You know, Sam, that’s a really old tape you’re playing. I can name at least a half dozen lefties who are now and nearly always have been MUCH more radical, vocal, angry and downright nasty about conservatives in general than me. Elvis1 is the first one that pops to mind. My darling Boris, aka Elucidator, is far harsher and snottier than I, as well as being farther left.
I started one thread a year ago about why I do not trust Republicans, and ever since I have been held up as the ultimate example of blind, rage-filled, mindless conservative bashing. It just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Which is not to say that I’m suddenly in love with the right, only that the portrayal of me as a leftwing rageoholic is jsut not true, and frankly I’m getting really tired of it.
Stoid
PS: As for the rest of your post, I think this is a legitimate discussion we should have. I’m just not taking this post to have it. I encourage you to open a thread to discuss it.
You know, just as I was hitting ‘Submit Reply’ on that message I realized that my caricature of you was probably outdated. I must say that your recent messages have been much more reasonable.
But for a while there… Whoo boy! If Stoid’s in the room, get out the asbestos jockey shorts!
:rolleyes:
I guess we need to define what a true conservative is, then (anything like a true Scotsman?). When my co-workers were giving their opinions of Gore, “naive” and “doesn’t have all the facts” were not exactly the terms they were using. “Motherfucking tree-hugger” was more in the ballpark. This was from a bunch of MBAs.
I still remember when I was fifteen, making the mistake of asking my boss “What is it you don’t like about Mike Dukakis?” This educated father of two grabbed me by my collar and proceeded and proceeded to swear, scream and do all but fling his feces for a good twenty minutes. In the middle of his own store. That was not disagreement, that was hate.
Of course, I’m not so naive as to think all people fit into such nice, neat little categories as this.
Sam, would you just END IT with the “liberals do this, liberals do that”
I’ve heard Conservatives use ad hominem attacks before-what about directed at Clinton, or Gore (Sore Loserman, anyone? Algore?)
sheesh, you get some on BOTH GODDAMN SIDES!!!
I’ve also heard nasty comments directed at Janet Reno about her being a “dyke/bitch/uglycunt, etc etc” take your pick.
It’s fucking politics, man. It’s the nature of the beast.
Or James Watt’s comment-“I never use the words Democrats and Republicans. It’s liberals and Americans.”
Who invented the term feminazis? Or that liberals are sex-crazed, immoral, PC thugs, etc etc?
You want a good example of irony? Now that’s ironic, coming from a guy whose shows are riddled with examples of liberals who are just downright eee-vil people. The classic Rush example is his ongoing denunciation of liberals who deliberately want the poor to remain helpless and downtrodden so that liberals can hold jobs purporting to help them.
Of course, liberals are just as capable of conservatives of ascribing generalized demonic motives to the opposition, so it would be ever so nice if the back-and-forth on this subject could cease.
I actually am somewhat more pissed now at Rush than I was before he announced his impending deafness. He’s forced me to feel badly for him…at least for awhile.
And I’m surprised that any left-wingers would be rejoicing over this news. Now if he’d lost his voice, then I could understand dancing in the aisles.
No argument from me about Rush making fun of people. I’m not here to defend Rush Limbaugh.
Guin: Hey, it’s a legitimate subject, and I think the argument has merit. But I already said that it’s pretty much non-debatable, since it relies on anecdotal evidence and you can ALWAYS find exception to that rule. So sure, let’s drop it.
I do, and I’m sticking with the point. It’s spelled “Daschle”, btw.
As I pointed out, Clinton-hatred is not an aberration. I do understand how he makes your argument difficult to sustain and that you’d rather not deal with it.
Cite? The most frequent comments from the Right about Gore (and see previous replies) are along the lines of “thief (re the election)” and “liar” (re the thoroughly-debunked Internet story), or, at best “environmental whacko”. Criticism of Gingrich, even accepting your example as true, is about the policies he was working for.
The other examples you gave are cases of you taking criticisms of policies personally. You’re seeing statements along the lines of “Your policies are heartless” as meaning “You’re heartless.” There may not be a huge difference, but there is one, and you’re brushing it aside.
Thanks for sharing your sweeping stereotypes with the rest of the class.
The sweeping stereotypes are coming from you, friend. You stated that your Limbaugh quote was appropriate and true. If the argument is “undefinable” and has frequent counterexamples, you might reconsider your shallow stereotypes, and even retracting the observation.
Read Christopher Hitchens’ book No one left to lie to and you will see accounts given by several different women from differnt parts of the country who had never had any contact with each other. They all give very similair accounts of rape by Clinton. It wasn’t penetration, but it was forcul and involved biting the lip. These women were all democrats and some had to be lured into telling the story. They didn’t run to the tabloids or make a big deal out of it. How’s that for your ‘vast right wing conspiracy’? “You’ll want to put some ice on that”
Regarding Nixon and Ford. There was no deal. Ford didn’t even want to be President, he wanted to be Speaker of the House. So there was no reason for him to agree to it.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
Please explain how it matters that Nixon was “never impeached”. He certainly would have been in a matter of days. That makes him morally superior in what way?
You might also consider the circumstances and the votes before calling Clinton’s refusal to surrender an example of his sliminess.
As do you. Oh, you meant the difference goes the other way? UncleBeer, I’d respond to you if you had written anything worth responding to. But it’s too nice a day.
Please explain how it matters that Nixon was “never impeached”. He certainly would have been in a matter of days. That makes him morally superior in what way?
[/quote]
Yes, I agree that Nixon would have been impeached.
However, what Elvis and I think would have happened doesn’t satisfy jab1’s standards – i.e., the standards s/he applies to Clinton.
Not in this case. I would have preferred that both Nixon and Clinton be criminally prosecuted. There was plenty of evidence that they both committed felonies.
By a strict party-line vote, heavily whipped by one of the biggest get-rid-of-the-President activists of all (DeLay), during a lame-duck session, following an election that can only be interpreted as the people ordering their representatives to knock it off, with no functioning Speaker to provide adult leadership, patently hurried to get it in place before the next session started and the partisan vote margin would have dwindled to a possibly-unsustainable level, following perfunctory hearings with no serious examination of the charges, and no details of the charges in the bill of impeachment that could be responded to.
That doesn’t even begin to get into the political atmosphere, including the assurances made by DeLay that wavering Republicans could be sure he wouldn’t actually be removed by the Senate, so they could hang a bill of attainder on their archenemy without paying a political price.
What part of that process will future historians think was constitutionally and politically legitimate, much less honorable? If it “feels good” to you anyway, you’re welcome to feel that way. Just be aware of the possibility that the majority are already shaking their heads sadly over people like you, and more will in the future.
They were not paid or bribed. Deny it if you want, but your President was a rapist. The NOW president abused women and treated them like dirt.
Can you imagine what they would have done or said to Monica Lewinsky if she didn’t have the dress? Carville probably had all the info lined up against her. The women who made accusations were called sluts and trailer trash.
Who cares if the impeachment was a partisan vote? It was designed to be. Impeachment is a political act, that’s why it’s given to the house, they only have 2 year terms. The Clintons’ own standard in 1974 of impeachment against Nixon applied to Bill, but suprisingly, they changed their minds because it wasn’t politically favorable.
Now let’s talk about executing a retarded man because you were afraid of being called ‘soft on crime’ and you were battling it out in the primaries.
What about if he became incurably impotent for life? Wouldn’t you find that ironic or to be a little bit of “poetic justice?” Even a little bit? I think this would be a closer analogy to the idea of Rush losing his hearing as “poetic justice.”
Cite? Or just wishful thinking? Please consider how Paula Jones’ nose job and new wardrobe suddenly came within her means, for instance.
.
Cite? And btw he was the President of all of us, including you. So is Bush.
Truth is truth.
If that’s your view, then it doesn’t need to be taken any more seriously than any other partisan act. But it’s an act that should be taken symbolically by the entire country, using the House as its surrogate. Note that the Nixon impeachment proceedings were across party lines, with the House Judiciary Committee members understanding their role as representatives of the entire country. Compare that to the Clinton proceedings and you’ll have a definition of “farcical”.
But you said you don’t care. It’s easy to say that when you can’t find a way to weasel out, but it doesn’t fool anyone.
The accusations of rape outlined in Hitchens’ book do not involve Paula Jones, they involve women you have never heard of. They only talked to Hitchens, no organization or media, thus ruling out any $$ motive.
So with your ‘Truth is Truth’ comment, you advocate trashing of ‘alleged’ rape victims? Or is it only when they are alleged against someone you are politically supportive of?
I think that’s the position NOW has been proven to take. Their name should be changed to NOLW.
To say something is partisan and only blame one side is pretty silly. Why not blame the dems for not going with the majority? Why blame the majority? The majority of representatives, as voted by the people, impeached him. Every decision teh House makes doesn’t have to be bipartisan to be valid.
