How uplifting. 1300 odd American families must be so proud that their love ones made the ultimate sacrifice to avenge the pissing off of their government.
By someone else, at that.
Fear Itself, you have a well-chosen screen name.
How very magnanimous it was of the string-pulling AWOL Guardsman to call the Silver Star / Purple Heart veteran’s service “honorable”. Who the fuck was impressed by that?
Then you had no reason to bring up the subject as part of your “Democrats are racists too, now bring it on, Elvis” tu quoque.
First sentence is speculation, of the usual whiny “They’d do it too if they had a chance” variety common to GOP partisan rants. The second overlooks Lott’s older and better-documented history - search “Council of Conservative Citizens” (i.e. the Klan without the hoods) along with Lott’s name for your edification. Consider too that Lott’s “apology” was over the effects of what he said, not its content, and top it off with his still remaining in the Senate, unadmonished in any way except for the loss of the (official) majority leadership.
Looks like you have nothing to say about the archsegregationist Thurmond, until his death the GOP’s chosen President Pro Tem, or any of the broader questions I asked.
You’re still holding on to Sharpton as if he meant something to the Dems that compares on the same scale with the GOP’s bigoted leadership. Been there, done that, time to continue with your argument if you can. If you’re that concerned about MoveOn, you might try a *cite * for any of the things you say about them (him), something outside the normal run of RW slander radio shows and blogs, that is. When did MoveOn ever say or do what you’ve said they did?
By someone else, at that.
Fear Itself, you have a well-chosen screen name.
How very magnanimous it was of the string-pulling AWOL Guardsman to call the Silver Star / Purple Heart veteran’s service “honorable”. Who the fuck was impressed by that?
Then you had no reason to bring up the subject as part of your “Democrats are racists too, now bring it on, Elvis” tu quoque.
First sentence is speculation, of the usual whiny “They’d do it too if they had a chance” variety common to GOP partisan rants. The second overlooks Lott’s older and better-documented history - search “Council of Conservative Citizens” (i.e. the Klan without the hoods) along with Lott’s name for your edification. Consider too that Lott’s “apology” was over the effects of what he said, not its content, and top it off with his still remaining in the Senate, unadmonished in any way except for the loss of the (official) majority leadership.
Looks like you have nothing to say about the archsegregationist Thurmond, until his death the GOP’s chosen President Pro Tem, or any of the broader questions I asked.
You’re still holding on to Sharpton as if he meant something to the Dems that compares on the same scale with the GOP’s bigoted leadership. Been there, done that, time to continue with your argument if you can. If you’re that concerned about MoveOn, you might try a *cite * for any of the things you say about them (him), something outside the normal run of RW slander radio shows and blogs, that is. When did MoveOn ever say or do what you’ve said they did?
Well, my nephew the war hero is still alive, but I am rather proud of him and his two Bronze Stars.
Well, not “just like”. Only “more like”.
OK, if you would rather not control the White House, Senate, House, most of the governorships, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a tough position. Obviously most Democrats don’t want to simply accept Republican positions on all issues – if they felt those positions were valid, they would be Republicans.
(Of course, there are some Democrats for whom every position they take is a matter of political expedience, not conviction; those Democrats would have no problems. And of course, there are Republicans for whom the same is true. Neither are relevant to this discussion.)
So then the question for the Democrats becomes – do we keep all our core principles, under the assumption that each and every one is wise, and simply work harder to explain to the public why we’re right? Or do we discard, modify, or compromise some principles out of either expedience or a genuine willingness to re-think the issue, and thus make ourselves more electable in the future?
Many posters on these boards have adopted the first strategy.
It’s unclear to me in which direction the national party will go. A lot depends on February. Tom Vilsack, Howard Dean, Jeanne Shaheen, and Harold Ickes (did I miss any serious contenders?) are all looking to (pardon the pun) run DNC. And in my view, this selection will chart the course. But for the 2004 elections results, I would have thought it a shoe-in for Dean. But now I have no clue. If the party selects Ickes, I foresee some formidable challenges ahead for the GOP. If the party goes Dean, I will almost certainly start offering bets on the mid-term elections the next day.
Shaheen is credited for flipping New Hampshire from red to blue, and is supposed to be both organized and a star facilitator. She’s admired by her opponents, which is a good sign for her too. And she doesn’t seem to have political aspirations in DC. She might be a threat, or she might facilitate the extreme left into staying relevant. I really can’t tell.
Vilsack doesn’t worry me as much, although I will hold off any bet offers until I see what he’s going to do. I have the feeling his main goal would be to derail the “let’s examine the caucus schedule” resolution that the Democrats passed this year, in order to keep Iowa first. But who knows?
These musings have wandered a bit from the OP’s question, but the thread itself has wandered into generic “what should our [Democratic] positions be?” And it’s a short step from that question to looking at HOW those positions are developed and supported, and whose hand is guiding the process.
Oh - almost forgot:
It’s a peculiar kind of blindness to insist that ALL the Democratic positions are right, and that the only thing needed is better presentation; THEN the sheeple will come around.
I’m very happy to see that blindness exhibited by some of our more vocal posters here.
None of the DNC candidates (with the possible exception of Dean) suffers from this handicap.
Vilsack and Shaheen are out of the running. You missed Simon Rosenberg. Dark horse, but one to watch.
Ironic that you would say this, since that “peculiar blindness” (ie, style over substance) has been the gist of all the “helpful” advice given by conservatives since the election. I think Shodan proved that point above, as does your own persistent gloating. It always come down to “winning is everything”.
I would think that if it were truly about the “relative merits” Fear Itself mentioned, conservatives would be making more of a sincere attempt to persuade with facts and logic, rather than using ridicule or slurs like “terrorist-lovers” as a red herring when faced with facts and logic. We’re talking about 56 million+ people who do not agree with you, not simply a few vocal posters on SDMB…
Anyway, what are the relative merits of a party platform that can claim to be happy about “blindness”? Could it be a platform that relies on the blindness of the “sheeple”? (note: sheeple is your word - I guess it’s okay to show your contempt for the electorate now that you’ve “won”, eh?)
That from someone who has far more often taken the position that “We Reps won because we play dirty better and that’s all that matters” than “We won because we’re in the right on something”? What would you say if Bush hadn’t had the fear factor to run on, only his endless bungling, and had lost - that the Dems were therefore in the right? Somehow I doubt it.
You have a peculiar kind of definition of principle, then - the one that says that if you yourself disagree, then it’s either simple expediency or blindness to hold it. But another word for that is “hypocrisy”.
That’s an example of what the shrinks call “projection”. Don’t waste your time claiming to be talking about *any * principle other than simply voting for whoever will give you the lowest taxes. It stopped being funny long ago.
And this:
Credited by whom? NH’s “flip” is similar to that of all the other formerly-tossup Northeastern states, whose moderate-liberal Republican communities have been marginalized and even repudiated by the fundie/bigot faction that now controls the party. Combine that with the increasing suburbanization of much of the rural areas that used to be reliable straight-party areas, and those states are now much more representative of the mainstream. The GOP used to win all of northern New England and often New York fairly often, but has blown all of its credibility there to the point where the remaining national GOP pols in the region are under so much pressure to switch that some of them may well do so soon.
All Shaheen did was make The Pledge in NH no longer an absolute requirement for NH pols, and even that took an NHSC ruling on school funding that forced her to do so. The Rep-to-Dem switch in NH was the product only of demographics and the exclusionary leadership of the national GOP.
Care to bet on that? I wager that the word appears on these boards FIRST from a leftist poster using it, in all seriousness, to denigrate conservative voters… strictly speaking, this poster was quoting a leftist blog, but doing so with approval.
I’m using it NOT with approval, but with an eye towards reminding the reader that this is the view the Left has of them.
Name your bet.
Perhaps you could cite all the many, many times that Bricker has said that Republicans won the last election because they played dirty better and that playing dirty is all that matters.
Or perhaps, since it is a filthy slander, you can’t.
Heh. I forgot to mention your juvenile use of “wanna bet?” as yet another diversionary tactic…
What indication did you give that you were using it “NOT with approval”? You didn’t use quotes or italics.
I don’t care who used it FIRST on the boards, and I don’t speak for any poster but myself. You used it. Have I ever used it?
More to the point, can you find an instance of a Democratic politician using it? You know, someone who publically represents the party, as opposed to some anonymous message board poster?
If you want to use that kind of broadbrush demonising tactic in a discussion about the Democratic party platform, do you really feel up to defending every post by someone who claims to be a right-wing conservative/Republican?
Frankly, I’m about as interested in that kind of silly tu quoque-fest as I am in your literal bodily emissions.
But hey, at least you now admit that your intent was to influence “reader” opinion by demonising the opposition, rather than persuade with the “relative merits” of your own ideas. IOW, winning is all that matters…
It’s certainly not diversionary. You made a claim; I denied it. In what way does offering a wager divert from the issue? I can’t imagine you’d be so dumb that you’d completely forget about the issue itself and subsume yourself in discussing the wager – and even if you were that easily fooled, which, as I say, I’m confident isn’t so – resolving the wager necessarily resolves the underlying issue. Far from being diversionary, you should thank me for keeping the discussion moving in a linear fashion.
It may be juvenile. But as I employed this juvenile tactic to some success in the last election, I am willing to be juvenile if it makes me money.
Context. Here was the line in which I used it: “It’s a peculiar kind of blindness to insist that ALL the Democratic positions are right, and that the only thing needed is better presentation; THEN the sheeple will come around.”
I am clearly offering my view of the Democratic thought process, and criticizing it as blindness. There is no reason to parse the sentence as though the last phrase is presented with approbation but the previous two are condemned, and it’s impossible to read it as approving of all three phrases, since they are clearly characterized as blindness.
Well, you may speak only for yourself. But my comments in this thread were directed to the readership at large here, some of whom have used the word “sheeple” to describe the portion of the electorate with whom they disagree. If you don’t endorse the word, that’s fine. But you claimed that it was MY word, suggesting my use of it as a strawman. I refute this by pointing out that it’s been used as I claim it has… in other words, NOT a strawman, but an accurate repetition of anothers’ argument. The mere fact that it’s not YOUR argument certainly entitles you to note that it’s not your word, but not to say it’s my word. It isn’t.
The party’s politicans are unlikely to use such a description, I grant. But the leftist blogs, the leftist pundits, the ones that try to shape the party’s direction have certainly used it. And who cares? I’m not reaching them by posting here. I’m reaching the posters HERE who have used this phrase with approval, or have thought it without saying it.
Not at all; I’ll pick and choose what I wish to defend or repudiate. But can you honestly look back on the threads posted in the first week of November and say that “Bush voters are sheeple” is an unfair summary of the tone of many of them?
C’mon.
Could you point me to the exact place in which I posted that I wanted to influence reader opinion by demonizing the opposition? I must report that post to the administration, because the only way that appears under my by-line is a hacked account. I await your informative reply so that the serious matter of account theft may be resolved.
Res ipsa loquitur.
You know - speaking generally - maybe you should look into account theft. Could explain many of your posts here these last few weeks. Never know when you might need a convenient explanation…
Thank you for your advice. I’d like to start with the specific post you mention – the one in which you claim I said that I wanted to influence reader opinion by demonizing the opposition. Where is that post?
To use a language you understand: What’s in it for me?
Why should I go to the trouble to prove my assertions? You’ve run away from facts in the past, so there’s no pattern established here to make my efforts worthwhile.
As far as I’m concerned, res ips applies. Search your own posts. Rebut the charge(s) at will. Let the “readership at large” decide the merits of my assertion(s). I’m not interested in either the challenge, or your money.
Bricker has made 8,307 posts. The hamsters would have a coronary if he reposted each and every one of them to rebut your charge. You, on the other hand, need only find one.
It’s worth noting that our hosts have recently changed their registration agreement. A lot of people don’t get into ATMB very often, so you should be made aware that by posting you now agree that you “will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate…” (new portion bolded). I believe that you have done so. So what’s in it for you? Getting back in compliance with the registration agreement.
Actually, I think Shodan’s position is pretty close to what the Dems should be advocating on TV and the radio. They shouldn’t do anything like that when elected, of course, but if there is one thing we need to learn from the Pubbies, it’s that there isn’t necessarily any connection between what you advocate when runing for office, and what you do once elected to office.
You made a claim that isn’t true.
More to the point, that claim involves quoting me as saying something I never said. I have searched for any posts of mine that use the word “demonizing” and can find no post of mine that fits your description.
I’m going to ask you to either withdraw or substantiate that claim now, again, as I believe, and as Manhattan has indicated, that posting material that you know, or should know, is false is a violation of the board’s rules.
- Rick
What claim have I made that isn’t true?
And where in the rules here does it say I am obligated to respond to questions/demands by any individual poster? If so, I can supply the names of many who failed to respond to my queries in the past.
I have never posted “any information I know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate…”. I regularly post cites for my purely factual assertions, and never knowingly mischaracterise another poster’s quotes.
I believe that Bricker posted with the intention to demonise the opposing POV. My claim was he used a certain word. Did he not? His reply did not convince me otherwise.
Would it matter if I can also show instances where my posts were either (IMO) mischaracterised or misunderstood, in this very forum? In this very thread? Am I not, for the purposes of this debate, the “opposition”, in relation to Bricker’s POV? Did he not “demonise” me by mischaracterising my posts, and employing ridicule as part of his arguments?
Also, does this rule apply to everyone, or just people suspected of not being patriotic enough towards the USA? I’d like to be clear about this, without resorting to paranoia. I’m sorry to say this, but it seems to me that this standard is only being enforced in this instance because of the subject matter of this thread.
I’d also like to hear it from a mod or admin, rather than posters with obviously prejudicial viewpoints. If you think I’ve broken a rule here, the thing to do (AFAIK) is report my post. Aren’t there also rules against “acting as a mod” or something like that?