Out of curiosity I just typed “Diogenes giant cock” into google and hit enter. I got over three hundred hits. It’s good to know that I have that kind of citability if I should ever need it.
“Diogenes slut” gets 396. You little bitch.
Nothing at all prevented the RNC or Carl Rove or any other person who wanted to slime MoveOn by submitting an outrageous entry, and then bitch about it. So clearly MoveOn is stupid for trusting the submitters to act in good faith if nothing else.
I give it about even odds that it was the RNC who created this ad. If not then they definitely missed a chance to do a dirty trick, and that’s unlike them.
Certainly the RNC has done far more to publicize and make available the Hitler ads than MoveOn has. So by Scylla’s rules of endorsement, the RNC is clearly the major supporter of this ad.
Oh, and incidently, I played the Google game a bit
“Bush liar” gets 173,000 hits
“Scylla liar” gets 1,400 hits
“elucidator liar” gives only 18 hits 
Ah, such pure motives they must have for this “taking umbrage.” One would never think that they would have made a cottage industry out of it, no? Seeking to inflate the importance of anything that makes their current targets (scary grassroots organizations) look bad far beyond the importance that target had placed upon it. They would never leave out relevant facts in their ever-so not eager and screecy summary of the situation.
Oh no, a political party would of course NEVER do that. At least, not friend Scylla’s savored teat.
Seriously, it’s another week, another featured, carefully spun outrage. Sounds exactly like the screecy Democratic party when they were in power and ascendancy. Nothing ever changes but the nametags…
As long as we’re in the Pit, let’s make it official: Scylla is the new december.
Whatever you say, Reeder.
I’m sure there’s an appropriate response to that. Like “Whatever you say, …”
Trouble is, I can’t think of any poster’s name to fill in the blank. Even if I use BZ0000 or Justhink, it’s actually more insulting to BZ0000 or Justhink than Brutus.
Whatever you say, Desmostylus.
Let me see if I get this straight. Are you advocating the invasion of Pakistan with conventional arms, or do you recommend that we use nukes?
And do you think we need to get a UN resolution authorizing the Pakistani to suck our dicks, or can we proceed with a coalition of the willing?
Regards,
Shodan
Thankyou. 'Bout time you saw the light.
Its interesting. I repeated your procedure (just curious! really!) and note that one of the “hits” comes from the SDMB. Now, thats piqued by curiosity. How is it that Google would connect to that, and not others? And when you click the link, it takes you to the current Pit page? Anybody know?
“RedFury + always right” gets all of 87 hits.
Hardly seems enough.
Mehitabel + slut = 47 hits.
And I AM. Although I hope leeway is given for the fact I’m a cat.
Anyway, quick diversion to an article on Eli Pariser, young guy who runs MoveOn.org. It was published a couple of weeks before all this happened.
toujours gai archy toujours gai
Mehabitel, that’s a great article – and the comparison of MoveOn to the Christian Coalition is provocative and hopeful. The CC’s superb organizational strategies fundamentally changed the US’s political landscape for the worse (IMO, obv), and liberals have been playing catch-up ever since, trying to create as effective an organizational structure. What if MoveOn becomes that structure?
Cool idea!
Daniel
Red Fury, is it safe to say that you won’t acknowledge that any of these things done by Bush are good because he hasn’t done enough or doesn’t go far enough? With all due respect, that’s irrelevant.
I could go point by point through your rebuttal, but my response is generally that most rational people would think steps in the right direction are good things. You shouldn’t discount steps in the right direction merely because they’re not giant leaps. You can argue that Bush should go further, but that doesn’t mean that these actions weren’t good.
As for the temporary worker program, see here and here.
PS - I’m sorry to hear that you were mugged in the US. Sincerely. I promise we’re not all like that. Crime is all too prevalent in our society, but it’s not exactly “Escape from New York.” I’ve lived in the US since I was 5, and I’ve never been mugged. I hope you’ll give us another chance.
PSS - I googled “Age Quod Agis” + “Naomi Watts” + “making out” . . . zero hits. But it certainly gives the google search credibility.
Age, I do agree with some items on your list. But other items, such as Bush’s not rolling back “don’t ask, don’t tell,” are faint praise at best. Pointing out that he didn’t do heinous things isn’t the same as pointing out that he did do good things.
When you’re teaching a kid to use the toilet, you praise him for not shitting on the rug. When I’m making a list of good things about our president, I’d kind of like to have actual things he did on the list, not just bad things he didn’t do.
Otherwise, we can have a really long list. Let me get out the phone book. Let’s see: near as I know, he didn’t punch Michel Aaij in the schnozz, nor did he punch Bryan Aalborg in the schnozz, nor did he…
Daniel
RedFury, as usual, one of the best sources of information on the net is a Great Debates thread here on SDMB. Same thing applies to the thread debating Bush’s new immigration reforms.
Left Hand of Dorkness, you make a fair point that I thought about when typing the list . . . . Well, not exactly in those words, since I left out the part about shitting on the rug.
But I went ahead and put it on the list because “Not rolling back an executive order, which your party is really pressuring you to roll back,” is not the same thing as “avoiding shitting on the rug,” or “not punching someone that you’ve never met.” Bush has certainly met “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he’s certainly been pressured to punch it in the nose. And he’d be lauded (in some camps) for doing so.
It’s not like the Bush Admin has never really thought about it, or it hasn’t ever come up. They have undoubtedly had to make a decision on it, and they decided that they’re not rescinding that executive order. So, under those circumstances, I think Bush keeping “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” is a positive act.
Except when the tiny steps appear, in many instances, to have been taken for the specific purpose of heading off any real changes, especially in the areas of prescription drug assistance, education, and campaign finance reform.
In these cases, and in others, Bush and/or his allies in Congress have kept the friendly-sounding names and descriptions of the legislative measures, while gutting them of just about every aspect that would have actually improved the situation.
And how you can cite the “don’t ask, don’t tell” philosophy as a step in the right direction while keeping a straight face i really don’t know. This position was reprehensible when Clinton took it, and the fact that Bush has not gone for even more draconian measures is hardly a mark in his favour.
As Left Hand of Dorkness correctly notes, praising Bush for not doing bad things is not really relevant to your argument. Bush hasn’t tortured kittens since his inauguration. So what? Is this also a benefit of his presidency, in your opinion?
Fair enough, Age. All the same, he ran on a “compassionate conservative” platform; if we’re to laud him for not giving in to the extreme nutjob elements of his party, we’re setting the bar for praise pretty low. If Dean wins the election, will you praise him for not dismantling the US Army, for not declaring vast amounts of the American West a wilderness area off-limits to humans, for not banning all private ownership of firearms?
mhendo also makes a good point: you need to evaluate what he did in context. If Bush could choose to give weak Medicare benefits, give strong Medicare benefits, or give no Medicare benefits, those who advocate strong Medicare benefits don’t need to praise him for handing out weak ones. When he chooses the politically expedient option that accomplishes a little actual good but heads off a greater actual good, he doesn’t get patted on the head.
Daniel
You’re equating “banning private ownership of firearms” with “opposing further limits on the number of bullets per clip?” And you’re equating “dismantling the US Army” with “opposing gays in the military?” Respectfully, those aren’t even close to equivalent.
If you think as many people support dismantling the Army as support reinstituting a ban on homosexuals in the military, you’re crazy. According to this 2002 article, a January 2000 Gallup Poll on gays in the military had the following results:
Obviously, I don’t know if the results would be the same today, but I’d be shocked if 17% of the American people favor dismantling the US Army.
Lots of conservatives, if asked, would probably tell you that they oppose gun control measures like limiting the number of bullets per clip to 10. According to this article, 45% of the public opposes more strict gun controls (9% say laws should be less strict, and 36% say laws should remain the same). Presumably, that opposition would include new limits on the number of bullets that a gun can fire. 45% of the country cannot be considered an “extreme nutjob element,” can they? And if you think 45% of the country would also support banning all private ownership of guns, please put down the hooch and back slowly away. Plus, when you get into banning all private ownership of guns, there’s the small matter of the 2nd Amendment, which is likely to gain such “nutjob” opponents as the Supreme Court.
In sum, if you think only nutjobs opposed Bush’s moves on these policies, and all reasonable people supported them, you have a very skewed view of your opposition. Conservatives don’t operate from the margins. There are millions of them out there.