A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes - Page 286

spookyfish · 03-07-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We seem to have folks who probably are core constituency dems, but not core constituency reps (at least current GOP). But maybe it's just perception.

I'm not being a smartass here, or at least I'm trying not to be, but if that's the case, it may have to do with your definition of what each party's "core constituency" is.

How would you define each? I'm really curious.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
WTF, did you work all weekend and you think it's Friday? Did I say extreme centrists? Jesus fucking christ on a stick, I was just saying that it isn't just that we don't have anyone extremely right wing on here -- we also don't have anyone extremely left wing.

CHRIST. If only I had that secret service guy's pop-out baton, I'd sodomize you with it and then shove it down your throat, in hopes that the unpleasant experience of spewing real crap would keep you from spewing that kind of crap.

I've been doing a lot of traveling lately, and just got back a few days ago from one longish trip, but it wasn't until I read this that I truly knew I was home.

Shape Shifter · 03-07-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spookyfish
I'm not being a smartass here, or at least I'm trying not to be, but if that's the case, it may have to do with your definition of what each party's "core constituency" is.

How would you define each? I'm really curious.

I'm a union member and a single mother. Maybe that's why club thought I was so liberal.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spookyfish
I'm not being a smartass here, or at least I'm trying not to be, but if that's the case, it may have to do with your definition of what each party's "core constituency" is.

We're low on evangelicals.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-07-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
We're low on evangelicals.

precisely.

I would say GGG fairly fits the liberal democrat mode--pro-labor, pro-civil rights, not afraid of big government and big taxes. Think Mike Dukakis.

While we might have a couple of Newt Gingrich/Dick Armey types here (Bilmore?), I don't see a Rick Santorum/GW Bush among us.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While we might have a couple of Newt Gingrich/Dick Armey types here (Bilmore?) . . .

Scarily enough, I come out more as a McCain.

(Without the stupid campaign-financing thoughts.)

Hank Chinaski · 03-07-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I agree that "homicide bomber" is stupid, but I think an additional element in the argument is that, by calling it a "suicide" but not "homicide" bombing, it demphasizes the significance of the innocent life taken in favor of the bomber's. Sort of a half-baked "victims rights" thing - if anyone's "victim" status is to be linguistically marginalized, it should by rights be the bomber's, not the actual victims'.

That said - yeah, lame. You'd think that anti-bombers would want to emphasize the suicide element, since most religions hold that suicide is a mortal sin (or whatever the applicable description is that means "you are absolutely barred from heaven for it").

eta: though I would go so far as to refer to the suicide bomber as a "casualty" of the explosion, not a "victim."

I did this one to death 6 months ago, and lack the energy to do it again- but blackletter:

What was the bombers main goal- kill himself or take out the mom and her kids? I don't think suicide describes the guy's main motivation. The word describes the bomber not the act.

I had a good friend who committed suicide- he did it in his dad's garage. Only he died.

As to the other points-

emphasizing it's "suicide" doesn't reenforce it's wrong from a religious standpoint, when the bomber thinks God has a place for him in paradise.

Of course the main problem is how much the guy's willingness to blow himself up makes it tough to stop him. But people realize that with either name.

Both terms are poor choices, but homocide isn't worse.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-07-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't see a Rick Santorum/GW Bush among us.

Let alone any evangelical types. (Maybe I'll give you Santorum, but Bush? He talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk.)

Gattigap · 03-07-2005, 02:33 PM

Apparently, I haven't been paying requisite attention, because I've missed this in the news. If true, Ahnold's making some stumbles in his PR campaigns by borrowing from GWB crowd-filtering techniques. Nurses?

From Alexander Cockburn:

California's nurses have got him rattled, and it's already costing him. A February 23 Field Poll showed his approval ratings declining ten points since last September, a significant drop. One might have thought that it's a no-brainer to realize that kicking Florence Nightingale's butt is not a sure-fire way to the public's heart. But the Governor is so used to browbeating the press that he thought he could do the same to the California Nurses' Association (CNA), one of the most militant unions in the country, with 60,000 members and representing registered nurses at 171 health facilities throughout the state. Schwarzenegger has been trying to roll back the union's gains on nurse/ patient ratios, safety standards and kindred issues.

Schwarzenegger's version of Howard Dean's scream came in December in Long Beach. As the nurses barracked him during a speech, he denounced them as one of the "special interests" and said, "I'm always kicking their butt." This witty response from the breast-grabber got plenty of play, and did the nurses nothing but good. At a January Capitol protest in Sacramento the nurses carried coffins and had a New Orleans jazz group play a death march. During the Super Bowl they flew a small plane over the steroid-swollen Governor's party at his Santa Monica home. When he was in Washington they took out a full-page ad in Roll Call flaying his record. During a Schwarzenegger speech in a Sacramento hotel, nurses held up a banner saying RNs Say Stop the Power Grab.

On February 15, when Schwarzenegger and his platoons of body guards and flunkies trooped into a screening of Be Cool, 300 nurses demonstrated. Kelly DiGiacomo, 46 years old and 5'2", a nurse at a Kaiser hospital near Sacramento, had a ticket. She ensconced herself in the fourth row, wearing her nurse's scrubs.

A bodyguard rushed up, and under the pretext of a possible meeting with the governor, led her to a room with a California Highway Patrol cop at the door and began to grill DiGiacomo. A few days later a CHP investigator called. DiGiacomo asked why she should be considered a threat. The investigator replied, "Well, you were wearing a nurse's uniform." "Oh, sure, the international terrorist uniform," DiGiacomo scoffed. Californians scoffed with her when they saw the news stories. At least Bush and Cheney can claim they're being targeted by hairy men from the dark side of Mecca. Here's Arnold hiding behind his goons from the woman who cares for you when you're in the hospital.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-07-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let alone any evangelical types.

You can say that again.

Spanky · 03-07-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
emphasizing it's "suicide" doesn't reenforce it's wrong from a religious standpoint, when the bomber thinks God has a place for him in paradise.

Yes, and I think in the Catholic tradition, if one goes on a suicide mission to accomplish some good they are sometimes later revered as saints.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Of course the main problem is how much the guy's willingness to blow himself up makes it tough to stop him.

Exactly

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski But people realize that with either name.

Here I disagree. Suicide, bombers, because of the fact that they are willing to die makes them incredibly effective and lethal. In addition, you can not defeat them by threatening them with force, you either kill them or change their mind, but intimidation is never going to work. The term "Homicide Bomber" tries to white wash that critical fact.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Here I disagree. Suicide, bombers, because of the fact that they are willing to die makes them incredibly effective and lethal. In addition, you can not defeat them by threatening them with force, you either kill them or change their mind, but intimidation is never going to work. The term "Homicide Bomber" tries to white wash that critical fact.

It's all just as important and noteworthy as the thought that your party's substance matters not, as long as you can correctly "frame the debate."

In other words, not at all.)

megaloman · 03-07-2005, 03:09 PM

CHICAGO (AP) -- Boeing Co. on Monday said its board "asked for and received" the resignation of President and Chief Executive Officer Harry Stonecipher because of a relationship Stonecipher had with a female executive at the company.

Boeing said an internal investigation prompted by information sent anonymously to Chairman Lew Platt and the company's legal and ethics leaders 10 days ago revealed a "consensual" relationship between Stonecipher and the female executive..

"The Board concluded that the facts reflected poorly on Harry's judgment and would impair his ability to lead the company,"

I'm shocked! What is wrong with this Boeing?!!? Surely they can't be so fascist as to be implying that this is anything but sex, can they? It's a personal matter. what part of his judgment would be impaired by getting a little cootchie on the side?

I look forward to the Democratic National Committee, assorted Democrat Senators and Representatives and the NYTimes to step up to Mr. Stonecipher's defence. I'm sure AlGore and Frank Rich will take the lead. And hopefully Jessie Jackson can counsel him in the meantime.

And N.O.W., surely they must be outraged!!

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-07-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by megaloman
[i]CHICAGO (AP) -- Boeing Co. on Monday said its board "asked for and received" the resignation of President and Chief Executive Officer Harry Stonecipher because of a relationship Stonecipher had with a female executive at the company.

Why is the female executive not being named or fired? If it was consensual, is it just that he had an affair? Is she not married?

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why is the female executive not being named or fired? If it was consensual, is it just that he had an affair? Is she not married?

She, being his direct report, was the "victim."