Third Party & Independents: Archives

Isn’t this kind of like expecting Charles Schumer to show up at an NRA convention?

Just another example of Bush proving that he is a divider, not a uniter. The Republican party continues to push us towards a polarized country with Americans feeling like they must choose a side. These kinds of things just lead us into a civil war.

Considering the ads they ran in the 2000 campaign, I can’t blame Bush for wanting to pass. Tactically, however, it was an incredibly stupid move on his part. If he had gone to the NAACP and gotten shouted down he would have embarrassed the civil rights establishment and looked like a hero. Now he looks like a wimp who can’t take the heat, and Kerry has another reason to mention him in the same breath as Herbert Hoover. (Since he is the first president since HH not to speak to them.)

His apologists are more or less saying that the NAACP “started it”, but that doesn’t override the fact that they invited him and he turned them down. If he didn’t think they were sincere, he should have called their bluff. If his hero Reagan (who was far from beloved in the Black community) could do it, why not Dubya?

There’s a lot of shouting down right now from the left, and they’re already knee-jerking back into calling war veterans “baby killers”.

This is why, in spite of my agreement with roughly 2/3 of liberal ideas, I could never look at myself in the mirror if I ever politically allied with them. And if the “civil war” mentioned by Cameron Barrett were to erupt, I would certainly not fight on their side.

If the NRA actually invited Schumer to speak, that might be an appropriate analogy. I’ll bet that if he was asked he’d agree in a heartbeat and that he’d speak his mind about American gun ownership.

Bush lacks that kind of courage. Bush is the first President (since, ironically, Herbert Hoover) to refuse to speak at the NAACP convention, and that’s including his many Republican predecessors. Do you think that Reagan, Nixon, Bush 41, Eisenhower, or Ford were facing an easier audience than Bush would have faced? Or for that matter Kennedy, LBJ, Truman, and FDR? Certainly not - all of those leaders had to face the NAACP and all of them had tough and often quite hostile audience to face. If anything, Bush would have had it easier than any other President except Clinton and Carter. On this issue, Bush falls far, far short of every one of his predecessors.

A true leader would not be afraid to speak to this important American constituency, regardless of the organization’s political stance. Such a gesture, if executed with the leadership aplomb that qualified American Presidents (no matter what party) ought to have, would probably go a long way towards improving his relationship with the NAACP’s constituents.

The bottom line is that Bush is afraid. He and his handlers were afraid that his appearance would generate an embarassing newsclip of him being jeered by the audience and his panicky, fumbling reactions. Again, I don’t understand how it is that many Americans perceive him as steely and brave. He can’t get up the nerve to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission by himself, he doesn’t have the nerve to allow the tougher reporters to ask him questions in press conferences (or grant the NY Times an interview at all), he cannot muster up the guts to face the biggest, oldest, and most respected African American advocacy groups in the country. The Presidential Debate negotiations are sure to be a repeat of 2000, with Bush’s team advocating fewer debates, shorter speaking times, and pre-approved softball questions and with Kerry’s team confidently advocating more debates, longer speaking times, and challenging impromptu questions.

The guy’s a spineless coward through and through, entirely unfit for the Presidency. Can anyone name one thing he’s done that showed even a spark of personal courage?

-Cf

Ciggy, whoever called that veteran a “baby killer” hardly represents “the left” any more than people who advocate nuking Baghdad represent “the right”.

If he was called a baby killer at all (frankly, I think that the guy is more likely lying about being called a “baby killer” to exaggerate his story of being booed), it was probably by some anarchist punk rocker kid, not by a mob of Democratic soccer moms.

As to the general anger towards the guy, well, there’s nothing wrong with him being booed and jeered since he was carrying around a sign advocating Bush. Politics is politics, and just because you have a bunch of medals doesn’t mean that people have to treat you with respect or deference. Just ask John Kerry.

-Cf

Chris—

Points well taken, I couldn’t have said it better—or with more style—then you!

V. Edward

Ciggy—

I hardly call taking the President to task for his lack of leadership, a knee jerk reaction. This President—and I use the term loosely—has given those who might seek to unseat him plenty of ammunition in which to do the job. Chris is right on; the man is a coward, and it is made even worse by the fact that supposedly intelligent people continue to support him.

V. Edward

CF,

If he was called a baby killer at all (frankly, I think that the guy is more likely lying about being called a “baby killer” to exaggerate his story of being booed)

I expected this sort of a denial, which was why I provided the link. Now you’d rather adhere to some party line than believe your own “lying eyes”, which is fine with me. I’ve seen zealots before, and you are probably not the last. Don’t bother to examine the facts. They’ll only sneak up on you when you least expect it.

just because you have a bunch of medals doesn’t mean that people have to treat you with respect or deference.

That is precisely what liberals expect of their prize veterans who speak out against Bush. Words of disagreement are met with “HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR OUR BRAVE VETERANS?” Mainly I’m only pointing out here, the hypocrisy and irrational basis of the majority of the left’s behavior (in spite of having some fairly decent ideas which they seem to ruin by acting out as the very lowest scum of society).

Just as you can’t expect a thinking person to see beyond the hypocrisy of pedophile priests and join the Catholic Church, nor ought you expect thinking people to ignore incidents like Bainbridge and register as a Democrat.

Zealots only attract zealots.

Yes, Republicans attract zealots as well, which is why you see me here in the “third party” column. Imagine that.

Another angle on the “baby killer” story.: Is someone who is rude to a veteran automatically a liberal? We don’t know anything about the person’s political beliefs. This is a like assuming that anyone who uses the “n-word” is a conservative.

Ann Coulter got fired by MSNBC for insulting a disabled veteran. Was that her hidden “liberal” side coming out?

By the way Ciggy, you are apparently allied with Ann Coulter. How can you look at yourself in the mirror?

> nor ought you expect thinking people to
> ignore incidents like Bainbridge and
> register as a Democrat.

Ciggy, Woody is right: Not only do you not know if the “baby killer” accuser was a liberal (although that does seem likely), but you certainly don’t know if he or she was a Democrat (which seems pretty unlikely).

-Cf

This manufactured controversy by the Right (which will only continue to hurt Bush among all minorities, if it isn’t dropped), made me wonder why a group or spokesman for Black Republicans, have not been shoved in front of a microphone or TV camera. Well, they have - but, on C-Span.

I remember one of my Republican WatchBlog colleagues bringing up such a group called, Project 21. So, I went to their website to see if they’ve jumped into this Bush/NAACP dust up.

As emphatic, pointed and detailed the group is in demanding that the CBC apologize to Nader, they opted not to include in their press release an equally strident defense of Bush’s snub of the NAACP.

The Republicans and the Right are signaling that they are all outfitted with their blinders and tin ears. By desperately embracing these substitute issues (in place of defending Bush’s record), they unknowingly open up debate on the President’s fairness and the divisive result of this tenure.

Christopher:

You fully have met my expectations, for which I thank you.

When informed about the alleged “babykiller” remark, you first hotly suggested that it was most likely just a lie. “If he was called a baby killer at all (frankly, I think that the guy is more likely lying about being called a “baby killer” to exaggerate his story of being booed”

You went on to suggest that perhaps the people in the crowd (there were more than just one, according to the link) were not liberal, and even if so, certainly not representative of the “left” as a whole. I’d have to agree with this, though its probably safe to assume they are pro-Bush people.

What you did NOT
do was say there was anything wrong with the jeering and insulting of a U.S. soldier. Before you say that it goes without saying that verbal insults like that are wrong, lets look at what you did say:

“As to the general anger towards (the veteran), well, there’s nothing wrong with him being booed and jeered since he was carrying around a sign advocating Bush.”

So, Christopher, you’ve now clearly stated that its okay to yell rude and insulting things at soldiers and to treat them with utter disprespect. Wait, perhaps I misunderstand: Perhaps it is only if the veteran is a Bush supporter that you can treat him so poorly.

Chris, in the interest of fairness, maybe you can clarify when you think it is okay to treat our soldiers with disrespect. I’ll look forward to your reply.

> Now you’d rather adhere to some party line

What “party line”? Did the Democratic Party issue a statement about this incident? Can you really not guess that it is possible that I reached my opinions on my own?

> than believe your own “lying eyes”, which
> is fine with me.

I am lying? What exactly are you accusing me of lying about?

> Don’t bother to examine the facts.

The facts are that an individual who is clearly and openly an outspoken dyed-in-the-wool Bush supporter has described an incident that, to me, sounds a little bit far-fetched. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever. There is nothing except the statements of a person who, again, has a very particular political agenda.

Did you read the part of the article in which it is revealed that he was marching not only with his Bush-supporting family and a group of “conservative friends” (apparently not soldiers) holding pro-Bush/Cheney signs. Did you read the part of the article where his family is described as dedicated Bush supporters and activists? Did you read the part of the article where several other witnesses (the only other quoted actual witnesses besides Gilson himself, I might add) pointed out that the anti-war people were actually hurling their accusations at the group of pro-Bush supporters, with whom this single soldier Gilson was marching? Did you read about the other witness (who the author inexplicably keeps referring to as “female”) who describe the behavior of the Bush/Cheney supporters as “militant”? Well, I read all of that stuff, and that’s how I reached my opinion that there’s more behind this story than the single pro-Bush source upon which you are basing your conclusions. I was not following some dittohead “party line”.

Ciggy, I don’t understand you sometimes. You’re smart as a whip, but the single most important political ideology you follow seems to be a continuous insistance that “I am not a liberal”, which IMHO you adhere to with a kind of zealotry yourself. You go way out of your way, bending your political statements into pretzel shapes to carefully avoid allying yourself with groups of people with whom you admit you find some important common ground. You’ve built a wall between yourself and liberalism. Maybe it’s time to think about how to tear down that wall?

-Cf

> Chris, in the interest of fairness, maybe you
> can clarify when you think it is okay to treat
> our soldiers with disrespect.

I was about to leave for work, but this will only take a second to answer: It’s okay to jeer at a soldier when they are engaged in a political activity, for example marching around in a group of political activists and holding a sign representing political beliefs with which you disagree.

Gilson was marching not as a soldier but as a Bush supporter. The idea is simple: one can criticise any person for their political beleifs, no matter who they are. Simply being a soldier, however, isn’t grounds for criticism.

If the veteran was a Kerry supporter and was expressing support for Kerry and he was jeered by Bush supporters, it would be fine with me, too.

Do you actually disagree with this?

-Cf

PS: I didn’t say it was “most likely” a lie. I wrote “more likely”. I found the details of the story hard to believe. Even you used the term “alleged”.

Woody,

Is someone who is rude to a veteran automatically a liberal?

To follow the line of your deliberately obtuse rejoinder, yes, when the veteran is carrying a “Veterans for Bush” sign.

By the way Ciggy, you are apparently allied with Ann Coulter. How can you look at yourself in the mirror?

Coulter is a Third Party pundit now, who is pro-choice, pro-second-amendment, pro-gay-marriage, anti-censorship, in favor of a flat personal tax, business taxation driven off of the compensation disparity ratio, public health care, nationalized education, nationalized legal defense, and replacing the current nonsense in Iraq with a purely Special Ops force to do their jobs in secret? That’s pretty astonishing. I thought she was just a Republican.

CF,

you certainly don’t know if he or she was a Democrat (which seems pretty unlikely).

More denial. That’s okay. You can’t keep all of your rats buried in the woodwork for the entire election period. Michael Moore is the tip of the iceberg for you guys.

What “party line”? Did the Democratic Party issue a statement about this incident?

It is obviously a party tactic to deny any association with the creeps and vermin that infest the party ranks whenever they get out of hand. This strategy fails, though, when they embrace Michael Moore, who characterizes the Iraqi rebels as “the Revolution and the Minutemen”, making it worse than incongruous with denials of association with those on the homefront who call soldiers “baby killers”. But keep working at it. Maybe you’ll get it right, without marginalizing your disgusting trailer-trash base.

I am lying? What exactly are you accusing me of lying about?

You’re not familiar with the term “lying eyes”? Can somebody please teach some ESL to Mr. Fahey here so I can communicate with him?

There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever.

How confident are you that nobody caught it on video, with thousands of people present at the parade? Are you willing to risk being shown an imbecile if it surfaces?

And would the mayor have apologized for something that never happened? How ridiculous of a position are you willing to maintain just for a few scraps of welfare, anyway? How certain are you that the poverty pimps offering you that welfare aren’t in cahoots with the Republicans you revile anyway?

the single most important political ideology you follow seems to be a continuous insistance that “I am not a liberal”, which IMHO you adhere to with a kind of zealotry yourself.

The reason I’m not a liberal is that I can’t stomach association with those who behave the way liberals do. It is anti-zealotry which has me fired up to stay away from that pile of steaming caca, not zealotry.

When Kerry himself is taken in a vacuum, and I read down the list of his platform positions at his website, I say to myself “well good for him. He has some excellent ideas. I just might vote for him”. And then I see the screaming raging mob of unspeakably low rodents that glom onto his message and his party, and I realize that a Kerry presidency would be beset by representatives of the Trailer Park caucas demanding free cigarettes and porn for their votes, and I realize that what’s happening is old Roman Patronage, not real reform.

Bread and circuses for the masses, while the Visigoths are at the gates.

I’ll borrow one of your phrases: NOT IN MY NAME.

CF,

It’s okay to jeer at a soldier when they are engaged in a political activity, for example marching around in a group of political activists and holding a sign representing political beliefs with which you disagree.

When the nature of the jeering devolves to “baby killer”, it shows the jeerers for who and what they are. You see, if the jeerers are truly against the leadership but for the troops, and truly think the troops were only thrown into harm’s way as a result of the bad leadership, and that under good leadership would have supported the troops, the jeering very well would have been pejorative of Bush, rather than of the soldier himself.

But you see, when you scratch the surface of the street liberal, the molotov cocktail liberal, the hateful spewing venemous liberal, what you find is not anyone with any kind of an attitude anywhere near positive toward those who defend this country. They will USE the veterans as their political TOOLS when they see fit, just as they accuse the Republican leadership of doing. But they secretly revile anyone in uniform because they revile war (sometimes secretly, and sometimes openly).

It’s difficult to fault someone who reviles war. When one lives a life where it seems war is never necessary—where the worst threat to one’s neighborhood is an overlarge dog owned by the new neighbors down the street—then one will naturally gravitate toward those who say that group hugs and a good batch of cookies will take a Muslim fundamentalist and make him stop wanting to kill you.

It is ironically the goal of fighting wars that we attempt to preserve the domestic peace where the notion of war’s frivolity can be engendered. In that sense you might even say that war itself is self-defeating, because any peace you create in any pocket of domestic tranquility, will be a false sense of security, or a false sense of never having to confront rivals for resources or ideological rectitude.

In that sense, a soldier knows he or she has done a good job when it gets to the point that he or she is being jeered at by a crowd. Then he or she knows that crowd has sufficient protection as to think the soldier useless, and a curse on society. It’s the way of General Aetius, after he vanquished Atilla the Hun: assassinated by the very Romans he protected.

When a more thinking minority of the left expresses a civilized disagreement with a veteran’s political support for Bush, I can applaud that as an ability to look beyond the uniform, beyond the symbolism, and get to the meat of the political issue (just as I look beyond the uniform of a veteran who stands next to Michael Moore and voices agreement that the Iraqi insurgents are “the Minutemen and the Revolution”). But the thinking minority of the left is just that: a minority.

When the opponent of an unthinking Right is an unthinking Left, I cannot help but advocate “neither of the above”.

Ciggy, as a representative of the vast majority of Democrats, I’ll publically disavow anyone who calls our soldiers “baby killers”. If Mr. Gilson can provide a name for that disembodied voice, I can have that person’s mailbox deluged with admonishments.

But I think you realize that the unthinking left is the minority. The article you cite is short on facts and long on hearsay. And from reading the article, I suspect that Gilson (wearing a Veterans for Bush sign in liberal Seattle - home of the WTO riots) was trolling: “the Bush-Cheney contingent in the parade seemed ‘militant.’”

Pundit- The unthinking left and the unthinking right are more not the minority, they are the vast majority these days. One need only look at what sells the most- the market is a great indicator of where people are at intellectually and in terms of their interests. I suggest you go to your local Barnes and Noble and see which books currently parade as political analysis these days. I did that the other day, and from my short survey most every book claimed that Bush was evil and stupid, or claimed that Clinton ruined everything and its all the liberals fault for ruining America.

One look around at the popularity of Micheal Moore, Rush and co. should show any observer that Ciggy’s characterizations hit rather close to home (I think they apply with full force to the right wing as well- just turn on talk radio).

Too often times even on this board, which is much higher intelligence than most political discourse in this nation, I see rather people lapsing into their party’s rhetoric. Just the other day, someone responded to one of my posts by implying that if Bill Clinton had republican lawyers, he wouldnt have answered the questions asked of him because the republican lawyers would have “stonewalled, counterattacked, and played dumb for years.” The implication was that REPUBLICAN lawyers are somehow less honest and more devious and DEMOCRAT lawyers. We have a culture in our nation where both sides truely believe that their opponents are sneaky, bad, and out to destroy this nation. People like Moore and Rush feed it- and the American people are eating it up.

After all, Bush stole the election in 2000 with the help of his brother and the Democrats want the terrorist to win- what else are we to think?!

AP

I think you realize that the unthinking left is the minority

Crowds of thousands versus a handful on a blog. Which is a person literate in math to take, as a “minority” voice?

I think Misha is on the mark with:

The unthinking left and the unthinking right are more not the minority, they are the vast majority these days.

That is consistent with my observation as well. Moore’s mindless conspiracy stream of consciousness bafflegab sells to those who were not taught logic in school. And similarly, on the right, the bulk of what gets fed to the talk radio audience.

Our educational system starved the kids of logic, and this is the result. Group hugs, anyone?

Ciggy, please calm down. What’s with all the name calling and anger?

I wrote:
> > you certainly don’t know if he or she was a Democrat (which seems pretty unlikely).

Ciggy wrote:
> More denial.

Denial? Denial of what? Denial of your groundless speculation that these people were Democrats? They’re way more likely to be Greens or Anarchists or Socialists — not Democrats.

> Michael Moore is the tip of the iceberg
> for you guys.

Michael Moore is not a Democrat. He campaigned for Nader in 2000 and is avoiding endorsements this time. Like you, he dislikes Bush.

> disgusting trailer-trash base

Good lord, what’s gotten into you?

> You’re not familiar with the term “lying eyes”?
> Can somebody please teach some ESL to Mr. Fahey
> here so I can communicate with him?

Everywhere I’ve ever seen it used it means that a person’s eyes reveal when they are lying. If it also means something else to you, that’s fine, lots of terms have multiple meanings. It doesn’t give you the right to sling grade-school insults at me.

> > There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever.
>
> Are you willing to risk being shown an imbecile
> if it surfaces?

Jeez, Ciggy. Of course I’ll change my opinion if evidence surfaces. I am a rational man. But as far as that story in the link goes there is no corroborative evidence. In fact, the story has contradictory testimony. I was crystal clear that I was only speaking about the article, not about the “truth”. If the truth comes out and it supports your interpretation of the events, it will hardly make me an imbicile. It will merely show that your lack of skepticism was a lucky guess.

But let’s look at the facts: You fully believe the word of the self-described pro-Bush activist over the word of multiple witnesses who contradict his story … while I voice uncertainty about what might have happened. And you call me the zealot?

You may not have any love for either major party, but you have such a zealous hatred for the word “liberal” that you’ll apparently accept anything that is anti-liberal at face value.

> a Kerry presidency would be beset by
> representatives of the Trailer Park
> caucas demanding free cigarettes and
> porn for their votes

What the heck…? Again with the ad hominem attacks on the poor. Have you been this way all along? A hater of the lower classes?

> When the nature of the jeering devolves to
> “baby killer”, it shows the jeerers for who
> and what they are.

Unfortunately for your worldview and your entire argument, I and almost every other Democrat I’ve ever heard of would agree with what you’ve just written. I would never call any American soldier such things. And I don’t think any of my friends and family would do such things either. I have many veterans in my family and have always admired those who serve and have always paid open deference to them. I’ll admit that there’s a difference between what I think is ethically acceptable in others and the higher standards I hold myself and my friends to.

But since my liberalism seems to put me in the same neat little box as those wackos who have taunted our troops, I guess now I have to disavow what those people, people who are not me, are saying, right? Okay, I disavow them. But I don’t condemn them. I hope you can see the difference.

I thought you’d give me enough respect to assume that I am not one of those people, but it looks like you don’t intend to debate respectfully at all. I am sorry for that because you seem like a smart person with some genuinely interesting political opinions.

I’ll close with a little bit o’ that trailer trash classic rock:
My, oh my, you sure know how to arrange things.
You set it up so well, so carefully.
Ain’t it funny how your new life didn’t change things.
You’re still the same old girl you used to be.

You can’t hide your lyin’ eyes,
and your smile is a thin disguise.
I thought by now you’d realize
there ain’t no way to hide those lying eyes.

-Cf

Just for you all’s information the President is going to speak at the Urban league instead of the NAACP, why go to a place you are so villified and tarnished. The Urban League is still partisan liberals, but at least they are fair.

Chris:

I used the word “alleged” because until something is proven in court, it is always “alleged”. That’s cuz we hold to the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

And for the record, I dont hold that its okay to jeer and insult ANYONE. That you are in favor of such behavior is a bit troubling. I cant really see you standing and jeering at someone simply because they hold a different opinion than you, nor can i understand why you would condone someone else doing that.

Its boorish behavior no matter how you look at it. Now….in a basketball analogy, I LOVE what the Cameron Crazies at Duke do, which is to put an intelligent and wise-ass spin on things. But its not pure hatred and insults typically. And when they have crossed the line, Coach K himself has seen fit to reprimand them for it.

Maybe we should all be as upset if Bush does not address the Democratic Convention. I’m sure Hillary would give up her newly arranged time.

Juan Williams, speaking on Fox Sunday yesterday, gave a pretty good defense of the President’s decision. He basically agrees with the assessment that the NAACP has become a political organization aligned with the Democratic Party under the leadership of Bond and Mfume.

> That’s cuz we hold to the concept of
> innocent until proven guilty.

I don’t see why you saw fit to write this. It’s not like I said any different. I was pointing out that we were in agreement - the facts of the case are pretty fuzzy.

> That you are in favor of such behavior
> is a bit troubling.

I am not in favor of boorish behavior. Your subsequent (and uncharacteristically generous) presumption about me is correct: I’ve never jeered anyone in my life. It’s simply that I don’t condemn jeering as long as it stays outside the realm of the legal definitions of verbal abuse. You see, I believe in that whole “First Amendment” thing, as I am sure you do. Must we quibble over who’s more of a jerk off when we’re both in agreement over (a) this story is poorly corroborated and (b) none of us actually think that such boorish behavior is admirable. The debate is simply whether or not this alleged incident is reflective of Democrats and liberals in general. My argument is that it is not. The burden of proof is, in fact, on you.

-Cf

Misha wrote:
> The implication was that REPUBLICAN lawyers
> are somehow less honest and more devious
> and DEMOCRAT lawyers.

That was me. I was simply implying that Republican lawyers were tougher, Republican staffers are more loyal, and Republicans in general are less prone to wringing their hands over seeming like they are hiding something, that’s all. Their base is more dedicated and loyal and in general is less likely to question, disrespect, or suspect their leadership. So a Republican politician will find it easier to refuse to testify than a Democratic (notice the “ic” at the end of that word) politician would, or at least it seems that way to me. From the Iran Contra investigations to Cheney’s Energy Task Force battles this has usually been the case. Democrats are equally prone to misbehavior as Republicans, of course, but they tend to cave in pretty quickly to political pressures and investigations, especially when they are innocent (perhaps foolishly seeking to clear their names). Whitewater, Filegate… investigations with plenty of blabbering witnesses and lily-livered lawyers still turning up nothing.

Or, as joebagodonuts put it: “Democrat lawyers are too stupid to know what to do, and that Republican lawyers are smart enough (though you play them as cynical and hypocritical enough) to know what to do.”

Agreed. Note that in my opinion a sneaky devious lawyer is a good lawyer as long as they don’t break the law or their code of ethics. That’s their job and I don’t begrudge them that. I wish the Democrats had tough lawyers like the Republicans do. Remember, I am fully of the opinion that Clinton legally should not have been asked - and should not have legally been required to answer - the questions regarding Lewinsky. Thus I am not advocating illegal behavior, I am just advocating legal toughness for Democrats.

-Cf

They’re way more likely to be Greens or Anarchists or Socialists — not Democrats.

Is Bainbridge represented currently by Green or Anarchist or Socialist politicians?

I’ll tell you what. If you base a campaign on “anybody but Bush” then be prepared to speak for “anybody but Republicans”. Except me, because I don’t want the Party of Michael Moore speaking for me. I’m not falling for the Faulty Dilemma fallacy here.

Michael Moore is not a Democrat.

Moore campaigned for Wesley Clark, of all people (which is quite a bit like having Mr. Hyde campaign for Dr. Jeckyl), but there you go. The “Anybody But Bush” party is more likely than not to get the endorsement from the “Anybody But Bush” propagandist.

Wherever Moore goes, I won’t.

Everywhere I’ve ever seen it used it means that a person’s eyes reveal when they are lying. If it also means something else to you, that’s fine

The full vernacular phrase is, “would you rather believe ME or your OWN LYING EYES?” In other words, a liar tells his audience to actively disbelieves what he sees, in favor of the lie.

there is no corroborative evidence

So the MAYOR of Bainbridge is in on some Republican conspiracy make it look as if the crowd did something the crowd didn’t really do. MmmmmHM.

Have you been this way all along? A hater of the lower classes?

Only the ones who hate the fact that I’ve succeeded in life. The rest of them are decent people.

I would never call any American soldier such things

Well, if a soldier did in fact kill babies, I would call him a baby killer. Currently, though, it’s an epithet smeared to all U.S. troops as a result of Moorean hyperbole. This (the Moorean hyperbole) is a frankenstein monster your party needs to either OWN, or DISTANCE FROM, in this campaign. If it’s the route of distance, then you have a lot of work to do. I think Kerry wants to have his ownership cake and eat the distance too, and that’s not going to work.

But since my liberalism seems to put me in the same neat little box as those wackos who have taunted our troops

The same ballot box, anyway…

Okay, I disavow them. But I don’t condemn them. I hope you can see the difference.

You say you agree with what they did, but that it should not go on-record as a Democrat act in campaign reporting. I see it clearly.

I thought you’d give me enough respect

This big obsession with “respect” is for naught if you enforce it only selectively, and only on a partisan basis.

You can’t hide your lyin’ eyes,
and your smile is a thin disguise.
I thought by now you’d realize
there ain’t no way to hide those lying eyes.

That’s “rock”? I thought it was ancient folk music waddled to at the raisin ranch.

Here, try some rock of the present day instead:

Home, is this a quiet place where you should be alone?
Is this where the tortured and the troubled find their own?
I don’t know, but I can tell this isn’t you, your cover’s blown
But oh no, don’t you dare hang up this phone

Hey! Give me space so I can breathe
Give me space so I can sleep
Give me space so you can drown in this with me

In this place
The lonely escapade in outer space
There’s no anecdote for irony, You say
that you have,
when you know,
That you don’t,
and you say,
that you can,
When you know,
that you won’t

Hey! Give me space so I can breathe
Give me space so I can sleep
Give me space so you can drown in this with me

Hey! Give me space but I can’t breathe
Give me space but I can’t sleep
Give me just one inch I swear that’s all I need, oh

These battered walls and TV screens
Sometimes they make me want to scream

Ahhh!

Hey! Give me space so I can breathe
Give me space so I can sleep
Give me space so you can drown in this with me

Hey! Give me Space but I can’t breathe
Give me space but I can’t sleep
Give me just one inch I swear that’s all I need

—that was a little band called Something Corporate

Christopher:

Your editing of my statement would do Michael Moore proud. Yes, I did write every word that you say I did—-but i also wrote a couple more at the beginning of the sentence that you left out. Did you do it on purpose>>???? iguess we’ll never know.

Anyway here is the ENTIRE quote:

“It seems you are saying that Democrat lawyers are too stupid to know what to do, and that Republican lawyers are smart enough (though you play them as cynical and hypocritical enough) to know what to do.”

CF,

I am not in favor of boorish behavior

…but you don’t condemn it…

The debate is simply whether or not this alleged incident is reflective of Democrats and liberals in general.

I’m keen to guess: when MoveOn.org protrayed Bush as Hitler, that wasn’t “reflective” of Democrats, either?

Of the mindless Amen Chorus in the audience of FarenHype 9/11, giggling at cheap shots of hair combing and cheering when the car bomb across the street makes the soldiers duck, only a “small minority” of them are registered Democrats?

You’ve laid down with the lowest dogs, and now you proudly proclaim that you haven’t gotten up with fleas?

Here for the record is what Christopher posted. You can see my entire quote in the post as well, and perhaps you all will be able to discern the difference between the partial and the full statement.

Christopher’s edited version

“Or, as joebagodonuts put it: “Democrat lawyers are too stupid to know what to do, and that Republican lawyers are smart enough (though you play them as cynical and hypocritical enough) to know what to do.”“

Joe’s actual quote

“It seems you are saying that Democrat lawyers are too stupid to know what to do, and that Republican lawyers are smart enough (though you play them as cynical and hypocritical enough) to know what to do.”

(FYI—-The bolding is my added emphasis to show the difference in the two quotes.)

Ciggy, you are playing Ann Coulter here! You very well know since you have been participating here at WB long enough to have read the facts, Moveon.Org did NOT sponsor that ad. It was simply submitted by a third party among hundreds of others in a contest.

Feigning ignorance doesn’t work unless you have a Ph.D after your name.

Good call, jbod. Seems there are a number of students of Ann Coulter who are learning to misquote, exaggerate, and out and out lie (in the footnotes and implied references) in order to paint facts and reality as something otherwise. I am pleased to see such tricks don’t get far here at WB.

David,

Moveon.Org did NOT sponsor that ad. It was simply submitted by a third party among hundreds of others in a contest

George Soros himself compared Bush to Hitler.

“When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.” It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (“The enemy is listening”). “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me,”

MoveOn is Soros’ baby. Is this all news to you?

Ciggy, do you have any evidence the creator’s of that ad submitted to the contest have any connection with Soros or Moveon.org?

If guilt is by association, then Bush should be summarily executed for associating with the bin Laden family. Get real, Ciggy, present the facts, your innuendo and Ann Coulter tactics simply have no legs here.

David:

Of course, you mention Ann Coulter—-I mention Michael Moore. Truth be told, I wouldnt know an Ann Coulter fact if it bit me, since I am a technical neanderthal who has so far successfully eschewed cable television. The internet is my techno-vice.

I think its safe to say there are rabid dogs on either side of the aisle (Soros, Moore etc on the left, Coulter, Savage etc on the right), but that doesnt mean that all dogs are bad.

David, you and I can continue having opposing ideas, yet opposing each other with civility, humor (mostly mine, of course) and sparkling wit.
With that, I hail you as a newly knighted member of the self-congratulation choir, though in truth, you have me as a joint congratulator as well.

Thanks, jbod. I do enjoy our exchanges of views. You are a reasonable person, meaning you apply language according to its defintions, exercise logic in the formulation of your conclusions, and even reach out for civility with opponents of view such as myself.

Now if I could just adjust your data set a bit…

Just kidding…

I have always had an odd faith in the American voter. Odd, because I don’t hold Americans up very high on current events and international affairs appetite and I don’t give American voters very much credit for understanding the complexities of economics. Yet, I believe American voters cannot be hoodwinked or spun away from reality for very long. Given American voters do en masses lie in the center of the political spectrum, I keep my faith that they can and will make the appropriate voting decisions on the national level to protect their own interests.

Thus, I have faith that Bush will not be reelected. And unless Kerry leads from the center, I don’t think he will be either. This faith does not always make sense to me, but, I carry it nonetheless…

Ciggy implied that he (?) is

pro-choice, pro-second-amendment, pro-gay-marriage, anti-censorship, in favor of a flat personal tax, business taxation driven off of the compensation disparity ratio, public health care, nationalized education, nationalized legal defense, and replacing the current nonsense in Iraq with a purely Special Ops force to do their jobs in secret

Ciggy,

I hope you are sitting down, because I have something painful to tell you…

You are a liberal.

Actually, that is not really true. If I understand you correctly, you are far left of center. You are what a conservative would call “loony left”. You are in Mooresville.

So as for lying down with (left-wing) dogs, got any flea dip?

David,

If guilt is by association, then Bush should be summarily executed for associating with the bin Laden family.

To be analogous, Bin Laden would have had to submit a “death to America” video to the Bush/Cheney website, and for it to remain there as a finalist among “good ideas” for a TV ad until finally the Karma of the hatred zings back at the site from public opinion.

You continue to be so deliberately obtuse as to believe that a Bush/Hitler association is far from the mainstream of liberal opinion, while a simple perusal of the Yahoo message board for the presidential election will disabuse the doubtful. It’s all screech, all pathological, and all moronic.

The fact remains that Soros himself compared Bush to Hitler, Moore compares Bush to Hitler, MoveOn.org compares Bush to Hitler, half the insipid smarmy undertalended rock bands on MTV compare Bush to Hitler, and yet I am expected to believe that these people are not the core constituency of the Democratic Party. I remain unconvinced.

Now if Bush were to intern ALL people of Arab and Muslim descent, and to sacrifice 6,000 troops in two weeks fighting over one hill in Iraq, and to ally with Iran overtly over the course of fighting the insurgents, I would be *TEMPTED* to make a comparison between Bush and FDR… but still not Hitler. Such facile comparisons are for the sort of mind that can’t formulate complete sentences, and whose diction is likely to be heard largely bleeped out on Springer.

I have always had an odd faith in the American voter.

Except in Florida?

I have faith that Bush will not be reelected

If your Democrat Borg will assimilate the White House, then surely you don’t need my vote. I’ll pass on the bandwagon-jumping, because the stench from its frequent use as a garbage truck is unbearable.

If I find too many differences with Badnarik, I’ll find some other suitable alternative party candidate or a write-in.

Woody,

You are a liberal.

I haven’t denied holding many liberal ideas, with the exception of gun control and affirmative action.

If I understand you correctly, you are far left of center.

I don’t think that’s possible if I favor the idea of hunting down and killing terrorists before they get the opportunity to do so to us. I furthermore don’t think it’s likely if I get an instinctive revulsion at seeing someone like Whoopi Goldberg verbally defecate all over an audience and they applaud simply because Bush is the butt of the jokes.

I’m even capable of listening to Rush Limbaugh without melting like the Wicked Witch of the West chemically reacting to a bucket of water. I catch Rush in some cleverly-disguised fallacies, but I also catch him stating some very valid points.

I also think Hitler comparisons should be reserved for those who would consider Guantanamo as a transitory camp while awaiting gas chambers, not as a final destination. And for innocent masses, not those caught trying to murder us.

I do believe that excludes me from any sort of “the left” who would be invited to the fabulous cocktail parties in honor of obese and disgusting film directors, or the Dixie Chicks.

To borrow a turn of phrase from the U.S. Army, I think it’s likely I am a Party of One. The whole damn lot of you other guys are ALL wrong. Well, maybe not all of the time, LOL.

On further analysis of leftism, I think Europe “got” one key ingredient that has been missing in America’s leftist factions: that education and logic are the bedrock on which to build, not a tumbling boulder from which to flee in panick.

In the French school where I studied, Logic is a required topic of HIGH SCHOOL, not some obscure apocryphal elective in the later years of college. And the moronic group-hugs obsession with “self esteem” seen in American liberal curriculae does not play at ALL over there. You get what you get grade-wise, and if that hurts your feelings, “tant pis”. “La vie est dure.”

Much would be different here in America if the soi-disant “left” were to actually have a positive attitude toward REAL education.

Ciggy,

I was wondering if you were a Rush Limbaugh listener. You seem to have absorbed a Limbaughesque caricature of a liberal (basically, an A-hole), and decided that you weren’t one of the those evil, brie-eating, soldier-slurring liberals. But there you are, being liberal. Just like FDR.

Your situation reminds me of an old joke from the 70’s on SNL. Roughly: “The UN passed a resolution this week equating Zionism with racism. Sammy Davis, JR said, ‘What a breakthrough! Now I can hate myself.’”

You are just like joke-Sammy, building up a fallacious argument for self-hatred. Only you are coming with a fallacious way out, too.

In short, if you are going to wave a “Death to Liberals” sign, you better make sure there are no dittoheads around you with a shotgun. ;)

I remember when Ciggy used to be rational. Then he took a break for a little bit and came back angry. What happened?

Ciggy, is that really you? Or did the Bill Clinton’s cigar guy steal your identity? :)

Woody,

decided that you weren’t one of the those evil, brie-eating, soldier-slurring liberals

I don’t know about “evil”, but I do have a great many acquaintances who eat the organic soy immitation of brie (NEVER the real thing!) and slur the soldiers. Are you expecting me to disregard my own visceral experience and believe what you’re telling me instead?

I also listened to Al Franken in the short time-span he was on the air, and gathered a similar assessment of him: a mixed bag of fallacy and worthy points to bring up.

Extremely partisan people see the world in a black and white with no grey areas whatsoever. “We’re 100% right and they’re 100% wrong”, and the polarization defeats any attempt to wedge logic between their ears.

But there you are, being liberal. Just like FDR.

FDR instituted a flat tax with no shelters? How nice. And what happened to that?

self-hatred

Uhm, no. What makes me appear “liberal” is when I occasionally agree with certain goals OF liberals; and what makes me appear to be a “self-hating liberal” is when I call the hard-core fanatical partisan liberals on their b.s.

Both liberals and conservatives get rather irrational in the way they are met with independant viewpoints. Every criticism is “hatred” and every agreement is “hooray you’re one of US!!!” And when they see both it’s “you’re a self-hating one of us!”

AP,

I remember when Ciggy used to be rational. Then he took a break for a little bit and came back angry.

I agreed with some liberal points in previous threads, which to liberal assessment made me appear “rational”. And now I find points of disagreement, which to the fanatical partisan liberal paradigm makes me look “angry”. It’s not hard to read.

My treatment of Michael Moore appears angry, I will admit, because of the language I use, but I’m perfectly calm when I use those words. Anyone partisan liberal who takes it upon themselves to lecture people about being “rational” would do well to beat Moore’s jiggly brow for a while. See if “a=a” and “a != non-a” will eventually sink in after a while. Possibly even reward him with a jelly donut if he manages to squeeze a working fallacy-free syllogism out of his burger-chute.

I guess you could say watching Puerile-hype 9/11 reminded me of a few points of disagreement I have with the American left. That does the trick far more readily than Limbaugh.

This was what I learned from watching the film:

1. Blacks aren’t allowed to vote in America
2. All members of the media, all 100 members of the Senate (including Al Gore himself as President of the Senate and VP at the time), and all of the SCOTUS, were in on a vast conspiracy to… to… uhm, recognize that the Electoral College is the way people are elected and not the direct popular vote. (Everyone knows there’s no such thing as the Electoral College. George Soros says so.)
3. If you did business with someone 20 years ago, then whoever that person in turn ever did business with since that time, that means you’re in cahoots with them.
4. If anyone ever protests at your inauguration, that means your election wasn’t valid.
5. If you’re president, you’re not allowed to take any vacation ever; and if Tony Blair visits at Camp David and you discuss diplomatic matters, that doesn’t count—still vacation.
6. If your brother is a terrorist, that means you are a terrorist. (Timothy McVeigh’s sister Jennifer, if you’re reading this out there, WATCH OUT! FBI’s coming for you NEXT!)
7. Osama Bin Laden cut a deal with Bush that he would attack the U.S. and precipitate hatred against Bush, and in return Bush will send bombers and bunker-busters out after him, killing people close to Osama, and that means they’re co-conspirators. On the evidence of, well, no evidence. Just take Moore’s word for it.
8. We are supposed to forget an entire decade of liberals bleating and moaning that George Bush Sr. “didn’t finish the job” of “taking out Saddam”. That is to be scratched from the record, and wiped out of your mind.
9. There was never any torture in Iraq and Saddam was a good guy. An innocent.
10. Every act by every U.S. soldier is always an effort to maim and kill innocent civilians. They go out of their way to try to do so.
11. It’s evil to make money. That is, unless you’re Michael Moore.
12. If you’ve ever been CEO of a corporation, you should never hold public office.
13. If so much as one soldier dies, that means the war he fought in was unjust.
14. There was never any such thing as “terrorism”. There is no such thing as “Islamic militants”, and “Jihad” is a fiction. Wahabbi clerics actually would love us with all their heart if we would only leave Iraq. 9/11, well, they didn’t really mean that. They were MADE to do it, by Bush. On the evidence of… well, you’ll just have to take Michael’s word for that. There is no evidence.
15. Moore never needs evidence. All he needs to do is slow down film and edit and rearrange scenes and that shapes what the truth is to be.

Did I mention I was unimpressed?

Okay, well I did now.

I also listened to Al Franken in the short time-span he was on the air

He’s still on. You can listen here by clicking on “Listen Live”.

> Your editing of my statement would do Michael Moore proud.

Sorry Joe, I really didn’t mean to use that quote to make it seem like those words were your actual opinion. In your original post you were clearly speculating about my opinion, not expressing your own opinion. In my re-quote I didn’t intend to say “Joe thinks XYZ”; I intended to mean “Joe articulated this best when he wrote XYZ”. The use of a fragment of your sentence was simply intended to make my sentence flow better.

I should have at least inserted an elipsis (…) in front of “Democrat”. The fact that “Democrat” is capitalized made the quote seem like the beginning of a sentence when i really only intended to use those of your words that articulated the concept I was addressing. Please also realize that it had nothing to do with portraying you in any particular way, I just thought that the words you used expressed the view I had pretty well.

> Did you do it on purpose>>???? iguess we’ll never know.

Any misrepresentation of your opinion was totally unintentional, I assure you, and I apologize if it seemed to make you say something I didn’t mean. I hope you believe me when I say that this was an entirely innocent mistake: those familiar with my posts on this list know that I am extremely diligent about quoting accurately in my posts: almost never posting quotes without URL links to the original sources (or at least naming the source), rarely using someone elses’s words at all without calling them out in a blockquote, rarely editing referenced quotes even for brevity. In this case, I was a little sloppy and used your words in the flow of a sentence instead of blockquoting them. I’m sorry for this irresponsible accident.

David: I am not a student of Ann Coulter! I’m not sure Joebagodonuts would agree, but I don’t think my misquote rises above the level of mild miscommunication and up to the level of deliberate rhetorical slight-of-hand. For one thing, I was clearly NOT trying to say anything about or make a point about Joe personally.

-Cf

Christopher:

I do believe you when you say it was simply sloppy quoting. And no offense taken. I’m sure if you were attempting to say something about me, you have the ability to come up with much better than that—and I have no doubt you’d be more direct. At least I’d hope you would be.

Thanks.

I think it’s safe to say that we have gone a little off-track here!

V. Edward

Ciggy,

I think you are somewhat confusing partisan affiliation with political ideology. If you aren’t a Democrat, you can trash the Democrats all you want. Your political ideology, however, is objectively left-wing, so it doesn’t really make sense for you to complain about “liberals”, except to trash them for not being militant enough. Of course, if you want to complain about dishonestly and incivility, by all means do so, just around smearing people with such a broad brush that you blacken yourself.

Woody,

Your political ideology, however, is objectively left-wing, so it doesn’t really make sense for you to complain about “liberals”, except to trash them for not being militant enough.

Objectively left-wing perhaps, but subjectively I feel very much smack dab in the middle and quite against BOTH wings. It isn’t for nothing that I come from the state that elected Jesse Ventura for governor. ;)

On the right I see obsessive dwelling on gay marriage; or subtle hints that everything would be so much better if the government could censor the media; or treating a fetus like a birthed child when so many of the birthed children are in far more dire straights than mere abortion. To that I can’t just swallow the differences and jump in with both feet in order to gain the pride of my more hawkish stances in foreign policy, or more libertarian economics in areas of the economy outside of education, health care, and legal defense.

On the left there is a roughly equal amount of that which I find insufferable. Pretending the founders “didn’t really mean” the second amendment; the notion that we can simply tax ourselves into prosperity; the belief that “inequality is the path to equality” (euphamized as “affirmative action”); the assumption that the only place one is ever allowed to fight terrorism is Afghanistan; and beyond the ideological issues, the matter of methodology: the sneering, jeering, screamo, sicko, gutter-slime approach to discourse which has me wanting to just crawl under a table and deny that I’m even in the same SPECIES as them, let alone the same country or the same political ideology. I see the Bandwagon fallacy as applied to bands: where a rock band gets no play or no “cred” or no “love” from the music industry anymore if they don’t pay their political pennance and parrot the left-wing catechism of “Bush is evil, yadda yadda yadda”. As if thinking for yourself WEREN’T what rock was all about! It’s just so freaking MINDLESS that it makes me want to SCREAM.

And then Michael Moore comes along, and to me it makes me feel as if any chance of forming a rational argument against the excesses and mistakes of the right, are out the window. The idiocy; the vacuousness; the insipid and shallow cheap shots; the innuendo presented as fact; it takes me beyond embarrassment and into the realm of very nearly being willing to join the right-wing parade out of SPITE.

Yes, spite. I do feel spiteful. I feel as if I’m not in very good intellectual company out in the general population. If I can channel-surf from Springer to a screeching anti-Bush pundit and not be entirely sure that the channel has in fact changed, the visceral reaction of “what the hell is going wrong with my country” makes the right wing of my mind make a clean sweep of all the rest of it.

This is why I say that if civil war were to break out in this nation over the great divide between the red-state faction and the blue, between the Stepford Wives and a disgusting Whoopi Goldberg with a bottle of whine (no typo there), I think to myself that the abortion, censorship, and gay rights issues can be fought later. Much later. First let’s just clear out all the vermin.

That was rather cathartic and refreshing. I should vent like that more often. Wait, I already do, LOL!

Ciggy, you sound like Travis Bickle!

-Cf

Are you talkin’ to me……….?

snicker

Here I thought I’d look more like Louis Black. ;)

Do politians ever bend the truth?

Do filmakers?

The shocking truth about Farenheit 9/11 that Micheal Moore won’t tell you!

http://www.the911movie.com
http://www.fahrenHYPE911.com