Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Doesn't this work both ways? Does Kerry have an obligation to limit statements that encourage terrorist attacks on troops and Iraqis by indicating that difficulties will cause us to back down? Or, is his belief in the correctnes of his position sufficient cause for him to continue? If so, why doesn't the same hold true for Bush?

If Kerry were to actually say something that encourages a terrorist attack, I would have a real problem with that. I have no doubt that some of you guys actually believe that -- notwithstanding that we live in a democracy -- it is the duty of the rest of the country to keep quiet until the troops come home, but since most of the Republican leadership didn't see it that way when -- for example -- our troops were in harm's way in Albania and Serbia, I see things cynically.

If you really think, for example, that Kerry hurt our interests by criticizing Allawi as a puppet, then you also need to agree that Bush hurt our interests (first) by bringing Allawi to the United States to support his re-election campaign -- something that did nothing for Allawi in Iraq except make him look like a puppet -- and compounded the problem by having a campaign worker write Allawi's speeches for him. Once Bush left the barn door open, it was hardly wrong of Kerry to point it out.

Belief in the correctness of a position alone certainly doesn't make it right, as Dick Cheney did his best to illustrate for us on Tuesday.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. I'm saying people don't agree because your arguments usually aren't very good.

I don't think you're capable of recognizing a good argument if it told you to put your money where your mouth is by showing your wife's tits.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Although you and I do share one trait - when beaten handily, we'll be revert to hyperbole. When that doesn't work, we'll get personal. When that fails, we'll argue past the opponent.

Wrong. I don't wait til I'm beaten to revert to getting personal. But I like this approach. "You and me, we suck." It's quite a put-down, lumping me in with you. You'll excuse me, though, if I resist.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We have to get a drink sometime. We're almost soulmates in our shared self-righteous belief that we're always right.

I'll join you for a drink if you never use the word "soulmate" around me again.

TM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You're right. "Bring it on," would be the more responsible position.

TM

I like Dennis Miller. One of his latest lines on why he likes Bush - "He wakes up in the morning, stretches, scratches his balls, and says "let's go kill some f*@cking terrorists!" (The Tonight Show audience went nuts clapping.)

Yeah, "Bring it on" is a more responsible position, in my mind.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, the "pandering-to-the-Dean-base-by-voting-against-the-87-mil" was definitely in the national interest.

As much as the threatened veto by W if the bill didn't include his tax cuts.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, Biden is the guy conservatives quote to prove that Kerry was pandering to Dean voters, and Biden went on to point out that there was no question that the money would be appropriated

"Off the record, he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record, he has an elaborate explanation," — a Kerry adviser to Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04

In contrast, Bush gladly delayed creating the Dept. of Homeland Security in order to have a political issue

Yes, and Rome was built in a day. Gimme a break.

Republicans are about to forego compromise legislation (proposed, initially, by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission) in favor of a House bill that they can use as a political weapon. The point of the exercise is to try to get Democrats to vote against the bill just before the election. The House bill omits most of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Many people on both sides of the aisle have criticized many of the Commission's proposals. I've read the report myself and think some of the ideas are a big mistake. Perhaps they feel similarly.

Lemme guess. Kerry would rubberstamp the Commission's findings overnight. Until he wouldn't.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Although Sebby was right about this yesterday, and it bothers Sebby to no end that any politician can be stoopid enough to do this, it appears that at the very least Dean was honest about his plans and positions. The rest lie to us and make us guess how much they want us to bleed. Dean just came right out and told us.

Don't get me wrong, he's a clueless socialist bastard. But I liked him, even though I agree with Sebby that it puts him in an unwinnable position, and would have voted for him just on principle. The principle being that I hate his politics. I hate his party (hyperbole!). I hate him (hyperbole!). But I love that he was so transparent.

You've got me wrong. I don't disrespect any politician for standing on principle. Dean and McCain have both admitted they could have gone further had they towed the party line, but they couldn't bring themselves to do so. That is laudable.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You've got me wrong. I don't disrespect any politician for standing on principle. Dean and McCain have both admitted they could have gone further had they towed the party line, but they couldn't bring themselves to do so. That is laudable.

I like McCain because he doesn't buy into the right wing social bs- but he'll never be nominated because he doesn't buy into the right wing social bs. It is a conundrum.

Mc Cain as the nominee in 2000 there wouldn't have been a close race, and there'd be no race now. Que sera sera....

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, "Bring it on" is a more responsible position, in my mind.

I bet you wouldn't be so reckless if you or your son were in combat with an enemy that would use such a dare as recruiting tool. And I'm pretty sure you would be pretty pissed off if you your son was in the line of fire and your Commander in Chief said, "Bring it on!" from the comfort of his ranch while watching the casualties on the T.V., muttering, "Sure looks like hard work," between gasps for air as he chokes on a pretzel.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I don't think you're capable of recognizing a good argument if it told you to put your money where your mouth is by showing your wife's tits.

Wrong. I don't wait til I'm beaten to revert to getting personal. But I like this approach. "You and me, we suck." It's quite a put-down, lumping me in with you. You'll excuse me, though, if I resist.

I'll join you for a drink if you never use the word "soulmate" around me again.

TM

1. I enjoy them very much. They are spectacular. And thanks for reminding me.

2. Dude, I'm being objective here. Look back through all the boards. There are two people who are the most insane argument-prone nuts on these boards. The conclusion is all but a dead lock winner on summary judgment.

3. But I felt a real connection, like Zell and W.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Off the record, he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record, he has an elaborate explanation," — a Kerry adviser to Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04

That's a fine quote, and I don't doubt that it's true. My point, though, was that Kerry "pandered" with a vote that didn't affect the ultimate outcome. BFD. (Which only goes to show you how easily those Dean voters could be duped. Hell, they also thought Dean was a lefty.)

Yes, and Rome was built in a day. Gimme a break.

You've got to be kidding me. First, Bush opposed Lieberman's original proposal. Then, when he reversed on that, he held on the bill in order to roll back civil-service protections. The result was to delay passage by months.

Or maybe you just don't think that what the Dept. of Homeland Security does is all that important.

Many people on both sides of the aisle have criticized many of the Commission's proposals. I've read the report myself and think some of the ideas are a big mistake. Perhaps they feel similarly.

Lemme guess. Kerry would rubberstamp the Commission's findings overnight. Until he wouldn't.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with the Commission's proposals, either, and I suspect that the same is true for most of the Commissioner's. With the many bureaucratic interests opposed to the changes, you have to compromise to get something done. Unless you don't care about getting something done, and would rather beat up on the Democrats to get re-elected.

And nice line about Kerry. He's been absolutely consistent in supporting the Commission's findings -- unlike your guy, who keeps changing his tune on different pieces of it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, I'm being objective here. Look back through all the boards. There are two people who are the most insane argument-prone nuts on these boards. The conclusion is all but a dead lock winner on summary judgment.

Yep. If you say so.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I like Dennis Miller. One of his latest lines on why he likes Bush - "He wakes up in the morning, stretches, scratches his balls, and says "let's go kill some f*@cking terrorists!" (The Tonight Show audience went nuts clapping.)

I didn't see that -- maybe I'll watch Leno when I'm in the AARP demographic, too -- but James Wolcott did:

• I watched Jay Leno, whose first guest was Dennis Miller, whose soul has sprouted tumors. He belted out the name of Bush's campaign website, and said he was voting for the guy because Bush, man, he begins each day with one thing on his mind. He hops outta bed, "his two feet hit the floor, he scratches his balls, and says, 'Let's kill some fuckin' terrorists.'" Dennis Miller not only sounds like Michael Savage, he's beginning to look like him too, an oily stain possessing the power of speech.

Ouch.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We have to get a drink sometime. We're almost soulmates in our shared self-righteous belief that we're always right.

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, you say something that makes me want to hug you so you can feel my rack. This is one of those times.

[bilmore]

originally posted by sebby
Although you and I do share one trait - when beaten handily, we'll be revert to hyperbole. When that doesn't work, we'll get personal. When that fails, we'll argue past the opponent.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Yep. If you say so.

TM

Hee hee hee . . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ouch.

I know. I saw you quoting the guy who said this:

"In the closing statement of the vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney unveiled the terrifying prospect of terrorists smuggling nuclear weapons into major American cities inside Meals on Wheels wagons."

and I said "ouch". Can't be pleasant for you.