Can you present your question using complete sentences?
Could you be more specific as to what you mean by this?
Say hi to Chicolini for me. 
Salmon.
-Joe
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
[/quote]
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.
Dio: Prove McCain’s a misogynist.
I listed several things already.
Not that I see in this thread.
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.
Post #130.
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.
Thank you, Dio. I can’t believe I missed this.
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.”
Responses:
- Cite/Context, please
- 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).
- Cite, please.
- 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.
In response to a post that was replete with them?
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.
I see, partisan loyalty means all Dems are perfect angels.
Despite the fact that you’ve hit the key Dem arguments that stops at failure: The Republicans failed! FULL STOP
See, that’s the problem. Also, it’s neither motivating nor inspiring to be told that you are disempowered, because a party can just up and do things to you.
People turn out to vote if they feel the power rests with them.
Dio,
I’m confused too about how McCain has 'opposed equal pay for equal work"
Explain please!
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.
Elvis, that’s emotional reasoning.
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.
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate.
Nope. I mean his dumping of his wife after she was crippled and lost her looks in a car accident because he no longer thought she was suitably attractive to be a political wife. I mean his calling his current wife a cunt in public,
These two have the same cite – a “joke” told by John McCain at a Republican fundraiser:
A real knee-slapper, huh? What a champion of women. Incidentally, do you actually think your opinion of Chelsea’s looks is a defense to calling her ugly?
No this is my opinion that trying to get the government to supervise and control women’s bodies is inherently sexist and dehumanizing
Nope. There only has to be a desire to control their bodies at any point at al. But since you mention it, your beauty queen from Alaska wants to impose this control even if the woman was raped.
If Harpo Marx were alive, he would have grounds to be insulted, by my associating you with the character he played in Duck Soup.
You, OTOH…
That’s a typical response from someone faced with adverse facts - to claim the discussion isn’t about facts at all. You must be new here.
Those are all pretty much the same thing.
Sam’s position is that the acrimony is based only on a desire for acrimony - not on the *fact *of the economy being screwed up, the *fact *of Bush’s entering into a war of aggression, the *fact *of his authorizing torture, the *fact *of his disregard for the Constitution, the fact of McCain’s supporting him 90%+ of the way on all that - no, to you and him, it’s just the mere exercise of petulance, right? If you agree with that, that’s pretty sad. Not to mention irresponsible, since I’ve done that already a couple of times.
The fallacy is “straw man” - and the one using it is you. Unless, that is, you can back up your assertion that that *is *what “Many Dems think” with some of them pesky ol’ fact thingies. We do place value on that here.
Do you even know what a straw man is? :dubious:
Hmmmm … Either you really don’t know what a straw man is or you don’t know anything else. That’s all you’ve presented here.
As I pointed out to you before, claiming “personal attack” is a common tactic of people with no respectable argument left to make. It doesn’t work here.
Paul Simon explained it years ago in “The Boxer”.
Once again, this thread demonstrates that the most staunch supporters of the Democratic ticket here (judging by their postings) demonstrate a hostility in their efforts that is likely to turn off anyone who is on the fence.
Take that from someone on the fence, but leaning towards the Democratic candidate.
Zeppo founded and built up a still-thriving aerospace manufacturing firm, best known for the Marmon Clamp, starting in his off-camera hours in his garage workshop. That makes him the #1 Marx Brother. So there.
There are still those who put Karl at the top of the list, but they’re a dying breed.