You need to get your PC looked at. The first question is:
Check again at that link and tell me if you still see the same thing.
Good Heavens! 
Miriam’s not dogmatic, she’s simply incapable of supporting the (vastly radical) means of the opposing party. Ever.
I’ve got to get outta here for today, but let’s revisit thyis tomorrow. Off the top of my head, though, I don’t see why there should be any odds. You either think it’s going to happen or not. If you don’t think it’s going to happen, then you shouldn’t bet on it.
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
Have a good night.
Yeah, just because he keeps (a) expressing disapproval of Bush’s actions and then (b) finds weasly excuses to justify those actions doesn’t make him an apologist at all. 
Whatever else one might say about the unabashed Bush supporters, at least they don’t try to have their cake and eat it, too.
But … but … Clinton got a blowjob, I tells ya! A blowjob! Where was the outrage, you damn liberals? Don’t you believe in simple *morality *?
I’m out of cheeks to turn.
I am shocked, shocked that he didn’t reciprocate, the selfish bastard!
Ah, I see. Just hope that the Coulters and Malkins and the Limbaughs of this world just…go away. 'Cause after a certain point, that quite frankly is what your suggestion boils down to.
You know what this says to me? It says “I am far more concerned with the appearance of civility than with the substance of what might actually be important.” And up to a certain point, that’s fine. It’s nice that, when all is working as it should, we have the luxury of being civil. The key words being, “up to a certain point”.
So, at what point if any does the actual topic that I’m shouting about become important enough for you to pull your fingers out of your ears?
Ah, the “but think of the undecided voters!” argument. Because in the current political environment of the United States, everybody’s just racing to vote for the candidate that looks weak in the face of attacks.
You want to grab an audience? Then lead. No, that doesn’t mean throwing shit or screaming all the time. But it doesn’t mean standing quietly by all the time, either. Sometimes a good honest dose of “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more” will work far better at convincing the audience at large than yet another bracing round of “please sir stop hitting me”.
I really don’t think that’s an accurate characterization. There’s nothing remotely supportive of Bush in an apologetic fashion in JM’s history. He’s shown what I find to be, at times, a baffling contrarian streak when it’s come to some arguments made by the likes of, well, me, that impugn Bush in a way he seems to sincerely feel is unjustified, but that certainly doesn’t qualify as unabashed support or apologetics. It’s just an annoying accusation that I’m full of shit! 
Look, klutz…
You started this thread almost immediately after lambasting me in this thread (regarding a Canadian report on a wrongly susptected citizen whom the US deported to Syria for torture), for this post:
John Mace’s full sentence there was actually:
Imagine if you will:
A crowd is gathered around the site of an accident. A car sits with its front end severely dented with a concave impression square in the middle of the front. There is blood all over the hood and fender. Many drops of blood lead from the car amidst a trail of scattered personal belongings, to the destroyed body of a large man, whose blood is spattered in a radial pattern around his cracked skull, as his body slumps against a wall. Several limbs are clearly broken. He is dead.
Word goes through the crowd about this terrible pedestrian hit, when a distinguished-looking gentleman strides through the crowd an examines the scene briefly. He speaks:
“Tsk, tsk. This is surely tragic. Were I a betting man, I would certainly have to wager that the driver of that car killed this poor man by striking him with his vehicle. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I am no friend of the apparent perpetrator of this act. I can not abide his taste in socks, and I hear tell he has been known to frequently annoy housecats. But, friends, have we really stopped to think about all the likelihoods? The victim was indeed large. Have we truly eliminated the small but very real possibility that he suffered a fatal coronary moments before that despondent gentleman in the driver’s seat over there propelled his lifeless corpse into that building?”
Now, you could say the man is even-handed.
You could say he weighs all possibilities equally.
You could say he refuses to be misled by first impressions, and considers all options.
Or you could say he is what an ounce of sense would tell you he most certainly is: the driver’s attorney.
I would be lying if I said I never saw John Mace speak against some act of the current administration, although I am hard-pressed to recall the last time he made a post to that effect. What I do recall is that every criticism he makes is so heavily qualified in favor of shining a positive light on Bush & Co.'s numerous ethical atrocities, that I can only describe them as Praising Bush with Faint Damns.
:: Shrug :: You’re not responsible for them; you’re only responsible for yourself.
Well, that might be what it says to you, but it’s not actually what I said. The choice is never fling poo or be silent.
My point – which you have missed – is that when you abandon the “luxury” of being civil and start screaming, people tend to tune out and walk away. Because you’re, y’know, screaming. I’m not sure if you dispute this point or not, or if you’re just defending your right to chuck civility out the window, which – hey, go right ahead. Just realize that some people will no longer be listening to you. FWIW, I feel this way without regard to the political orientation of the screamer. That guy on TV who screams about the stock market? I’d rather put pins in my eyes than sit through his show.
Well, never. Because, see, you were shouting, so I put my fingers in my ears, so I don’t actually know what you were shouting about. If you want me to listen, you have to stop shouting.
I don’t perceive an insistence on common decency to be a show of weakness. YMMV.
It ought to be self-evident that these are not the only options.
The OP pointed out that ad hominem attacks are counter-productive, and I agree. Luci asserted that if you have “the truth” on your side, it’s fine to “scream your bloody head off.” I in turn opined that “screaming your head off” is not really productive either, if people aren’t listening to you. I’m not really sure what you’re arguing: That people [ido* listen to people screaming at them? Okay, but that’s not my experience. That you have the right to scream anyway, if you think it’s important enough? Sure you do, and I never said you didn’t.
Y’know, if you’re trying to appeal to the moderates, making claims about George Bush ‘reshaping the United States in the image of the Soviet Union’ might not be your best tactic.
And if you really believe that, go read a history book.
Oh, and over-the-top nonsense like this is why some of us get forced into being ‘Bush apologists’. I’d look like a Castro apologist too if people ran around claiming that he wanted to rape babies and eat them, and liked to roast Christian children on a spit. I’d find myself constantly saying, “Whoa there… Castro doesn’t want any of those things to happen. He’s not that bad.”
And I hate Castro.
I had a glance at Democratic Underground today after Chavez went on his little "Bush is the Devil’ rant at the UN. They’re positively gleeful over there. Chavez is their buddy. They’d elect him president if they could.
This forces some of us, who otherwise wouldn’t give Bush an ounce of credit, to take sides with him. And then the left bitches that we’re ‘apologists’ for Bush. No, it’s just that too many on the other side are freaking nuts.
And I started this thread because some of the people on this board scream and throw shit all the time. It gets old, and it hurts the cause. Screaming on a message board is almost certain to be ineffective. It’s just too easy to scroll on past the frothing nonsense. Meanwhile, the reader is left with yet another example of a loony Bush-basher, which plays right into the opposition’s hands. Angry? Sure, great. Raving and irrational? Bad idea.
You’re right, that hyperbole was too much in a thread where I’m trying to get people not to get carried away.
Yes, I did. And I lambasted you because you can’t seem to understand that there is a distinction between belief and proof, and that it might be useful to discuss that difference. Do I believe the guy was tortured? Yes. Do you? Yes. Does John? Yes. None of us can prove it, and that limits the impact it can have on the political scene.
Really? All 94,956 members there are gleeful? That’s pretty selective reading and a helpful ‘appeal to the moderates’. I could match you nut for nut in the repub/dem blogs. What’s the point?
Boy, you got us there, Sam. We sure have been saying some nutty, nutty shit these last several years, huh?
I wonder, is it still nutso and crazy after it proves true? Do we get a pass for being on the nose when you were full of garbanzos?
Well, FWIW, I’ve always felt that hardcore left-wing sites like DU were closer to their mainstream political affiliations than hardcore right-wing sites. But only because the hardcore right-wing sites tend to be SO insane that no one wants them (racist, frothing homophobic, complete conspiracy, etc.), and there’s as not much on the left quite like that, besides eco-terrorism and a couple other things.
FWIW, The Free Republic, no slouch in the name calling department is the one saying dems are cheering Hugo Chavez.
Some of the remarks there-
“I think Hugo Chavez was actually the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries until this remark.”
“No doubt, Senator Hugo Reid, Democrat, Nevada, agrees 100% with Chavez.”
Who’s nuts?