It certanily equates to “the media”, which is what I was responding to. My point being that the victems of 9/11 have been honored by the media in many ways and many forms that are a lot more noticable than by being read on a show that’s #3 in the ratings at 11pm. Besides, I also seem to remember CNN having a ticker running for a few days with just the victem’s names, and they’re certainly what passes for legitimate news shows these days.
Of course, after I wrote that I realized that the proper response would be to ask what the hell the people who died on 9/11 have to do with the people who are dying in Iraq. Listen carefully, Iraq was not involved in 9/11. There is no link between Iraq and 9/11. All you have to do is look at a picture of the clean-shaven Sadaam to realize that he subscribes to a completely different brand of crazy than Osama. The soldiers in Iraq are not fighting the war against terrorism, there were few if any terrorists who were interested in anything outside of Iraq’s boarders living in Iraq before the war.
I vote, and have always voted, based on issues and not on character. I’d rather vote for a lying cheating murdering sonofabitch than a saintly Eagle Scout, if the SOB is likelier to put in place policies I agree with.
And McCain, why, he disagrees with me on most policies.
But so does Bush. And at least McCain is the kind of guy I can disagree with respectfully: though he takes positions I find odious, he does so from a position of principle and respect. Bush does not appear to do so. He substitutes zealotry and jingoism for principle, selfishness and dishonesty for respect. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over Bush.
Finally, I hope Libertarian doesn’t mind my sharing with choie what he shared with me in an earlier thread: I believe his mood swings are sometimes caused by a medication he’s on (Prednisone?) which can make him come across as very aggressive. I think this is one of those occasions, Lib. If someone had asked for a cite on Clinton’s peccadillo (which really ought to be a euphemism, but it’s not), I see no reason to doubt Choie would’ve obliged. I think you owe him (?) both the benefit of the doubt, and an apology for not having extended the same.
My passion is not born of enmity but of desperation. I firmly believe that this is the last glimmer of hope for an America that I recognize, and the liberals are pissing it all away.
That’s exactly right, and that’s exactly why liberals need to wake up and smell the coffee. Choie, for example, is livid about the slightest perception of insult, and yet she and other liberals are painting “idiot” all over the faces of Bush supporters and fence-sitters everywhere. It is remarkable that they cannot see that their own tactics are having the exact same effect. They are driving the electorate toward Bush.
In all fairness, if a particular medication is making one more aggressive - to the point where it’s quite noticeable to others - one probably should either avoid avenues in which that aggression can easily be displayed or (if medically possible) avoid said medication altogether. At some point the law of diminishing returns sets in, and the aggressiveness becomes counterproductive.
(IOW, it’s reasonable to use medication as an excuse/reason, but only to a point.)
With all due respect to Daniel, whom I greatly admire, there is no need for me to justify anything with excuses. I am hardly more aggressive than the vast majority of Pit posts including those that aggressively accuse me of aggression. I’m not being aggressive; I’m being frank. Just look at the damn complaints about Bush and conservatives here:
[ul][li]The bastard thinks Cuba is a greater threat than Al-Qaeda because of how many people there are in an office no one has ever heard of.[/li]
[li]He intends to sabotage the economy if he is not re-elected.[/li]
[li]Only liberalism interprets science correctly with the “liberal scientific method”.[/li]
[li]Bush’s speechwriter is less eloquent than Clinton’s in the opinion of an extreme leftist.[/li]
[li]Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for torturing Iraqi thugs, and by extension Bush who is his boss, and by further extension half the voters of the 2000 election.[/li]
[li]He’s inconveniencing people while trying to pacify their complaints about safety — the exact same thing that Kerry said he would do.[/li]
[li]It’s okay for Democrats to walk out on an interview that they themselves demanded. It is assumed that Bush somehow is the reason because he must have given boring answers.[/li][/ul]No one’s vote is going to be changed by rants about piddly shit. If you’re going to rant about Bush, then rant about his theft of our civil liberties. Rant about how he spends money like a drunken liberal sailor. Rant about how he has expanded the size and scope of government with yet another damn cabinet level bureaucracy. Rant about how he has bungled and continues to bungle the War In Vietnam I Mean Iraq. Rant about his almost fascist Attorney General, John Asshole. Rant about his war mongering Pentagon. Stop calling him and his supporters stupid. He’s obviously smarter at at least one thing than Al Gore was. You people (Democrats and liberals) are picking your battles carelessly. And there is a lot to lose.
I agree with you that there are lots of petty complaints about Bush. I was just addressing this specific situation, where I saw:
Some crazy guy make a weird allegation about a person in the public eye;
Somebody asked for a cite on this weird allegation;
Choie provided the cite;
You insulted Choie for providing it.
I thought Choie’s behavior was completely in keeping with the board’s mission, and it was unfair for you to pick on Choie for providing a cite.
Generally, though, I think you’re right. The full-auto approach to political discourse really isn’t very effective: when you unload your entire clip in the hopes that something will hit, generally people just figure your aim isn’t very good.
Compare, for example Bricker to December: though Bricker posts far less often than December did, I have a lot more respect for the issues he DOES raise, because he always presents well-researched and cogent and weighty arguments instead of half-assed and meaningless suppositions.
We liberals would do well to emulate Bricker and not December.