Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That is Bush's portfolio -- and in forums accessible to the broader public, he reaches out subtly, almost in code. I recall at least two (one commentator said three) uncited biblical references and/or biblical-sounding phrases from his first debate.

"I have climbed the mighty mountain, and I have seen the valley below, and it is the valley of peace."

They know Shrub's their man, or close enough to get them to turn out for them. [They don't seem to notice that its 98% lip service with no real concerted action (but don't worry Bilmore, I'm not suggesting Bush is calcualting or anything.)]

S_A_M

The Devil quotes scripture to his own ends <wise nod>

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you think that, simply by naming your desired outcome, you make it so? You guys all paid way too much attention to MacAullife (sp?) this week. Lots of letters claiming victory only work if no one else watched.

Glad to see Dick fired you up and you're feeling frisky again. Let's see how you feel after the Friday show.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
You've actually hit exactly on the reason for the left's antipathy to the rich, too.

The left doesn't have any antipathy towards the rich. The left has antipathy towards the rich who feel that once they've made it, it's okay to stack the deck in their favor and slam the gate behind them.

Remember when you understood the difference?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hi tw, earlier today Ty was explaining how your posts here are thoughtful and not in step with the "crazies."

I read the post, and I appreciated it. But I didn't think anybody needed to point out that I never agree with you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, we did.

But when you decided that it was okay for him to question was "is" is, the new standard was set.

I never decided that. I just decided that I couldn't give a fat rat's ass about the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that Penske was the one who decided to make it a crusade.

In the same vein, I think you're full of shit on this point, but I don't really expect you to change your tune or stop talking bullshit. I guess this is your crusade and apparently truth and logic are its casualties.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Irony abounds.

Is there some kind of switch on your back that toggles between "Decry Vociferously" and "Suspend Judgment"? You only tut-tut when your ox is being gored.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't need help w/ Kennedy- 3 reasons I went that way

1- she said for Prez
2- the 2 Clintons made it humorously ambiguous
3- I refuse to do Teddy K. jokes as a statement of what you all are missing, and what have cost us, with the lost of Penske.

Who is penske?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let me get this straight.

You want to ignore the plain language and look to the "implication"

Whenver Kerry says crap about a "global test", you want us to ignore the implications and look to the actual words he says.

Just trying to keep track here.

Dude, you're saying Cheney was in the cafeteria most Tuesdays and didn't run into Edwards, so that means Edwards is a non-entity in the Senate? If Cheney's point wasn't that he was presiding over Senate sessions and had never met Edwards, what the fuck was his point?

It's a perennial problem in litigation: after all the contortions you make to make your client's statement technically true, you've coincidentally made it irrelevant to your client's case.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cute. You say that, if a dem lied as you accuse Cheney of doing, we'd go apeshit. I bring up what dems have been saying. I get this from you.

Keep standing over there.

You're an ass. You want Cheney to be VP. Who here is running Michael Moore against him?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dude, you're saying Cheney was in the cafeteria most Tuesdays and didn't run into Edwards, so that means Edwards is a non-entity in the Senate? If Cheney's point wasn't that he was presiding over Senate sessions and had never met Edwards, what the fuck was his point?

It's a perennial problem in litigation: after all the contortions you make to make your client's statement technically true, you've coincidentally made it irrelevant to your client's case.

Ty's sock has noted the same problem for the admin in dealing with Bremer's comments:

"With the Bremer debacle still seeping out into the national consciousness, there is a reassuring sense of clockwork and regularity in watching the designated GOP foot soldiers responding to the orders from Winger Central to zig or zig on command.

So for instance yesterday we first heard that Bremer had been misconstrued and that he was only talking about the delayed arrival of the 4th Infantry Division.

Now the folks at the Wall Street Journal editorial page are pulling the standard dump on Bremer, claiming that he, in addition to getting this or that wrong during his tenure in Iraq, now can't keep his story straight about whether he was asking for more troops on the ground in the country or not.

Trouble is, we haven't found a single other senior official involved in the war or its aftermath--in or out of uniform--who attests to Mr. Bremer's version of events.

"I never heard him ask for more troops and he had many opportunities before the President to do so," one senior Administration official tells us. Or to be more precise, Mr. Bremer did finally ask for two more divisions in a June 2004 memo--that is, two weeks prior to his departure and more than a year after he arrived.

Poor Bremer, really getting the treatment ...

But when the Journal editors were zigging, the Bush campaign had already started to zag. And the party line became predictably tangled.

Yesterday afternoon the Bush campaign told the Post that Bremer had requested more troops, but that the president preferred to take the counsel of his military commanders.

So it's either Bremer never said anything and now he's just making excuses (the Journal line.)

Or, yes he said something, but we chose to ignore him (the Bush-Cheney 04 line.)

Is BC04 lying too? In a cynical ploy to shift blame onto the president?

So with the regime-change dead-enders' media strategy you have dishonest arguments, poor coordination, lack of a game plan. Remind you of anything? "

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The left doesn't have any antipathy towards the rich. The left has antipathy towards the rich who feel that once they've made it, it's okay to stack the deck in their favor and slam the gate behind them.

Remember when you understood the difference?

I don't think that is true. The left does have antipathy towards those who make it. They assume that if someone makes it, they got there unfairly unless that person is a leftie or a plaintiff's lawyer contingency fee bottom dweller.

The left also has a different attitude towards minorities who make it.

[Diane_Keaton]

About the gaffe (Cheney directing viewers of the debate to factcheck.com instead of factcheck.org and so right after the debate someone bought the site and it's now redirected to Soros's sight with the headline Whey You Shouldn't Vote For George Bush), it looks like Soros's camp didn't buy the site. Must have been someone else. I'd love to know who. Here's a blurb from the Soros site:

"FactCheck.com Correction
We do not own the FactCheck.com domain name and are not responsible for it redirecting to GeorgeSoros.com. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events. We believe that Vice President Cheney intended to direct viewers of the Vice-Presidential Debate to FactCheck.org."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dude, you're saying Cheney was in the cafeteria most Tuesdays and didn't run into Edwards, so that means Edwards is a non-entity in the Senate? If Cheney's point wasn't that he was presiding over Senate sessions and had never met Edwards, what the fuck was his point?

It's a perennial problem in litigation: after all the contortions you make to make your client's statement technically true, you've coincidentally made it irrelevant to your client's case.

Boy Atti, when you get busy, the intellectual depth evaporates really quick. Hmmmmm, maybe TW is just overworked.

Let's look at your little litigation scenario:

Cheney's statement had two parts.

First, Edwards has missed __% of the votes.

Then, as a sort of observation to illustrate how severe __% really is, he says "I've never met the guy."

You guys claim you shown the statement "irrelevent" Because once Edwards sat near Cheney at a breakfast, and was on Meet the Press with him or something.

But see here's the problem- the "client's statement" is "Edwards missed __% of the vote." That is what might be relevent to a voter. I don't think many voters will decide based upon whether Cheney met the guy or not, do you?

So like, in closing, you'd say "Well we've proven Edwards walked behind Cheney at a prayer breakfast, so you should ignore the whole issue."

Then we'd be like "ummm, did you notice how they didn't touch the __% part? they show this picture from breakfast, now if you knew Cheney you'd know he's concentrating on the bacon at breakfast, but you know what? Let me concede that maybe they met.....When you make your decision just remember what we all agree on. he missed ___% of the votes."

Wouldn't it go like that, kind of?



:hide:

And Sebby, we're the party that lacks substance?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The left doesn't have any antipathy towards the rich. The left has antipathy towards the rich who feel that once they've made it, it's okay to stack the deck in their favor and slam the gate behind them.

Remember when you understood the difference?

Yet, a perfect example of a rick person doing this is a rich leftist who makes it to the moon and then wants to raise taxes on future spacemen, which will raise the cost of their rocket-fuel. Do you know any rich presidential candidates in your party?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You are full of shit. Admit it was an empty campaign promise and move on. After you admit that to yourself, admit that Cheney was being a hypocrite when he tried to make a dig at Edwards as being not so memorable when he they met. If he had been doing his job of bringing the parties together (as promised and as he later said he regretted not doing a better job with) he wouldn't have said it.

TM

Sorry, no. I doubt it was empty when made. But, after four years of the stuff that Ty doesn't want to hear about, I think the initiative is sort of DOA.