Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Replaced_Texan]

Atrios I can understand, but banning fafblog? Florida is an odd state.

via fafblog

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.

If I understand Billmore correctly, I think he's saying that, with hindsight, it was a misstake, but that, at the time, it was a defendable choice. At least that's what I believe. You seem to want a perfectly executed war and have an emotional reaction to the fact that it didn't go perfectly, probably because you believe the planning was poor, which it probably was.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's this simple; if you want us to grant you some gravitas you really must eliminate the typos. The typos show even you don't truly believe your thesis. Without correction, you'll soon be nothing more than dtb with a drinking problem. No offense.

I can't figure out whom you're trying to insult here. No offense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hey, you are the guy who admitted "fear". And who said anything about organized religion? Why do you keep bringing that up? Guilt from a Catholic upbringing? You know, this stuff existed before Catholicism. Is there Catholocism for cats?

And? Actually, I used your words directly. The conclusion is yours.

Actually, we've been talking about you. What happened to you in the Catholic church anyways?

Hello

I feel like Jon Stewart dealing with Tucker Carlson. You'll take that as a compliment, I'm sure.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If I understand Billmore correctly, I think he's saying that, with hindsight, it was a misstake, but that, at the time, it was a defendable choice. At least that's what I believe. You seem to want a perfectly executed war and have an emotional reaction to the fact that it didn't go perfectly, probably because you believe the planning was poor, which it probably was.

This is fine if it was hindsight for everyone. But it wasn't.
It was only hindsight for a very small minority. A minority that lacks even a minute amount of prescience.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, and it was one of the things that cost her husband the nomination of his party in 1988.

No one disputes that the Democratic party has social conservatives, too. The difference is that they don't get pandered. (I know, I know -- the Dems do plenty of pandering. Just not to them.)

Are you saying that the Gores are social conservatives?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, and it was one of the things that cost her husband the nomination of his party in 1988.

No one disputes that the Democratic party has social conservatives, too. The difference is that they don't get pandered. (I know, I know -- the Dems do plenty of pandering. Just not to them.)

The difference is that Dem Social conservatives are not as shrill and don't view themselves as having a duty to inflict their beliefs on others. If you want to see just how scary things may get in the coming years if W gets re-elected, read this morning's Times OpEd from the Bishop of Denver. He's effectively telling Catholics, and Evangelical Christians, that they have a duty to vote in line withChurch Doctrine and to work to impose their values on the larger populous. Yes, I recognize that people have been doing that for a long time, but that its accpetbale to demand such action in the paper of record for the country is scary. In 40 years, we've gone from the Country beeing vigilant to make sure Rome did not dictate to JFK to a country where its accpeted and acceptable for the Church to baldly admit its trying to inflict its policies on a secular government.

Am I too Chicken Littleish here or is this shit as scary as it seems?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Of course, what else would he be afraid of in the great everlasting Nada?

Is God an essential part of any afterlife? Is there a treatise on this or something?

I'm a "believer", but I don't see why you think sd has admitted that he believes in God if he admits he will be afraid of what happens to him after he dies.

No one can prove there is or isn't an afterlife -- or if there is, what it is like, and I don't think that believing there could be some form of existence after death is a de facto admission that there is a God.

Why are you so threatened by the fact that someone does not believe in God?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The difference is that Dem Social conservatives are not as shrill and don't view themselves as having a duty to inflict their beliefs on others. If you want to see just how scary things may get in the coming years if W gets re-elected, read this morning's Times OpEd from the Bishop of Denver. He's effectively telling Catholics, and Evangelical Christians, that they have a duty to vote in line withChurch Doctrine and to work to impose their values on the larger populous. Yes, I recognize that people have been doing that for a long time, but that its accpetbale to demand such action in the paper of record for the country is scary. In 40 years, we've gone from the Country beeing vigilant to make sure Rome did not dictate to JFK to a country where its accpeted and acceptable for the Church to baldly admit its trying to inflict its policies on a secular government.

Am I too Chicken Littleish here or is this shit as scary as it seems?

All across the nation's big cities Dems are going into Church's where Reverands are telling their congregations they have to vote Democrat. You're in a swing state- put on an "urban format" radio station. Al Sharpton is on the airwaves at every commercial break telling people they had better vote for Kerry or they'll likely lose everything they have.

So what is the difference?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you saying that the Gores are social conservatives?

In 1988, Tipper certainly was viewed as one thanks to the parental advisory thingy (PMRC? something like that) she and Jim Baker's wife started.

Al was, too. For a while, he supported the constitutional amendment route to overturning Roe v. Wade. And he was regarded as a Cold War hawk (of the the military reform variety -- Midgetman versus MX, etc.), for that matter.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
This is fine if it was hindsight for everyone. But it wasn't.
It was only hindsight for a very small minority. A minority that lacks even a minute amount of prescience.

Of course it wasn't, that's why it is a mistake. But it is a defendable mistake. There are other mistakes that are not defendable, but this isn't one of them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
In 1988, Tipper certainly was viewed as one thanks to the parental advisory thingy (PMRC? something like that) she and Jim Baker's wife started.

Al was, too. For a while, he supported the constitutional amendment route to overturning Roe v. Wade. And he was regarded as a Cold War hawk (of the the military reform variety -- Midgetman versus MX, etc.), for that matter.

Don't you remember the whole Ice-T thing and how he called her out in the song: "Fuck Tipper Gore, Bush and his cripple bitch"

[Replaced_Texan]

Another reason that Sebby shouldn't vote for Bush. Spree: Rolling Stone article.

ETA Bulletin:

BULLETIN
KERRY WINS GONZO ENDORSMENT; DR. THOMPSON JOINS DEMOCRAT IN CALLING BUSH "THE SYPHILLIS PRESIDENT"
"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado. "Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush," Dr. Thompson warned. "He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November."

Thompson, long known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas Goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next President of the United States."

[sgtclub]

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this. . . .

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by dtb
Is God an essential part of any afterlife? Is there a treatise on this or something?

I'm a "believer", but I don't see why you think sd has admitted that he believes in God if he admits he will be afraid of what happens to him after he dies.

No one can prove there is or isn't an afterlife -- or if there is, what it is like, and I don't think that believing there could be some form of existence after death is a de facto admission that there is a God.

Why are you so threatened by the fact that someone does not believe in God?

Oh sweetie, let me put this in pretty picture for you.

There is
1.) an affirmative belief (conviction) in God (or Gods, or a higher power, or the Mountain);
2.) an affirmative belief that there is not a God etc.; and
3.) anything in-between.

So, for starters, I'm not threatened by the "fact" that someone does not believe in God. How did you come away from this daylong discussion with this impression? Your final question is the equivalent of me asking why you hate black people (i.e., huh?).

As to your first question, if you can set out any (i.e, any) explanation for a fear that is not based on judgement, punishment, pain or something along those lines, than have at it. Last I checked, Sebby was backpedaling away from that position, and I'm not sure he wants to sacrifice you as his rear guard. No matter, y'all find a better word to describe his "concern" about what happens, and I'm all ears. Meantime, I've answered his question about why people feel they can impose morality on others. If this (imposing morality on others to, e.g., enfranchise others) weren't a fundamental part of human history, defenseless people like blacks and women would still be traded on auction blocks and prohibited from voting with the enfranchised white men. How could we do this to southern slaveholders? How could we do this to wife beaters and Mormons? And why are you arguing that we shouldn't have?

Hello