If “it isn’t,” then why is the majority sentiment relevant? (Should I step into the next room and relax with a book or something while you argue this one out with yourself? :))
That is in fact what I would like to argue. While I may have expressed relief that the vast majority of Americans have caught on to what a fuckup Bush is, I would not regard their opinions as evidence to that effect. At any rate, genuine evidence to that effect is too abundant to need to reach for bogus evidence.
Well, of course not. We’re a bunch of elitists, don’t you know?
If “Americans” hate to be told that there’s bad stuff going on, then “Americans” need to get their freaking heads out of the sand and look around. There’s always a lot of bad stuff happening; it doesn’t mean things can’t get better, but I don’t believe you fix problems just by positive thinking. The popular lesson of Jimmy Carter’s infamous “malaise” speech is just what you say–that people want the President to be a motivational speaker who tells them how great they are. I have no use for that. The President should be an administrator, not a cheerleader.
It’s not true that Republicans don’t send a negative message. Bush & Co. relied heavily on the “SAVE ME FROM THE EVIL TERRORISTS, DADDY!” message in 2004 and it seemed to work. Republicans have also been stressing the “decline of America’s moral fiber” message for decades.
There is nothing wrong with a MCcain and Palin ticket as long as he steps up. He has given her way too much of the spotlight. I agree that he needed all of the spotlight that Palin could give him but it is time for her to campaign on her own.
If MCcain can’t hold the lead then he doesn’t deserve to win. Palin should be allowed to swim on her own at this point.
Would that include having an economic adviser say everything’s fine, just that too many people are “whining”? :dubious:
We don’t. If you came down here, you’d be surprised how much in the minority that opinion is. Please don’t bother asserting it as fact.
Are you seriously advocating that the best way to win is to lie? That may be true, but it’s refreshing to hear you admit it, anyway.
The economy is in such trouble now, and too many people are feeling too much real pain, as a result of the policies you have constantly exhorted the US government to follow over the last 8 years, that it is highly doubtful that such a campaign of lies can succeed this time.
You absolutely fail to understand what’s going on here. Here’s a helpful hint: The Democrats aren’t blaming the people for their plight, they’re blaming the Republicans.
There’s a lot of responsibility to be accepted here. You aren’t making your guys take any of it, and never have. Utterly typical, and utterly predictable.
Sure we know. It’s called “hypocrisy”. Humans are susceptible to it. You just can’t acknowledge that your own guys do it, that’s all. You also might, if you were using unfiltered information sources for just once, realize that most people down here just don’t give a damn about that anyway. The “liberals” are not opposed to Palin for her family troubles; that implication of yours is just another of your straw men. The problems she faces, ones which you cannot address at all, are about her unpreparedness, her RR doctrinairism, and her corruption. The alleged focus on her family is a creation of the RW blogs you take to be true and complete.
Another of your misconceptions. They were anointed as such by the media, especially the type you favor which looks for enemies to despise. Seriously, how much “leadership” of the “black community” do you really think those 2 men have had in recent years? How much of what you have seen on your TV and monitor been only a partnership between 2 publicity hounds and a few “news” sources willing to give it to them? One more reason you really need to come down here, look around, talk to people who don’t already agree with you, and learn about the nation for whom you have so much free advice to offer.
Oh, wait, you seem to have a glimmer of truth:
Yep. Now how is that fact consistent with their being anybody’s “standard-bearers”:dubious:
If he hadn’t provided any answers, that would have worked better? Come on now.
[quoye]Palin is the most popular politician in the country right now
In what circles? According to what polls? Or is that your own blog-fired imagination once again?
IOW, lie to them. Got it. That’s from one of the few remaining abandoned-Japanese-solder believers in the truthfulness of the Swiftboaters.
Just because baldfaced lying works on you, that doesn’t mean it works on *us *here where it counts.
Now why should any reader here, especially those with even a passing familiarity with your history of “contributions” to US political debate here, think your concern for the Democrats is at all genuine?
Elvis: Knock off the personal hostility and read what was written in a non-strawman manner: Don’t tell people they’ve failed, tell them they have the power to effect a positive change in their lives. You don’t have to say the economy is good, but you can say “we can fix the economy.” Sam’s pointing out that too often, Democratic campaigns are more concerned with crying “foul,” probably thinking that implies that they can fix it, instead of saying “we can fix this! We have the power! We have the technology! We can make it stronger, faster . . .”
Still lost both legs, an arm, and an eye- but we don’t need to dwell on that. That depresses instead of motivates. Sam’s saying “Motivate, don’t depress.” That’s pretty basic, even if he is being rather verbose about it.
And I’m issuing a challenge to your personal integrity, here, having read a number of your political polemics in addition to arguments: Is your miogynism accusation, or is it not, based on forcing an unproven premise, based on interpretation?
I have no problem with you believing him a misogynist- that’s your right, especially if you read him that way. I’m asking for proof that doesn’t require an interpretation, regarding the misogyny of a man whose fortune comes from his wife and whose running mate is a woman.
Because I’m damned sure pinky is, in fact, reacting to the hostility in your remarks. You’re trying to set a rather obvious rhetorical trap (Yes, no, or go on the defensive vis-a-vis McCain to reverse the defense required to actually respond to pinky), and pinky’s not falling for it.
This question doesn’t parse to anything I can understand. Could you try rephrasing it. I will say that my opinion that McCain is a misogynist is based on an aggregation of public and private behaviour.
I would argue that both those things are examples of McCain’s cynical use of women for personal gain.
First off, I’d like to comment that this came too late to justify the original question to pinky, and that pinky’s responses seemed to me to be correct given that.
That said, let me list these in order:
Voted against equal pay
“History of shabby treatment”
Called Hillary a lesbian
Called Chelsea “ugly”
Opposes reproductive rights
Opposes issues “important to women.”
I assume you mean his affairs? Affairs are about the person having them, not the other person. I didn’t know you considered Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc. misogynists. (ie, this is a ridiculous basis to claim misogyny).
Well, she wasn’t an attractive girl- rather pretty now, though. Again, though, cite?
This is your irrational “to oppose abortion is to hate women” meme. You and Der Trihs can start a club. We can call it “Baby killers for hire!” if you want to be extended as generous a consideration of your moral issues as you are handing out.
For it to be misogyny, logically, there would also need to be a drive to force women to become pregnant in the first place, the piece that the chain of logic is missing.
This argument in itself, to me, is highly misogynistic, painting all women with the same brush and denying them any individuality or ability to behave or act as individuals. It’s also an excuse to leverage his entire platform into hating women, something that is a ridiculous and illogical spin. Frankly, Dio, you’ve often shown yourself as capable of better than that; please use the same logical standards you would apply to any purely factual question, and involves an implied character assassination by removing any other reason for opposing things like UHC, ascribing it only an “anti-” or “hate” stance. That’s a rather sad strawman.
Nobody is telling them that. As I said. The Dems are saying the Republicans and their policies have failed. GOP /= “the people”.
By voting them out of office. Yes, indeed, that is the Democratic message.
Both candidates *are *saying that. But only one of them has played a role in fucking the economy up in the first place.
Nope. That message is “Government has no power to help with your problems. See, the situation isn’t really the Republicans’ fault, it’s the system’s fault, and the Democrats’ policies are obviously doomed to equal failure. You’re on your own, people. Good luck, we’re behind you all the way. Now go get 'em!” That attitude of failure, despair and irresponsibility that he expounds is *hardly *the American tradition, or anything anybody should want to be associated with.
Where the fuck did you get *that *from? Do you want to discuss the topic seriously or don’t you?
Wrong again. It’s “The Republicans failed. Here’s why. Dump 'em and try the Democrats. Here’s what they’ll do instead.”
What was that you said about “straw men”?:rolleyes:
Where the fuck did you get that from, either?
And that’s what the above argument does. That’s what get-out-the-vote strategies do. And there are many ways to motivate people to come out, some respectable, some not - recent GOP methods have been based, unfortunately for our democracy, on fear - the “God, guns, and gays” line, and the “Bad people out there want to kill you, and only we want to save you” line, combined with “The Democrats want to take all your money” line. If you agree with Sam, as you seem to, that the GOP message recently hasn’t been that, but “Morning in America”, then I have to wonder what information sources have shaped your worldview, too. Sam’s are already well-established over the years, allowing one to avoid the smalltalk and go right to the heart of the bullshit when engaging him. That may be what you misconstrue, as he himself so often does, as “personal”.
Or maybe you don’t want to discuss the topic seriously after all.
You, apparently, feel attacked and are attacking Republicans.
I can tell you, as an independent in a very liberal region (Portland, OR) I don’t hear Democrats saying anything more than “Republicans failed!” or “Bush sucks!” or “It’s our turn!”
Never once with the “we shall overcome!” or “we can make things better!”
If, in a liberal region, I hear acrimony, and acrimony gets worse where a position is more in the minority, I readily agree with Sam.
Many Dems think “Vote Dem, this is what we’ll do” is being stated because it’s implied in “Republicans suck!”
First off, that’s loaded with logical fallacies (one of the parties must have the answer? False dichotomy right there).
The first “the fuck” was the idea that Dems will fix everything Repubs did. It ignores individual politicians to an incredibly biased extant, and does assign Dem=Perfection as an argumentative value.
The other “the fuck” is that by arguing “The Republicans have done X to you, the Democrats will remove X,” etc., is that it tells them that they are helpless, at the whims of the political parties, which are held as separate and distinct entities from their selves.
Why does Obama’s time as a community organizer play well? Why does Palin’s motherhood and coming up through the PTA? It’s a “one of us” situation, which leads to assuming that there is an “us” with the candidate. Meaning “WE” will accomplish things. Meaning, consequently, that “WE” has the power.
You have assaulted my character and credibility by innuendo there at the end. Not appreciated.
I listen to the candidates, as it happens. This is what I hear.