I find it hard to believe that Starving Artist managed to type all that with a picture of GW Bush in his head while maintaining a straight face.
character, George Bush. It is to laugh.
So, if we go by Starving Artist’s definitions above, Jimmy Carter, who had “particular beliefs regarding what is right and wrong” and “certain moral standards,” must have been a Republican, while Richard Nixon, who was morally bankrupt was cerainly a Democrat.
Either that, or Starving Artist is painting with a very broad brush.
There are always exceptions, of course. 
In this case you have a Democrat who, although a relatively moral man (for a Democrat, that is), was an incompetent fool. On the other, you have a brilliant but flawed man who, if only his mother had loved him, would have been one of the great ones.
the scales have been on the Times’ eyes for years. They have had scandals for letting reporters getting away with making up stories for years. Most recently they had a scandal about a reporter whose stories were based on uncritical acceptance of Bushco officials rather than actual research. They are a paper of shit, and this review won’t redeem them.
Oh, ye gods and little fishes! Even moral relativists have standards! Jimmy Carter is “realtively moral, for a Democrat”. So he stands up pretty well when compared to the abject corruption of FDR? Looks pretty good if in the same room as the Hyannis Port Caligula, JFK? Not too bad, if you look at Truman?
And then you give us Nixon, the very paragon of pestilential corruption, who’s utter cynicism and boundless paranoia stained the Oval Office for years, who could not pick a flower from the Rose Garden without it shying away from his vile touch…
This guy, you present to us as “brilliant, but flawed.” Well, yes, I suppose, in much the same way as Josef Mengele “lacked the warm, personal touch”.
“Flawed”. Yes. Indeed. Quite.
Most amusing, elucidator. I can always count on your posts for mirth if not for substance.
Not at all, Starv, you give me too much credit. The mirth, born of absurdity, was already there, you provided it. All I had to do was point at it.
But not for much longer, I fear. There comes a point where arguments implode, where satire becomes impossible and ridicule extraneous.
You tremble on the very brink.
I’m sorry to hear you’re getting worn down by the effort to expound your erroneous points of view. But I understand. Have a seat on the bench while I discuss it with “Mr. Svin” and SimonX. Perhaps you’ll learn something.
I do think it’s something of an acheivement however, when one lonely poster crying out in the wilderness, begins to exhaust his numerous tormentors. It’s not easy trying to hold one’s own against such a large number of the opposition. The fact there are only 24 hours in a day tends to work against rebutting all comers, so I take heart in the fact that you’re beginning to fade. Perhaps there’s hope after all.
“Lack of substance” indeed. Maybe some day all you partisan cheerleading pixies will wake the hell up and realize that you are convincing no one of anything except your own blindness to reason, and your complete lack of integrity.
That said, I think Elucidator’s last post, with economy and wit (for once), pretty well demolished S_A’s ridiculous assertion that Republicans, merely by virtue of their membership to a specific political party, are somehow more moral than members of any other political party. And I say that even though most of the time I find Elucidator nearly as tedious and annoying as the OP and his one-man Greek Chorus.
What a festival of jerkish behavior. Please do carry on, so at least we have a chance of being spared your “wit” in threads where someone actually has something useful to say.
I respectfully…no, I take that back…I disagree. For example, Mr. Svinlesha and SimonX, among a couple of others, have succeeded to a larger degree than they are probably aware in educating me as to their point of view, how they arrived at it and why it makes sense to them. I still don’t agree with their point of view, but I can understand and respect it much more than I could previously by reading posts of the type you and certain others on these boards typically postulate.
You do? That’s quite a shock, you know. Who’d a thunk an assertion you strongly agree with would seem to you like a demolishment of something you don’t. I’ll alert the press.
Nonsense. I said Republican presidents tend to be people of moral conviction whereas Democrat presidents tend to govern by poll and political expediency. To whatever degree Republicans may or may not be more moral themselves, that is more a quality that led them to the party and not one they gained simply by being a member of the party. Again, misdirection and obfuscation are being employed to try to derail a post that can easily be seen for what it is simply by reading it. What hooey!
Well, since I’m one of only 6 or 7 conservative posters on the entire SDMB, I felt it was somewhat incumbent upon me to try to field as many posts as I could, given that I would likely be the only conservative respondent as **Milum **does have to rest now and then. (You are aware I’m not the OP, right?)
Hey, you came in here, bro.’ We didn’t come looking for you.
A baseless assertion, one that you simply cannot support with factual data, and no different in substance than what I understood you as having said previously.
This is nonsensical. I don’t have any vested interest here, least of all to cheerlead for any particular political party. Even if I felt the urge to “obfuscate and misdirect”, something which both you and the OP could just as easily be accused of, your posts are visible to all, and anyone can read them for themselves. I don’t personally give a rat’s ass whether you are conservative, liberal, a foaming Trotskyite or whatever. I am just an observer who reads your words and finds them mostly trite, lacking in substance and unrelated to anything that might constitute honest debate.
- Another baseless assertion; 2) no one, so far as I know, has been begging for your opinion on anything, so don’t try to present your choice to burden this board with your pro-Republican cheerleading as an obligation; 3) If you feel so compelled to defend the OP’s every silly word, what’s the difference?
Not to mention the complete hijack of what passes for a theme of this thread. What, precisely, does your cheerleading for the virtues of Republicanism have to do with the book review under discussion, anyway?
Yes, you most certainly did. You, and the OP, came in here looking for an audience for your views, and have made it clear that you have no particular interest in the subject claimed to be the reason for launching this thread. Well, I’m a member of that audience, and I’m just giving you a little feedback. You know, to help you better target your advertising, and all that.
I think that’s enough time wasted here. Continue to bark into the wind, if you must.
I graciously accept even the most back-handed of compliments. Or perhaps the better word is “shamelessly”.
In reciprocity, let me commend your choice of cognomen, reflecting the glory of the unjustly ignored mentor and companion of the legendary Babba Looie.
Just a tiny cognomen in the great machine of life, actually.
Bygones.
I haven’t read Clinton’s book and don’t intend to. I’m just delighted with the rage of the Clinton haters. And I hope I can add to it when I remind them that Nancy Reagan’s book was a flop, sold few copies and was remaindered[sup]*[/sup] in just a few months.
Ha, ha. And I repeat HA.
- From Merriam-Webster Collegiate: remainder - 3) a book sold for a reduced price by the publisher after sales have slowed.
Ha, indeed. I, sir, am proud owner of a copy of Newt Gingrich’s groundbreaking Sci-Fi tome, 1945. It has sex scenes. You don’t know what mirth is unless you’ve read a Newt Gingrich sex scene!
I’m given to understand (and this may be naught but a scurrillous rumor which I cheerfully spread) that by the time the printing run was done, it had become obvious that the publics eagerness for same was…tepid. The last several thousand went straight from the printers by truck to a wholesale purchaser of paper scrap for processing into…toilet paper!
And some people say there is no God.
Ah yes. Little know facts that make life worth living.
Unless Newt goes way off-base and ends up misplacing genitalia, I can’t imagine it being any more ludicrous than Bill O’Reilly’s sex scenes…
As for Starving Artist’s amusingly naive theory on the unquestioning worship that Republican leaders get, there’s a simpler explaination…
“I’ll tell you everything you need to know, and I’ll tell you what to think about it to boot!”
–Rush Limbaugh, to radio audience
Hmmm. I wonder if we might not have a whole thread celebrating Republican sex scenes? Would that properly belong in Cafe Society? Can we Google such? And might not such go a long way in promoting the abstinence so dear to their hearts? I don’t know about you, but I find it difficult to think horny when I’m having giggling fits. (Truth be told, I actually prefer giggling fits. Less severe consequences, no requirement to discuss “the relationship”, and giggling fits that last more than four hours do not require urgent medical attention…)
Enough with the hijack, already. Where were we?
How do I form my opinions of particular books and movies? I read the books and watch the movies.
You should try it sometime.
You don’t have to do this, though. There are a number of intelligent and articulate conservative posters on the board who would be delighted to have you back them up on issues of campaign reform, judicial restraint in constitutional interpretation, congressional spending, and so on. There’s no need to feel compelled to back Milum up when he does things like start threads criticizing books he hasn’t read by ex-presidents he doesn’t like. You’ll notice they don’t exactly leap from their chairs to do so.