think all conservatives either hate their grandchildren, or they want to destroy the planet, or possibly both.

So, do you prefer Rush or Hannity as a nickname? :D

Hamlet
01-19-2005, 03:27 PM
I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole.LIAR. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295128&page=3)The "ultra-nationalist militia movement" of the right IS the Republican party.

LIAR (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=297174)
I know that the neocons don't give a shit about culture or history and have no feelings at all about protecting precious artifacts.

PANTS ON FIRE (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284482)in a country which has a majority population of scumbags. bigots and morons. No reason to feel good about that either.

Lick my balls. you fucking fascists.Referencing the election of Bush.

It took me about 3 minutes to find these quotes of yours. I am simply stunned that you could tell such a bald-faced lie. Well, not actually stunned. Not really surprised either. Your credibility here has taken some major hits recently, and now I know why.

Psycho Pirate
01-19-2005, 03:29 PM
Great simulpost!

Maybe Coulter would be a better nickname? :D

Age Quod Agis
01-19-2005, 03:37 PM
I do not deserve to be compared with talk radio morons. I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.Cough, cough (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5724614&postcount=1).I know that the neocons don't give a shit about culture or history and have no feelings at all about protecting precious artifacts. We know they let the museums get looted while they protected their oil. I know they're fucking scum and I shouldn't be surprised that they would feel perfectly entitled to set up camp in one of the most historically significant archaeological sites in history and treat it like a vacant lot in Jersey.
<snip>
But since the neocons don't stand to make any money from the site, I guess they can't be expected to give a shit.

Just one more atrocity committed in a long series of atrocities. Ahem (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5726461&postcount=38)Besides, since when do any of the warhawks give a shit about human life. The main reason we're in Iraq at all is to kill people for their oil.[whistles softly to himself] (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=288231&page=5&pp=50)Not to insert a debate into a Pit thread, but my answer is that Hitler was playing on feelings that were already present in his audience. He didn't invent anti-semitism he just exploited it. He gave people a scapegoat and he gave them a vision- a mythology- about what Germany always was and would be again. When people are fed an ideology that makes them feel superior, special, chosen, entitled to destroy another people they invariably respond to it.

I have now just hit the delete button and will restrain myself from drawing contemporary parallels. Bush lacks vision anyway.Hmmmm. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5659368&postcount=15)I'm getting really sick of whiny conservative bitches who have never seen a Michael Moore movie slandering the guy and shitting all over him becaues he's made a career out of exposing what a sham their fucking capitalist ideology really is.I'm sure I could go on, but I assume you get my point.

This is not to say that I'm above the occasional foray into lowbrow shots at the opposition. I'd like to think I generally am, but I'm sure there are posts out there in which my gloves drop below the belt. But sometimes self-awareness is part of improvement. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit of hopeful improvement, because I find your non-political posts to be generally wonderful, and I hope that your wonderfulness can extend into the political arena, too.

Try As I Might...
01-19-2005, 03:48 PM
Ironic in that in Lincoln's second inaugural speech (March 1865), he said this:Not exactly the words of a leader in my opinion...more like a fire and brimstone sermon. If you're going to look for leadership, try finding it in yourself -- not elected officials of any generation.

Maybe someday we can discuss the merits of his presidency and the context of that quote, but I don't want to hijack this thread. Your point, on the hand, is well-taken. I was referring to leadership in the sense of how a politically elected individual can affect a county's sense of unity, and other such qualities. Lincoln pretty clearly suceeded in leading this country through its most difficult period.

However, I am now extraordinarily looking forward to Dio's response.....

rjung
01-19-2005, 04:02 PM
Hamlet, it goes both ways, particularly here on the SDMB. Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world.
Yes, but the difference is that us lefty types can pick up a newspaper and see which side is actually doing the destroying...

Liberal
01-19-2005, 04:09 PM
And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so muchA mistake, in my opinion. You are not a part of their target market anyway, and therefore your tuning out will have no effect on them. Instead, it pushes your enemy out of sight and mind exactly the sort of strategic blunder that has put the left out of touch.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 04:17 PM
Well, while a couple of Hamlet's examples seem to cast some doubt on Dio's assertion, the examples given by Age Quo Agis are completely beside the point. Dio said:I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. Of Age Quo Agis's examples:

In Number 1, Dio is specifically referring to neocons, not conservatives or Republicans as a whole. If you don't know how these things differ, i suggest some reading is in order.

Number 2 is referring to "warhawks." Again, this doesn't apply to all conservatives, or all Republicans.

Number 3 simply suggested that there might be some contemporary parallels to Hitler's use of propaganda, scapegoating, and nationalist rhetoric. And it said that "Bush lacks vision."

Number 4 refers specifically to a subset of conservatives who complain about Michael Moore without ever having seen his movies. Hardly a blanket condemnation of all conservatives or all Republicans.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension, A.Q.A..

Ryan_Liam
01-19-2005, 04:24 PM
I made a mistake yesterday. While driving the office's pool car, I grew bored of the sports talk radio show that I usually listen to, and decided to try the pre-programmed stations of the car. Within an hour of listening to talk radio, I was told that, because of my political views: I hate America, I want the United States destroyed, I want democracy to fail, I want to oppress Christians, I want the social fabric of America to be rent apart, I want to destroy the family, and I want thousands of U.S. troops to die.

Wow, I'm a busy guy. Who knew?

So, a quick word to conservative talk radio "personalities", especially Eileen Byrne, Dennis Prager, and Rush Limbaugh:

I do not hate America, I love it.

I do not want America destroyed, I want it to be a beacon in a dark world.

I do not want democracy to fail, I want it to flourish, but I do not believe America has the right to violently invade countries in the name of democratization.

I do not want to oppress Christians, I want a proper separation of church and state.

I do not want to destroy the social fabric, I want it strengthened by the recognition of the value of diversity.

I do not want to destroy families, I want to strengthen them by recognizing the right of homosexuals to marry.

I do not want U.S. troops to die, I want each and everyone of them to return home safely and to be treated well by our government.


The sooner we can stop with the brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with you, the sooner we can start building a better, stronger, more united country. So stop spreading lies about what I want, stop protraying yourselves as victims of some massive liberal plot, and stop with the creation and destroying of strawmen to get ratings. And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". But, thank God, Dio does not have a talk radio show.

And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much.


Not all conservatives believe in binding people to one social order, binding Church and State, taking away peoples rights.

We profess freedom of the individual, the right to work and be as successful as you can, to work and attain what you want within a free society.

World Eater
01-19-2005, 04:27 PM
We profess freedom of the individual, the right to work and be as successful as you can, to work and attain what you want within a free society.

And a free society detains people without due process right?

What is this free society you speak of?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 04:29 PM
Thank you, mhendo.

I rest my case. After all that searching, not one of you fuckers could come up with an example of me making generalizations about conservatives or Republicans. I said shit about neocons. I said shit about conservatives who trash Michael Moore without watching his movies. I said the Republican party is "ultra-nationalist" (which it is) and I made an election night generalizations about AMERICANS, not just consrvatives.

I was right. I will accept your fucking apologies now...and Hamlet can eat my taint.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 04:41 PM
LIAR. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295128&page=3)

LIAR (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=297174)


PANTS ON FIRE (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284482)Referencing the election of Bush.

It took me about 3 minutes to find these quotes of yours. I am simply stunned that you could tell such a bald-faced lie. Well, not actually stunned. Not really surprised either. Your credibility here has taken some major hits recently, and now I know why.
Did you actually read those things? Which one of those quotes constitutes a generalization about conservatives or Republicans. Surely you know the difference between conservatives and neocons. My last quote was about a majority of American voters, not just conservatives (unless you think only conservatives voted for Bush). In the first quote I facetiously call the GOP "ultra-nationalist" and a "militia movement" and I think that both of those characterizations are rhetorically defensible.

What I do NOT do is constantly talk about how conservative hate America or how conservatives are stupid or any of that shit that those right wing radio assholes do. I am viciously anti-Bush but I do not divide the world into "us and them" and that has never been a characteristic of my posting here.

Try As I Might...
01-19-2005, 04:42 PM
And a free society detains people without due process right?

What is this free society you speak of?

Please define what you believe a free country is and please give me an example of a country that does not allow a detention without the right to due process of law and does it without exception. I don't believe one exists. Is this statement purely rhetorical or is it serious?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 04:45 PM
Ah....well....if other countries do it that makes it ok.


Of course we actually have it written in our Constitution but I guess Constitutions were made to be pissed on.

Psycho Pirate
01-19-2005, 04:45 PM
Diogenes, I see you didn't respond in the negative with regard to my statement.

Truth hurts, doesn't it Coulter?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 04:47 PM
Diogenes, I see you didn't respond in the negative with regard to my statement.

Truth hurts, doesn't it Coulter?
It was a valid question. Fuck you.

World Eater
01-19-2005, 04:55 PM
Please define what you believe a free country is and please give me an example of a country that does not allow a detention without the right to due process of law and does it without exception. I don't believe one exists. Is this statement purely rhetorical or is it serious?

My definition of a free country includes charging someone of a crime if you have evidence, and releasing them if you don't. It doesn't include detaining people indefinitely on vague charges. As far as other countries, are Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, etc currently detaining people without charges?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 04:55 PM
Oh. fuck it. I'm going to just acknowledge Psycho Pirate's quote.

Congratulations. Out of almost 13,000 posts you managed to uncover a single nasty (albeit sarcastic) generalization about conservatives. I guess that makes me the left Coulter.

Try As I Might...
01-19-2005, 04:57 PM
Ah....well....if other countries do it that makes it ok.


Of course we actually have it written in our Constitution but I guess Constitutions were made to be pissed on.

Every Constitutional protection has limitations depending on the circumstances in which it is being applied. I assume that is nothing new to you.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 04:58 PM
Every Constitutional protection has limitations depending on the circumstances in which it is being applied.
What the fuck are you talking about? No they don't.

Try As I Might...
01-19-2005, 05:10 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? No they don't.

OK...
Which one would you like to talk about?

Let's just take due process. (and i'm going to use a basic example for clarity)
detention: police require only reasonable suspicion
arrest: probable cause is required, and if not accompanied with a warrant, it also requires exigent circumstances. A simple detention does not require that.
If there aren't limitations on one's right to due process given the situation, then why do we have different standards for police conduct for these two circumstances?

Psycho Pirate
01-19-2005, 05:10 PM
Oh. fuck it. I'm going to just acknowledge Psycho Pirate's quote.

Congratulations. Out of almost 13,000 posts you managed to uncover a single nasty (albeit sarcastic) generalization about conservatives. I guess that makes me the left Coulter.No, it doesn't. It just goes to show that all generalizations are wrong, including your own about yourself. Kudos for admitting to your mistake.

Besides, I shouldn't compare you to Ann Coulter. I find Ann Coulter much more witty, enlightening, and beautiful than you. :)

Ryan_Liam
01-19-2005, 05:14 PM
And a free society detains people without due process right?

What is this free society you speak of?

Like the countless Leftist governments have enacted? Labour is leftist here, and the Conservatives oppose it.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 05:25 PM
Labour is leftist here, and the Conservatives oppose it.If you really believe that the current British Labour government is leftist, may i suggest you get out a little more?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 05:26 PM
No, it doesn't. It just goes to show that all generalizations are wrong, including your own about yourself. Kudos for admitting to your mistake.
Well I had no memory of that remark but I generally make a conscious effort not to talk about Conservatives/Republicans in that reductive, stupid way that so many political demagogues do..

My apologies for the "fuck you." You found a valid cite and I should have been a man about it.
Besides, I shouldn't compare you to Ann Coulter. I find Ann Coulter much more witty, enlightening, and beautiful than you. :)
You haven't seen me in a mini-skirt. ;)

Liberal
01-19-2005, 05:30 PM
Dio, I just wanted to let you know that I have not come to your defense lately because I feared it might do more harm than good. I am too unpopular to be an effective defender in these pile-ons. But it has pretty much reached the point that it doesn't matter anyway. :D Please know, for whatever it's worth, that despite our almost categorical disagreement on so many issues, I always have had and still have the utmost respect for you. I especially love how you call Bush out for his tyrannies while others are fretting endlessly over piddly shit. Hang in there, friend. (If my being a friend does not inconvenience you. ;))

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 05:39 PM
Thank you, Lib. I not regard your alliance as a handicap at all. We both seem to end up in these pile-ups (and somewhat for the same reason. We both tend to be rather hyperbolic in how we express ourselves) so I emathize when it happens to you.

Loopydude
01-19-2005, 05:41 PM
Um, no. Theories can't be proven--they can be disproven, and they can be supported by empirical evidence (lots of it, in the case of evolution), but you can't prove a theory. And before anyone attacks me, yes, I "believe" in evolution.

In the pedantic, Popperian sense, this is correct.

Evolution has not been "proven".

Kind of like Einstein's theory of gravitation has not been "proven".

So, the next time you drop a rock, you might wonder to yourself if the rock will actually fall, since it hasn't been "proven" that it will. Or you might take a pragmatic approach to "proof" and avoid splitting hairs in the manner that some philosphers enjoy as they embark on their infinite regressions toward boundless uncertainty and obscurity.

Metacom
01-19-2005, 05:57 PM
Or you might take a pragmatic approach to "proof" and avoid splitting hairs in the manner that some philosphers enjoy as they embark on their infinite regressions toward boundless uncertainty and obscurity.
The person I was responding to said:

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BITCH

Did you not take eighth grade biology? Do you not know that a THEORY has been proven several times, unlike a proposition, which has not?
IMHO, if you're going to stroke out and shout "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BITCH" at someone because you think they misunderstand what a theory is, you better be damn fucking sure that you know what it is and that any correction you issue on the topic is correct. Elysian clearly didn't understand what a theory is. Pedantry is warranted in such situations. Fighting ignorance, and all that.

And, just to remind anyone who jumps in at this point of the conversation without bothering to read the preceeding messages, let me restate: I believe in evolution. Nothing that I say should be construed as an endorsement of any viewpoint that doesn't support evolution.

Age Quod Agis
01-19-2005, 06:23 PM
Well, while a couple of Hamlet's examples seem to cast some doubt on Dio's assertion, the examples given by Age Quo Agis are completely beside the point. Dio said: I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole.How interesting that you didn't use his complete quote. If we can take a look at it:I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.Well, what have we here? A little selective quoting by mhendo? Because if you used his whole quote -- as I did -- then you'd see that my quotes show he's not merely "antiBush."

Now, if you want me to prove that he's been anti-conservative ... well, he's admitted to such. So your empassioned defense was apparently misguided. And I suppose I could have kept searching until I found times when Dio used the words conservative and dickhead in the same post, or maybe until I found an enough examples that we could definitively say that Dio has insulted every faction of the conservative party, but I thought the point was reasonably obvious from my post.

But I posted it with good intentions ... which you have now tried to piss on. So, you know, good job there.You might want to work on your reading comprehension, A.Q.A..Plank, eye, etc.

I especially love the way you tried to contort a comparison between Nazi support for Hitler and American support for Bush into merely "drawing parallels" between the two societies. Nope, nothing sinister there. Not even when Dio referred to Hitler playing on biases like anti-Semitism, which were already present in his supporters before he came to power. And nothing wrong with drawing a little parallel between the Nazi and American feelings that they are "entitled to destroy another people." I'm sure that was all innocent, and was in no way directed toward Republicans or conservatives.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 06:43 PM
Psst...Ago, I wasn't comparing American support for Bush to Nazi Germany, I was comparing Bush's use of propaganda to Hitler's.


Your examples utterly failed to support your contentions. You were wrong. Move on.

Ryan_Liam
01-19-2005, 07:12 PM
If you really believe that the current British Labour government is leftist, may i suggest you get out a little more?

Come and live here. They may spout capilatlist values, but their traditions are left wing to the core.

Siege
01-19-2005, 07:21 PM
Try As I Might . . ., I'm afraid I'm going to have to shoot down Jefferson, too. You see, I have a marvelous book called Presidential Campaigns by Paul F. Boller Jr. which talks about each presidential campaign in turn from Washington's first election to Clinton's first. In it, there's a story about a lady who asked a friend of hers to hide her Bible if the candidate he's supporting wins (he's the only person she knows who supports the candidate). When he asked her why, she told him she'd heard that, if he won, all Bibles would be destroyed. Her friend tried to persuade her that was all nonsense. When that didn't work, he asked her why he thought a Bible would be safe with him if his candidate won. She replied that they'd never think to look in the home of one of the candidate's supporters! The candidate was our own Thomas Jefferson. He did win; no Bibles were destroyed as far as I know; and one party's been claiming the other will destroy Christianity if they're elected ever since, or so it seems some times. :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, folks, it's been worse! :eek: and YIPE!!

CJ

Age Quod Agis
01-19-2005, 07:34 PM
Psst...Ago, I wasn't comparing American support for Bush to Nazi Germany, I was comparing Bush's use of propaganda to Hitler's. Awww, for cripe's sake.

Look, if you were just comparing Bush's use of propoganda, then why the dish about "pre-existing prejudices"? Were those "pre-existing prejudices" only present in Nazi society, but not in American society? And who had those prejudices? The liberals that voted against Bush, or the conservatives and Republicans that voted for him?

And when you were talking about the people responding to things that make them "feel superior, special, chosen, entitled to destroy another people," were you only talking about Nazi people? Or were you also maybe possibly suggesting that Republicans have bought into some crap propoganda that they're entitled to "destroy another people"?

If you were merely suggesting that Bush's propoganda is as evil as Hitler, then you've done a poor job of conveying your point because there are lots of other, broader negative interpretations. Your examples utterly failed to support your contentions. You were wrong. Move on.My contention -- Diogenes is not just anti-Bush.

My examples -- Dio insults neocons, warhawks, compares Bush supporters to Hitler supporters, and "whiny conservative bitches" who don't like Michael Moore.

Now, I'll grant you that the last example can stand on its own ... except for the fact that you felt compelled to throw "conservative" in there. Or do "whiny liberal bitches" who don't like Michael Moore not deserve to be drenched in buckets of your ire?

So from those examples, Dio's "anti" categories extend well beyond "Bush."

But here's the deal -- I'm willing to drop this argument entirely on one condition -- you have to promise to try to be more reasonable, and utilize less invective in place of logic, in future political arguments. I think you've got a great analytical mind, but right now, you appear to be using it for Matrix-like conspiracy theories. It's like putting Kate Beckinsale in a burka ... and that's just a crime.

mhendo
01-19-2005, 07:40 PM
Come and live here. They may spout capilatlist values, but their traditions are left wing to the core.I have lived there.

Sure, their traditions are leftist. In fact, i would like them much better if they actually lived up to their traditions. But the current Labour government under Blair is far from left in the vast majority of its policies.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-19-2005, 07:42 PM
But here's the deal -- I'm willing to drop this argument entirely on one condition -- you have to promise to try to be more reasonable, and utilize less invective in place of logic, in future political arguments. I think you've got a great analytical mind, but right now, you appear to be using it for Matrix-like conspiracy theories. It's like putting Kate Beckinsale in a burka ... and that's just a crime.
[point by point rebuttal deleted]

I'll try to tamp down the invective. It's never helped me anyway.

Mr. Babbington
01-19-2005, 07:56 PM
Wow. That thread got hijacked faster than...well...some aircraft I've heard mentioned in the news.

I read the whole thing. Things were fine until post 10, and it became another friggin' pitting of Diogenes, and by extension those who would agree with him (myself included), when in fact, the pitting in the OP was against conservative radio. Maybe later I'll deconstruct the thing and figure out what sleight of hand turned it into a pitting of the left. Or maybe I just don't give a shit.

Christ. Grow up, people.

Age Quod Agis
01-19-2005, 08:01 PM
[point by point rebuttal deleted]

I'll try to tamp down the invective. It's never helped me anyway.Bless you, sir. If for no other reason than because you spared me the decimation of a point-by-point rebuttal.

And by the way, I'm giddy with anticipation of future Dio posts.

"Beckinsale has dropped the burka!"

rjung
01-19-2005, 08:45 PM
My contention -- Diogenes is not just anti-Bush.
Yeah, he's anti-stupid people, which is sorta the whole point of this message board.

Don't go blaming Dio just because there's been an upswell in stupidity from the political right in the last decade or so. ;)

Giraffe
01-19-2005, 08:48 PM
I read the whole thing. Things were fine until post 10, and it became another friggin' pitting of Diogenes, and by extension those who would agree with him (myself included), when in fact, the pitting in the OP was against conservative radio.I agree with this 100%. If ever a thread needed a second take, this would be it.

CanvasShoes
01-19-2005, 08:54 PM
Hamlet, it goes both ways, particularly here on the SDMB. Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world. What I think is a big shame is how much partisanship there is in the country right now, and how entrenched everybody is in their own beliefs. It feels like both sides are drifting father apart and trying to alienate themselves from each other. All I hear about these days is 'red states' and 'blue states', what is this, a fucking civil war?! :mad: I'd much prefer a 'middle of the road' approach where everyone can bring something useful to the table instead of accusations, complaints, and scapegoats.

:(
Amen!!!!!!!!!

Only, rather than alienate themselves from each other, it seems as if each side would really like to ANNIHILATE the other side.

PEOPLE. (of both sides for crying out loud).

The "other" side watches the same news and reads the same papers you do. They take those reports and have a different OPINION of what they mean, and what is important.

The fact that it is not the same as YOUR beliefs doesn't mean they are evil, stupid, America-hating, or anything else.

It's a difference of opinion. Period. Good GOD, can we stop with the murderous hatred already?

CanvasShoes
01-19-2005, 08:57 PM
[Hamlet, it goes both ways, particularly here on the SDMB. Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world. What I think is a big shame is how much partisanship there is in the country right now, and how entrenched everybody is in their own beliefs. It feels like both sides are drifting father apart and trying to alienate themselves from each other. All I hear about these days is 'red states' and 'blue states', what is this, a fucking civil war?! :mad: I'd much prefer a 'middle of the road' approach where everyone can bring something useful to the table instead of accusations, complaints, and scapegoats.

:(
Amen!!!!!!!!!

Only, rather than alienate themselves from each other, it seems as if each side would really like to ANNIHILATE the other side.

PEOPLE. (of both sides for crying out loud).

The "other" side watches the same news and reads the same papers you do. They take those reports and have a different OPINION of what they mean, and what is important.

The fact that it is not the same as YOUR beliefs doesn't mean they are evil, stupid, America-hating, or anything else.

It's a difference of opinion. Period. Good GOD, can we stop with the murderous hatred already?

CanvasShoes
01-19-2005, 08:58 PM
damnit

I refreshed after it froze, I DID. grrrrrr

mhendo
01-19-2005, 09:08 PM
I read the whole thing. Things were fine until post 10, and it became another friggin' pitting of Diogenes... and I agree with this 100%. If ever a thread needed a second take, this would be it.Well, Hamlet didn't exactly get the whole thing off to a great start by taking an unnecessary potshot at Diogenes in the OP.

Instead of writingAnd, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". why not just leave out the words "like Dio"? The point would have been made perfectly well, and none of this would have happened.

Scylla
01-19-2005, 09:33 PM
I have a plethora of responses to this thread, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore, I will seperate them by asterisks:

***
Oh stop your whining Hamlet. You do to want to destroy the world.

***

If you don't want to destroy the world, than how do you explain that doomsday device in your back pocket? huh?

***

Denial ain't a river. You're never going to get any help or change until you admit you have a problem. Once you admit that you want to destroy the world, you can begin to address your problem. But if you just want to sit there and protest that you don't you're never going to get anywhere. We all know you want to destroy the world. You're not fooling anybody, and you're just embarasshing your self. Just admit the problem. Lots of people want to destroy the world. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You are among friends. So, instead of denying it, why don't you be honest with us? More importantly, why don't you be honest with yourself.

***

Seriously though, why the hyperbole? They really didn't say you wanted to destroy the world, did they? More likely what they said was that you and yours were in favor of a lot of poor ideas that would inevitably lead to the world being screwed up.

Assuming for the nonce that you are a liberal, than that's pretty much the way I feel about most of the things associated with liberals. They are bad ideas that will screw things up. Probably that's what they said, and like it or not, it's probably fair because liberals feel that conservatives want to do things which will inevitably lead to disaster. That's why we are not all conservatives or liberals. We disagree.

***

Assuming the prior one is wrong and the show did specifically say that liberals are out to destroy the world.... they may have a point. I do not speak about all liberals, but I have wondered about this myself. For the last five years it seems to me that quite a few liberals have been pretty vocal about how everything the Republicans/conservatives are doing is such a terrible idea and will lead to disaster that they have trapped themselves rhetorically. They have put themselves in the position that they were counting on the economy falling apart, and our foreign situation self-destructing in order to regain power. People that have left themselves no choice but to count on the failure of their adversary's as their primary strategy to power have made the mistake of forgetting that we are all in the same boat, and our failure is also theirs. In such cases those people are out to destroy the world and fuck things up so they can blame it on the party in power. Their only strategy is to hope things fall apart, predict they will, and sometimes to help them along, or talk as if they already have. In my opinion this has become an uncomfortably large percentage of liberals.

tagos
01-20-2005, 06:05 AM
Come and live here. They may spout capilatlist values, but their traditions are left wing to the core.

Bollocks. You are talking about Daily Mail Land, which is a whole different, scary and fictious place.

GomiBoy
01-20-2005, 06:56 AM
Come and live here. They may spout capilatlist values, but their traditions are left wing to the core.

I do. You're talking crap. Again.

And the word you're searching for is capitalist, not capilatlist.

Legolamb
01-20-2005, 07:04 AM
Come and live here. They may spout capilatlist values, but their traditions are left wing to the core.
You're talking out of your arse Ryan. New Labour's policies bear no resemblance to the traditional values of old Labour. This change in leaning can be traced back to around the time of John Smith's death when Labour realised that their best chances of winning lay in beating the Tories at their own game.

An Arky
01-20-2005, 07:27 AM
I think this thread is somewhat indicative of the problem we're facing today. Both sides have stepped away from the table, yet there's more important work to do than ever.

Both sides are too obsessed with gaining political advantage to put that advantage to use in any meaningful way.

What we need to do is come back to the table with the understanding that each side represents roughly half the people, put the things that need to be done on the table and reach agreements that allow things to move forward.

You want to partially privatize Social Security? O.K., then Medicare needs to be strengthened. You want abortion to remain legal? O.K., let kids pray in school if they want to. Stuff like that. Big ideas, brave choices. We currently have no one with the stones or the flexibility to do this.

gobear
01-20-2005, 08:40 AM
You want to partially privatize Social Security? O.K., then Medicare needs to be strengthened. You want abortion to remain legal? O.K., let kids pray in school if they want to. Stuff like that. Big ideas, brave choices. We currently have no one with the stones or the flexibility to do this.

Kids can pray in school. They have ALWAYS been able to pray in school. The problem has been in endorsing corporate prayer or involving schools in religious programs. It's this lack of knowledge about First Amendment law that poisons the debate.

An Arky
01-20-2005, 09:19 AM
Opps, I knew that people could voluntarily pray in school. I was just trying to provide examples of issues both sides seem to hold dear, and I was factually inaccurate. I reckon that's at least one of the reasons I'm not politician.

tnetennba
01-20-2005, 09:37 AM
Not all conservatives believe in binding people to one social order, binding Church and State, taking away peoples rights.

We profess freedom of the individual, the right to work and be as successful as you can, to work and attain what you want within a free society.

So what part of not letting gays marry is integral to that vision?

mhendo
01-20-2005, 09:40 AM
Opps, I knew that people could voluntarily pray in school. I was just trying to provide examples of issues both sides seem to hold dear, and I was factually inaccurate. I reckon that's at least one of the reasons I'm not politician.Actually, a penchant for factual inaccuracy would probably qualify you eminently for the job.

Hamlet
01-20-2005, 10:20 AM
I have a plethora of responses to this thread, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore, I will seperate them by asterisks:

***
Oh stop your whining Hamlet. You do to want to destroy the world.

***No. I want to RULE the world. What good is being Grand Pooh Bah of the world if it is destroyed before I can develop my Death Star v. 2.2.

If you don't want to destroy the world, than how do you explain that doomsday device in your back pocket? huh?

***It's only a prototype.

Denial ain't a river. You're never going to get any help or change until you admit you have a problem. Once you admit that you want to destroy the world, you can begin to address your problem. But if you just want to sit there and protest that you don't you're never going to get anywhere. We all know you want to destroy the world. You're not fooling anybody, and you're just embarasshing your self. Just admit the problem. Lots of people want to destroy the world. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You are among friends. So, instead of denying it, why don't you be honest with us? More importantly, why don't you be honest with yourself.

***Hi, I'm Hamlet. And I'm a Evil Genius. Hi Hamlet!

Seriously though, why the hyperbole? They really didn't say you wanted to destroy the world, did they? More likely what they said was that you and yours were in favor of a lot of poor ideas that would inevitably lead to the world being screwed up.Actually the term "destroy" came from a part of the "discussion" which included the accusation that allowing homosexuals to marry would, indeed, "destroy the family". And, in discussing the new Ten Commandments judge, they stated that those who oppose allowing judges to adorn themselves in the Ten Commandments while on the bench were trying to "wipe out" Christianity. Now, I've always been unable to understand how allowing homosexuals the same civil rights as most everyone else in any way harms "the family". Or how wanting separation of church and state makes me wish to get rid of Christianity. Rather than discuss these issues, the talk radio shows would rather demonize those who disagree and paint them as bent on the destruction of all that they hold dear. We saw it with the rhetoric of "anti-patriotism" for not supporting the war in Iraq and numerous other issues. I'm sick of it.

Assuming for the nonce that you are a liberal, than that's pretty much the way I feel about most of the things associated with liberals. They are bad ideas that will screw things up. Probably that's what they said, and like it or not, it's probably fair because liberals feel that conservatives want to do things which will inevitably lead to disaster. That's why we are not all conservatives or liberals. We disagree.We can disagree. We can think that the other side's platform is wrong and may "screw things up", but protraying liberals (and conservatives) as actually wishing to destroy the other side is so incredibly contraproductive to enlightened debate that ..... well, we end up where we are now, with a strongly divided nation.

In addition, there are certainly decisions that will have much more "destructive" effect than others. For example, oh, let's say invading another country. The effect of such a decision is much more negative than that of allowing two people of the same gender to marry. There are some parts of the "liberal ideology" (if that exists), that could lead to destruction, but I have a real hard time understanding how accepting homosexuality and not establishing a religion are those issues.

Assuming the prior one is wrong and the show did specifically say that liberals are out to destroy the world.... they may have a point. I do not speak about all liberals, but I have wondered about this myself. For the last five years it seems to me that quite a few liberals have been pretty vocal about how everything the Republicans/conservatives are doing is such a terrible idea and will lead to disaster that they have trapped themselves rhetorically. They have put themselves in the position that they were counting on the economy falling apart, and our foreign situation self-destructing in order to regain power. People that have left themselves no choice but to count on the failure of their adversary's as their primary strategy to power have made the mistake of forgetting that we are all in the same boat, and our failure is also theirs. In such cases those people are out to destroy the world and fuck things up so they can blame it on the party in power. Their only strategy is to hope things fall apart, predict they will, and sometimes to help them along, or talk as if they already have. In my opinion this has become an uncomfortably large percentage of liberals.I would disagree as to the percentage, but you definitely have a point that there are liberals who believe the country is heading for complete and utter ruin. But stating that liberals actually WANT thinks to go badly, is just plain wrong in a vast majority of cases. No "liberals" I know want the invasion of Iraq to go poorly, they never did, despite the rhetoric of the right. No "liberals" I know want the economy to collapse, hell, I need my retirement account to flourish. No "liberals" I know want Social Security to tank, want the future generations to be laden with debt, or want the marginalization of gays. They may think it will happen. They may think it is already happening. But ascribing a negative intent to every desire of a "liberal" is a bold faced lie that is meant only to further divide our country.

And, as an aside: Well, Hamlet didn't exactly get the whole thing off to a great start by taking an unnecessary potshot at Diogenes in the OP.I was attempting to take a larger issue in the country and apply it to this message board, and to point out that both sides do this. Feel free to insert another posters name who is omnipresent and demonizes the "opposition", including neocons, but apparently not conservatives, the Republican party, but oddly enough not Republicans, and people who voted for Bush, but not .......... ummmm conservatives or Republicans.

An Arky
01-20-2005, 10:46 AM
Actually, a penchant for factual inaccuracy would probably qualify you eminently for the job.

Yes, but my admission that I was factually inaccurate automatically disqualifies me.

Beware of Doug
01-20-2005, 11:33 AM
Be vewy, vewy quiet, I'm hunting weftists, hehehehehehehehehehe!
You're warped... :D