Hentor you ingorant fool. I went through the first four of the issues and categorized them as basic boilerplate.
This is why you’re such a putz.
An intelligent and observant individual would take issue with my characterization. He would have a tough time because these things are pretty boilerplate, and he would have a hard time ignoring the fact that they are not front and center and not the center of his speeches.
They are not his “message.” They are not his central theme. They are not his mission statement.
Instead, you have cluelessly suggested that I overlooked it.
I gave you guys Bush’s mission statement. His “message.” I didn’t make you go looking for it. Do the same…
“John Kerry stands for ____ ____ and _____ and is going to do ____ ____ and ____ to address it.”
Then of course, show me that this is theme.
I can’t find it. Instead of telling me where I should look, show me.
JFTR, while we’re talking about misrepresentation, Izzy, I said that conservative posters who argued fairly and did not slant were rare, or words to that effect, and that I had considered Sam Stone one of the above, the rare fair-minded conservative. I then went on to indicate why his statement of overall agreement with la Coulter irked me so greatly.
My post is above in this thread. Check it to verify what I’m saying. Then I’d like a retraction. (In fact the rules of the board would suggest you are obliged to give me one – but that’s not a game I care to play with you. I think I can trust to your probity to doublecheck me and then do the right thing.) Scylla, I’ve been giving serious thought to your courteous post. Two quick comments: Ann Coulter may well tell the truth from time to time. I have no interest in wading through her bile to find the occasional nugget, when more objective sources are available. In reliance on your word, which I’ve always known to be good, I’ll retract my allusion to Rush – seven years ago or so is when I last listened to him, and I found him repellently slanted and unfactual at that time. If he’s indeed cleaned up his act, good for him. I applauded his calling out of Falwell and Robertson for their vileness in late Septembr 2001. I want to think about some of the rest of what you say, and answer fairly and fully. And I should have named you along with Sam Stone as thoughtful non-doctrinaire conservatives who will debate fairly.
Now Lieberman has a fairly decent site, and it looks like there’s some stuff we can put together.
I actually think Lieberman is pretty cool, and has said some pretty decent things. He was the one that highlighted for me the lack of direction and negativity that has captured his party.
I wasn’t trying to be helpful, and I don’t much care if you feel my post was warranted. Izzy’s suggestion that there are less conservatives on the board because they have more important things to do didn’t strike me as a good faith argument. It struck me as insulting and trite, so I responded in kind. Who the hell made you hall monitor anyway?
Polycarp: Thanks for the nice words. I went back and read the message in question, and you seemed to be asking me to explain myself because of my agreement with Ann Coulter.
Thing is, I can’t remember agreeing with her on anything. I suppose it’s possible - even a broken clock is right twice a day. Maybe I’d agree with a bunch of specific things she says - I don’t know, because I’ve never read a word she wrote. I’ve seen her on lots of ‘pundit’ shows, and she bugs me. Rest assured, I have no affinity for her. I think she’s a shrill woman who has a genius for pushing the buttons of both her opponents and her followers. That gets her tons of publicity and humongous book sales, but by and large I think she’s a boil on the body politic.
Reeder gets a pass while we hound poor december? Did you actually write that?
Reeder gets grilled EVERYTIME he opens a thread! Rightfully so, I grant you. But to say he can post “with impugnity” is dishonest. He’s been pitted multiple times (not as many as december, but he hasn’t been at it as long) and even far-left liberals are rolling their eyes at him. And from what I’ve seen of Rashak Mani, I expect he’ll be slammed repeatedly as well.
I’m getting a little tired of this “our side is so put upon while their side gets all the breaks” line. (Not to say that both sides don’t use the line, I’m just tired of it because it’s just not true)
Sigh… Sam, my friend. POV is everything, and I respect you enough to know that you * know *this, the grumbling in your tummy is just distracting you.
Cuz from where I’m sitting, there is a whole world of difference between december and elucidator that has absolutely zero to do with their politics and everything to do with their respective styles. I can’t remember the last time december started or participated in a conversation without being a) inflammatory as hell, in the most polite way possible and b) deadly earnest. With the exception of his umm…err…ahh…“cute”? Yeah, that’s it…his “cute” little limericks, the guy seems utterly humorless.
My darling ** Boris, ** on the other hand…well, he is nothing, if not entertaining. Only the crabbiest of souls could deny that.
And it’s probably unfair, but it really does count. We aint’ here to change the world, much as we like to make noises to the contrary.
As for ** Reeder, ** well, frankly I wasn’t even aware of him until recently, when I began to notice all the bitching and complaining. With some relief, I might add, since I was noticing that the name “reeder” was appearing in places where I might otherwise predict “stoid” to be…the usual knee jerk “liberals are hysterical” type blanket remarks that are made pretty much daily around here, (which I notice and you may not, due to our differing points of view. Ahem)
So, back to our new pal, TR… and after three pages, you are still maintaining that the * only *error he made was purely etiquette? Come now, Sam…I think you need to excuse yourself and go top off your tank, come back when you are well fed and thinking clearly. We’ll wait.
By which, I mean that the only things worth arguing about are then subjects where we disagree. Most stuff isn’t an issue at all, but the ones that remain are doozies.
Sam, I think you’ve coined a word. “Impugnity” should take its place in our own special SDMB dictionary, being defined as the peculiar ability to exhibit unwarranted pugnacity without developing a reputation for belligerance.
You have no personal responsibility. You have zero integrity. You have no backbone. You feel no compunction whatsoever about saying one thing and then sidestepping or backpedalling, while at the same time claiming this is what you said all along. This is why you are such a little dick.
You went through the Kerry website apparently reviewing posted speeches through your “Limbaugh is 98% correct” prism, throwing out little gems like “Hispanic, Hispanic, Hispanic” as your analysis of the website. Your original claim was that Kerry’s message is only that George Bush sucks, followed by Kerry is a veteran. I can have the stenographer read it back if you’d like. However, a 3 minute visit to the site indicated that this is entirely untrue.
You appear to confuse message with buzzwords. What are the four things that can be plunked into my Mad Libs rubric? Now you are crying because you feel you were misinterpreted. I guarantee you this: There is nothing anyone here can do to convince you that something Kerry says is not “boilerplate” while you aver that “strengthening the economy, protecting the homeland, and winning the war on terror. We will continue to earn the confidence of the American people by working to keep this nation prosperous, strong and secure” is a “hopeful and optimistic mission statement.” You are nothing more than a blindly partisan imbecile with an ISP, a rhetoric-laden dimwit.
Here is your strategy. Come in screaming and throwing off more heat than light. Catch some shit from others, and then try a milder variant of the original shit. Then cry foul (“Oh woe is me. I have been so maligned.”) Then make some claim that your original screaming was part of a reasoned analysis (the characterization of which is now much more shaded based on the shit you got), and cry that others have no integrity because they won’t conform to some Scylla-defined paradigm.
If you choose to not understand the Kerry website, that is your choice. But don’t blame him if you just don’t get it. It’s probably because it is 98% completely different from Rush Limbaugh.
I’m sorry, but I see no justification for your animosity. And since you have less than 400 posts, I can only assume that this is not part of a long-running battle (unless you used to post under a different name).
How did this thing with him get so personal so fast?
Yeah, it is hard to understand, Scylla being such a loveable cuss, and all. Kind of like a tribble that bites.
I suspect he spends some time listening to the utterly odious Michael Medved, as he seems to have been infected with MM’s rhetorical devices, to wit: MM will be talking generally about Kerry and then interject, apropos of nothing:
“Oh, and did I mention that he’s a Viet Nam veteran?”
Coy, cutesy, and adorable. (I get the feeling that any day that MM got to the school cafeteria with his lunch money intact was a very good day…)
Well, yes, he is, he did in fact, “walk the walk”. as the saying of the time has it. While Commander Bunnypants was protecting the skies amove Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft. That is, until he wandered off base for a beer and forgot how to get back.
It makes a lovely comparative image, don’t you think? A doleful basset hound next to an empty flight suit.
As to an election campaign made up entire of “I’m not Bush!” there’s a lot to be said for that. As by now you know, I regard GeeDubya as a mediocrity raised far above his abilities, saddled with the delusion that he is a Leader of Men. He is a danger to the Republic and to the world at large, and to see him dislodged from his wholly undeserved position, I would be willing to vote for Lieberman! There. I’ve said it. May Eugene V. Debs forgive me!
Sorry, but there is no misrepresentation here (other than yours). Here’s your quote (emphasis added):
In sum, you said exactly what I attributed to you, and no retraction will be forthcoming. In fact, if, as you now indicate, you still consider Sam a “thoughtful non-doctrinaire conservatives who will debate fairly” you might want to make your own retraction, as you contradicted this earlier, as noted.
I see that you’ve decided to underline the word “overall” (agreement with la Coulter), implying that Sam Stone had expressed agreement with everything that Coulter said (in contrast to my statement that he had agreed with her about “something”). But this was not in your original post, and is probably not a true statement in any event.
This is in your imagination - I suggested that possibly fewer conservatives were interested in boards of this sort. Whether their alternative pursuits are “more important” or not is your own judgement.
I have another way of illustrating the liberal leanings of the SDMB. Back in mid-March when the war was starting there was a thread in IMHO called War with Iraq. A simple poll..
The question asked was “Should we go to war?”
The final count was 78 Yes and 109 No.
This was at a time when nearly 80% of the public was for the war.
So, I think it’s safe to say that on the war in Iraq the SDMB has a liberal tilt.
Another way to do this somewhat scientifically would be to open a IMHO thread asking the exact same questions that are asked in popularity polls about GWBush. Then compare those results to his actual poll numbers. I am certain there would be a huge disconnect if this was done.
Winnie Mandela used to support necklacing. It depends on what your definition of “Mandela” is. There was some nasty fighting way back then between the RSA and shimmer, shimmer – crap, someone help me out here. They had their acronyms and were supported by the Soviets and Cubans for a time.
Anyway, The Republican’s got ballz, as they say, those crazy kidz and their “z’s.” “The” Republican, on this board. A toast to someone who probably didn’t lurk enough.