Politics: A new beginning

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
As further proof that the lib contingent is not "partisan" by the strictest (i.e., dictionary) definition of the word, I'd say booing Bush as he laid a wreath at MLK's grave is a pretty classless* move. A special award for irony deficiency to the protestor who carried a sign reading "'It's not a photo-op George.'" Criticize the photo op by doing something other than picketing, assjack; a cemetary is also not a protest site.

*I defer to the FB definition of classless.

In fairness, they weren't booing the laying of the wreath, they said they were booing the fact that "the president’s policies on Iraq, affirmative action and funding for social services conflict with King’s legacy. They also complained that the scheduling conflicted with their own plans to honor King."
Also, that he was not formally invited, on top of the fact that everyone knows that it was just a photo op.
Plus, Martin would have wanted it that way, he was a civil disobedience type of guy.

photo op for W

[Atticus Grinch]

Imam Convicted for Advice on How to Beat Wives.

I offer this as an example of how the modern, secular West misunderstands the purpose and nature of religious texts other than its own. The imam's teachings would have been a substantial modernization from what his readers might themselves independently interpret the Qur'an to allow (or command). In the absence of such interpretations, Spanish muslims are forced to examine difficult passages in their religious teachings without the perspectives of professional scholarship, which Christians and Jews were never required to do. If they had, the Western world would be a lot more brutal today.

Would the Spanish court also have imprisoned the rabbis and priests who were forced, over time, to deal with and rationalize the Bible's difficult texts apparently condoning rape, mass murder, mass infanticide, and child abuse?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Boy, if a political candidate is attacking another, what he says must be true, huh?

How Lieberman does in Iowa will give you some sense of how good this argument is.

Dare I say it, but how Lieberman does in Iowa will say nothing to me other than that a bunch of idiot corn farmers still aren't open to the idea of electing the first jewish President. Nothing more.

[SlaveNoMore]

SlaveNoMore
Dare I say it, but how Lieberman does in Iowa will say nothing to me other than that a bunch of idiot corn farmers still aren't open to the idea of electing the first jewish President. Nothing more.

BTW, that anyone gives a fuck what a bunch of Iowans think about the future nominee is truly one of the most laughable aspects of the election process.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But I will say that after reading most of the rest of the Clark transcript the most damaging thing I can find is that Clark occasionally praises Richard Perle.
[edited to clarify description of Clark's stance]

There's nothing damaging in what he says per se. What's damaging is that he is not saying those things now. Clark is like Dean only in the way he has taken a variety of positions on given issues, such that it is difficult to determine exactly what his position is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dare I say it, but how Lieberman does in Iowa will say nothing to me other than that a bunch of idiot corn farmers still aren't open to the idea of electing the first jewish President. Nothing more.

Maybe they'd be open to the idea of electing an non-sanctimonious, non-blowhard, non-irritating Jewish President. And that's not even getting to his apparent disinclination to put himself out there on Democratic issues.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There's nothing damaging in what he says per se. What's damaging is that he is not saying those things now. Clark is like Dean only in the way he has taken a variety of positions on given issues, such that it is difficult to determine exactly what his position is.

It's particularly difficult to determine his positions if you read Drudge instead of, say, his full testimony. On foreign policy, the man is incredibly well informed, and has nuanced views. Nuance doesn't come across well on, say, Drudge. It's like you're trying to watch porn for free, and complaining about all the static.

I will admit that he sounds like he's painting by numbers on domestic policy, but I don't think you care because you're only interested in playing gotcha.

And is Bush going to be "damaged" by his flip-flop on nation-building? Yeah, I don't think so either.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe they'd be open to the idea of electing an non-sanctimonious, non-blowhard, non-irritating Jewish President. And that's not even getting to his apparent disinclination to put himself out there on Democratic issues.

"Translation" no good deli in DC. Hadassah woould be happier if he stayed in Connecticut.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's particularly difficult to determine his positions if you read Drudge instead of, say, his full testimony. On foreign policy, the man is incredibly well informed, and has nuanced views. Nuance doesn't come across well on, say, Drudge. It's like you're trying to watch porn for free, and complaining about all the static.

I will admit that he sounds like he's painting by numbers on domestic policy, but I don't think you care because you're only interested in playing gotcha.

I would think you'd have given me a tad more credit than that. I am well aware of his credentials (mainly because he repeats them over and over again). I also am not basing anything on Drudge (but I will continue to link if for no other reason than it strikes a particular cord with you). I've seen the general interviewed countless times and watched him on CSPAN and I think he comes across very well, that is, until his prior statements are put to him. Then he takes an obstinate "how dare you question me, I'm a 4 star" approach, without answering the substance of the question in a manner that builds confidence in the knowledgable viewer.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop And is Bush going to be "damaged" by his flip-flop on nation-building? Yeah, I don't think so either.

I would back you on this one, if it wasn't for that little event that occured 9/11. You just illustrated why the DEMS are going to get absolutely trounced this November. The country realizes that this was a defining event in American history and that we essentially started fresh on 9/12. The DEMS think of this as a little more than a petty crime and that nothing has really changed.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The DEMS think of this as a little more than a petty crime and that nothing has really changed.

You are such a fucking asshole, I seriously doubt there's any value in continuing to engage with you.

Slave can be a dick, too, but people like him anyway. Take notes.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
And is Bush going to be "damaged" by his flip-flop on nation-building?

You won't seem to let it go

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You are such a fucking asshole, I seriously doubt there's any value in continuing to engage with you.

Slave can be a dick, too, but people like him anyway. Take notes.

I guess I shouldn't expect a valentine this year.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am well aware of his credentials (mainly because he repeats them over and over again).

I'm talking about his views, not his credentials.

I also am not basing anything on Drudge (but I will continue to link if for no other reason than it strikes a particular cord with you).

Do whatever you need to do. I'm not particularly bothered by Drudge, I just don't see his site as useful to me. I prefer sites that filter more, and add some analysis. He's looking for hits, NTTAWWT. He's a hack, but that's his schtick.

I've seen the general interviewed countless times and watched him on CSPAN and I think he comes across very well, that is, until his prior statements are put to him. Then he takes an obstinate "how dare you question me, I'm a 4 star" approach, without answering the substance of the question in a manner that builds confidence in the knowledgable viewer.

You alternate so quickly between seeming to
- attack his substantive views
- attack his political skills
- suggest that he's not going to play well
that I can't figure out what you're trying to say. I'm defending his substantive views because I thought you were attacking them. Now you just seem to be saying that he doesn't play well because he's not good when FOX plays gotcha with him. Maybe so, but I don't think it has much to do with whether he'd make a good president.

I would back you on this one, if it wasn't for that little event that occured 9/11.

You misunderstand me. You guys don't seem to care that Bush flip-flopped. So why do you care whether Clark did?

You just illustrated why the DEMS are going to get absolutely trounced this November. The country realizes that this was a defining event in American history and that we essentially started fresh on 9/12. The DEMS think of this as a little more than a petty crime and that nothing has really changed.

You've said this before, and it's just as moronic and borderline offensive now as it was then. ETA: See, e.g., Atticus's response.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You won't seem to let it go

I only bring it up to point out how stupid it is to attack Clark for allegedly having changed his views on Iraq, or Dean for having allegedly changed his views on unilateral intervention or Iraq.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You alternate so quickly between seeming to
- attack his substantive views
- attack his political skills
- suggest that he's not going to play well
that I can't figure out what you're trying to say. I'm defending his substantive views because I thought you were attacking them. Now you just seem to be saying that he doesn't play well because he's not good when FOX plays gotcha with him. Maybe so, but I don't think it has much to do with whether he'd make a good president.

What I'm saying is that Clark is certainly smart and engaging and has a personality that engenders confidence. But that's if you view him in a vacuum without reference to his background and his prior positions. When critiques are put before him, he changes.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop You misunderstand me. You guys don't seem to care that Bush flip-flopped. So why do you care whether Clark did?

This is almost a fair point, and if the general had not switched parties to run for president, I'd probably agree with you. But he did, and that plus the flip flops just adds to the view that he is an ambitious opportunist.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop You've said this before, and it's just as moronic and borderline offensive now as it was then. ETA: See, e.g., Atticus's response.

It's called rhetoric. Are you and AG REALLY offended. Please. You both have tougher skin than that.