Except that, as I posted, he stated that Bush was a Klansman, or at least the moral equivalent thereof.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Diogenes equated homophobes to racists? Or was that just the general feeling I got from him?
Merriam-Webster aside, FilmGeek, I’m pretty sure of what context Dio meant “bigoted.” Especially considering John Corrado’s much-more-damning cite.
It seems like just about every week there is some kind of discussion on the SDMB about what a jerk DtC is. During every one of these threads people come along and act so surprised at how Diogenes is behaving. “It’s so unlike him.” :rolleyes:
I’ve been on the board since 2001 and he’s been a jerk consistently since then. When was this time when he was a rational poster who had anything to contribute besides anti-bush rantings and insults? Back on the AOL board? During the Carter administration? The age of dreams?
I know of two, personally. I would guess there are more.
For whatever it’s worth, I tried to talk them out of it and in my state it turned out not to matter, but don’t believe that it doesn’t happen. People don’t appreciate being talked down to full-time.
Also, I think the Democratic party is desperately out of touch with America. I voted Gore in 2000. I voted Kerry in 2004. I’ve only been able to vote in three presidential elections in my life and in both of them I’ve been reduced to voting against someone. When do I get to vote for somebody? When are they going to run someone who wants to LEAD.
For better or worse, George W. Bush is a leader. The Democratic candidates he’s opposed have been these useless candidates of compromise too scared of offending .05% of the voter base to take a stand on much of anything.
Well, maybe next time.
(Oh, and Dio is indeed acting like an ass.)
This is true. The leftists are so extreme in their arguments that any worthwhile
points get lost amongst the superlatives. When I came to the board I wasn’t too interested in politics though i did lean libertarian. After reading the arguments on GD, I consistently found that the right’s arguments were concise, unemotional, and civil. The liberal arguments were often fallacious, uncivil, and unconciliatory in the face of reasonable contrary data. Mind you I’m not speaking of the content of the arguments, just the form. The left would ascribe every news event to the machinations of a Bush cabal. Pretty soon you just stop listening to them. Any wheat they offer just gets buried amongst the chaff and it all gets thrown out. They come off as paranoid and unreasonable and therefore have little ability to attract anyone to their way of thinking.
I was talking about anti-gay bigotry and drawing an analogy to racism. I have not called anyone (including Bush) a racist.
The moral equivalent, yes.
Or Bush either. I was calling him a bigot, but not a racial bigot. The “klan robe” was an anology for those Bush voters who keep wanting to separate themselves for Bush’s bigoted policies. I’m saying that voting for an avowed homophobe makes those who voted for him just as culpable as if they had voted for a guy in a klan robe.
Yeesh…when did people lose the ability to understand analogies around here?
This election is causing me to reconsider my position on legalizing marijuana. If there’s one thing the country could use right now, it’s a big-assed bong and Pink Floyd cranked up loud enough to hear it on the dark side of the moon.
Dio, go feed the ducks.
Well, first of all, rethinking this is rather academic at this point, wouldn’t you say?
Secondly, I don’t post much in Great Debates (mostly because I don’t feel my debating skills are up to date enough to do a fair justice to the positions I believe), but I read it regularly, and I didn’t just come to this yesterday but had felt this way for a while.
Perhaps those in GD could be called ideologues, and nobody’s really going to change their mind on much of anything so it didn’t matter there. But Joe Public reading that on a pro-Kerry (or pro-Bush) site would likely be turned off of a candidate saying that.
(Ohh, and since I didn’t vote, mostly since I moved down to Morgantown from the Pittsburgh area, I can’t post in GD since I have no right to complain about anything…).
My hope is that in 2008 we’ll have some REAL candidates (my biggest regret of the 2004 election is that there was no Republican primary) that people can stand behind, not passionless compromises like we had this year.
Listen, everybody else here might want to ignore that article you posted, Dio, but I’m morbidly curious. Do you honestly believe, as the article states, that America is building execution camps for no other reason than to wrongly snuff out Arabs?
I’m not sure either answer you give will help your stance in any way, shape or form. But I’d sure like to hear you defend it. Like George Carlin, I too enjoy watching the entropy of the human mind, and I think your response will provide ample enough entertainment either way.
Bush wants to have secret trials and executions. Trials without lawyers or pubic review and executions without. His motives are for him to explain, and they’re not the most pertinent element of the story. The outrage lies not in why he wants to do it but that he wants to do it at all.
Nice complete-dodge-of-the-question. Perhaps you and Bushy have more in common than you’d like to admit.
The question is, do you believe it? And why? There is scant little proof, even in the article you linked. So do you believe it because you want to, or because you know something the rest of us don’t? Please, do tell. Watching you shift nervously and adjust your tinfoil chapeau nervously is too delicious to miss.
Do I beleiev what exactly? As to his motives, I simply don’t know.
Whoa whoa whoa. I suspect you might be projecting? The Guardian article makes no reference to anything even in the neighborhood of “wrongly snuff[ing] out Arabs”.
What was your intention by posting this?
Of course, if we want to draw WWII analogies we must include at least one about appeasement and Hitler’s rise, especially since I read at least one post at the SDMB today which pretty much blamed the 9/11 attacks on the first Gulf War. If only we had a representative/diplomat/peacemaker like Kerry at the helm instead of a leader: Bush Sr…well, perhaps our world would be very different today.
I’m not a Bush supporter, but I grudingly admit to voting for him yesterday. Not because I believe he’s a great leader, but because I believe he’s at least a leader and not a follower who will throw national and global security under the bus for appeasement and international popularity.
(jeeze I hate the pit and now run out all askeered)
Leader my ass.
Let me give just a few examples (I could go on for days):
Al Gore shouts that Bush “betrayed” our country.
Ted Kennedy compares the assaults at Abu Ghraib to “Saddam’s torture chambers” where thousands of men, women, and children were tortured, raped, and killed.
Do you really believe that two of the most prominent Democrats saying these is “a few liberals” being “whiny”?
Michael Moore writes on 9/12/01
Michael Moore thinks it would have been better if only Republicans had been killed. This is just a “liberal” being “whiny”?
Disingenuous the Canine regularly writes vicious rants against Republicans and Bush. This is just a “liberal” being “whiny”?
You bet these are major reasons I voted for Bush again.
And your insincere denial, like that of many liberals, is just one more reason.
Bush didn’t defeat you. You defeated yourselves.
Aw, now, don’t be askeered, missy. It’s only words on a computer screen…little bits of electronic impulses sent by people who wouldn’t know you if you bumped into them on the street.
So come on in, the water’s fine. 