Well, if you’d gone back one more level, you’d have found Kimstu’s post to which I responded. So by your method, SHE started it. But if you insist on going back to my statement to her, then simply saying that how I use the term is not at all uncommon in most of the world has fuck all to do with a Scotsman fallacy.
And he should be a senator for the term he ran for. He ran for it, he pursued it with vigor. And when he saw more money elsewhere he reneged. It was a shitty thing to do and quite worthy of a pitting. You’re “all the senators do it” explanation isn’t true but you’ve ignored my cite for that, the 'every body should be able to make more money" excuse is exactly that-- an excuse for shitty behavior and now you’re trying to make me out as a meanie for saying that I thought better of you? Yeah, well, I guess I’m mean.
Why should we be enemies? And why shouldn’t I judge you on your opinions and views? How in the hell else can you judge someone?
I did nothing of the kind.
Not in one instance have I suggested that you should stop using “liberal” to mean what you want it to mean. I suggest that you stop pretending that the definition or etymology of “liberal” or “liberty” is the key to the difference between American liberalism and libertarianism and that in saying that American liberals should not be allowed to call themselves “liberals” because they hate liberty you are being intellectually dishonest.
Biggirl, I’m gonna drop it. As much as I may think the matter to be trivial, if it has gotten to the point that you believe I’m calling you a meanie, then it isn’t worth it. For the record, I think you’re a damn good gal. Always have, even though our opinions have almost always differed about almost everything — with some key exceptions. We both deplore and have suffered from bigotry, for example.
Nope. Kimstu never said “You use the term liberal wrong and should stop”, or anything like that. All she said was
In other words, you use liberal differently from the way other people use the term–which is just a factual statement, overwhelmingly so in the U.S., and (judging by stuff like the “Oxford Manifesto”) increasingly so in the rest of the world. And if you use a word differently from the way other people use it, there will be “a certain ambiguity”. But this confusion caused by your personal preferences isn’t a sufficient reason to make the rest of us adopt your own definitions over the ones most other people use.
And now I will be a meanie to you, Lib.
You are being deliberately provocative. You are beginning that slide you do from thoughtful to attention seeking pain in the ass. Acting all injured because I dared to imply that I thought you were the type of person who expects those who give their word to keep it. Misconscruing other people’s posts so that you can feel attacked.
And now that I’ve written a post that actually does attack you personally, you can feel justified. See, how can you call me an enemy when I’ve helped you so much?
It’s the same way whenever I tell people I’m a computer; they always stare at me with that same dumb, slack-jawed expression. “No,” I have to explain patiently, “not like a desktop or laptop computer, but rather computer in its original and proper sense, ‘one who performs calculations.’”
It certainly isn’t *my * fault the term has been hijacked and bastardized by the so-called technology industry. They’re the ones using it incorrectly, and I won’t give up the fight to educate the ignorant, even if it means clucking my tongue and rolling my eyes a hundred times a day until the day I die. Je ne capitule pas!
What’s so special about the reason being “the private sector”? And who is saying it happens “all the time”? I’m not bashing Hillary for “quitting” her post to run for president, and I don’t give two shits if Trent Lott decides it’s time to bail.
Guess some people just have manufacture some outrage…
Hey, you were the one who implied I was naive for saying it was wrong to quit the senate for the reason Lott did. Or was that bridge crack supposed to be taken literally?
I happen to think that not serving out one’s term just to get in under the revolving door deadline is a shitty thing to do, as well. However, I’m not convinced that he did it primarily for that reason. I suspect it is in advance of revelations of misconduct, with the ability to lobby a nice little bonus.
The reason you stated was:
Same applies to anyone running for president-- “something better” came along. How many times since WWII has that happened?
Incidentally. . .
When she won her seat I wrote her. In my letter I said how glad I was she won and that if she abandoned New York to run for President she would not be getting my vote. I got back a form letter thanking me for my support. I’m voting Obama.
Funny how shit comes around, no?
On preview (O.K., on edit window time), there’s your answer, John.
Congrats on being consistent.
But it wasn’t clear from your original post that you were talking only about someone quitting to join the private sector. That’s why I thought it was naive to think it’s not a fairly common practice. I’m not going to check, but I’d be surprised if Hillary is the only one doing that this time around, what with all the Senators in the race.
I was only talking about private sector. Hillary got my goat because she abandoned MY state after I asked her nicely not to.
O.K. NOW you can call me naive.
Further-- she abandoned NY after I defended her against accusations of carpetbagging and then asked her nicely not to run for President.
The skank.
Yeah, but if it’s her against Rudy in the general, and NY looks like it could go either way, will you not vote for her? I personally think that would holding too much of a grudge, but that’s your decision. Not trying to be snarky or anything, I’m just curious.
I usually have the luxury of voting 3rd party if I want to, since CA is pretty much in the Democratic camp, on national matters. Reagan doesn’t count, since he was a local boy. We might be up for grabs if it’s the scenario I posited above, though. That will be interesting.
In the way that waiting test results to see if you’ve got Liver or Lung cancer is interesting.
Well, neither one would be my first pick. Out of the current field, I’d go with Obama. But I wouldn’t be overly upset if either Hillary or Rudy won. I doubt that either one would start another war (knock on wood), and other than that, Presidents can’t do all that much. With the Senate tied up in knots, it’ll be tough to get anything even slightly controversial thru that body.
Universal Health Care? It is to laugh…
Well, I’m a liberal and, quite honestly, I think Rudy leans a little lefter than Hillary. At least he did until he started trying to court non-NYer republicans. But I wouldn’t vote for either of them. I’d close the curtain and open it up without casting a vote. Unless I could write in Obama.