PDA

View Full Version : Anyone catch Nancy Soderberg on The Daily Show last night?


Baby Lee
03-02-2005, 10:52 AM
Gotta say, whatta gunt.

To Jon's credit, he's appeared fairly forthright in not liking the admin, but acknowledging the efficacy of their efforts at democratization in the ME.
Then this chick comes on, . . . and he tries his level best to get her to show an ounce of optimism. But her stance was, explicitly and nearly verbatim, "but I think, as a Democrat, that we still can HOPE that this [democracy and freedom] stuff can still go south."*
Jon had the look of "is there no one who isn't a loon?" by the end of the interview.


* - Don't recall the exact wording, but she roughly repeated the lines "looks bad for us democrats" "we can still hope" and "this stuff can still go south" in a number of iterations over the course the interview. While Jon repeatedly rejoindered "but. . . you gotta give them some credit, right?"

marsaray
03-02-2005, 10:54 AM
Gotta say, whatta gunt.

To Jon's credit, he's appeared fairly forthright in not liking the admin, but acknowledging the efficacy of their efforts at democratization in the ME.
Then this chick comes on, . . . and he tries his level best to get her to show an ounce of optimism. But her stance was, explicitly and nearly verbatim, "but I think, as a Democrat, that we still can HOPE that this [democracy and freedom] stuff can still go south."
Jon had the look of "is there no one who isn't a loon?" by the end of the interview.
Stupid liberals.

Brock
03-02-2005, 12:45 PM
Stupid liberals.

Wet water.

siberian khatru
03-02-2005, 12:49 PM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362

Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that--

Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding.

Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--?

Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.

Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something.

Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.

Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.

Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole--

Stewart: This could be unbelievable!

Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--

Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--

Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.

Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.

Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--

Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!

Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--

Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs?

Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah.

Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive?

Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.

Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes.

Baby Lee
03-02-2005, 12:49 PM
And for those who are thinking, "so what? Just some wing-nut who can be ignored."

http://www.harrywalker.com/speakers_template.cfm?Spea_ID=452&SubcatID=181

Baby Lee
03-02-2005, 12:52 PM
Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.

Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.

Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--

Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!

Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work.
Aye! There's the meat.

Ultra Peanut
03-02-2005, 01:16 PM
Wet water.ROFL

Clint in Wichita
03-02-2005, 01:22 PM
This is shocking! A Democrat or a Republican not wanting anything good to happpen for the other party? Unbelievable!

Sarcasm aside, I don't see what the hag is worried about. What's going on in Iraq is far from being "good" for the Republican party.

Baby Lee
03-02-2005, 01:31 PM
This is shocking! A Democrat or a Republican not wanting anything good to happpen for the other party? Unbelievable!

Sarcasm aside, I don't see what the hag is worried about. What's going on in Iraq is far from being "good" for the Republican party.
I think the rise of democracy in this area goes significantly beyond "something good for the other party."
Regardless of party, it takes a special level of asshattery to hope for the failure of freedom and democracy worldwide in the interest of your particular national political party.

SBK
03-02-2005, 02:04 PM
This is shocking! A Democrat or a Republican not wanting anything good to happpen for the other party? Unbelievable!

Sarcasm aside, I don't see what the hag is worried about. What's going on in Iraq is far from being "good" for the Republican party.

Who cares which party its good for, or bad for, how bout what's good for AMERICA?

KCWolfman
03-02-2005, 06:43 PM
Duhnise was on the Daily Show and I missed it?

|Zach|
03-02-2005, 06:51 PM
I watched it ronight and echo BL's feelings.

KCWolfman
03-02-2005, 06:54 PM
This is shocking! A Democrat or a Republican not wanting anything good to happpen for the other party? Unbelievable!

Sarcasm aside, I don't see what the hag is worried about. What's going on in Iraq is far from being "good" for the Republican party.
You mean you see nothing ironic about a woman wanting entire nations to collapse merely so her party can take power and take care of other nations?

Taco John
03-02-2005, 11:41 PM
No one bolded this:

Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.


She said a lot of stupid things, to be sure. But when she caps it off with that, it just shows it's typical partisain politics rearing its head. No different than Ann Coulter's meltdown the other night where she didn't have the right talking points prepared and couldn't answer a simple question.

jAZ
03-02-2005, 11:55 PM
Without having seen this interview, I'd say (based on the Opinion Journal injected "[laughther]" that her comments were partly TIC.

I hope for the best in the Middle East... I'm excited about the potential for the elections to create stabilty there, but that doesn't mean that I support Bush trying to kick the history of deliberate lies and distortions under the political rug if somehow Iraq calms down.

A person can have mixed emotions... supporting Republican policy outcomes while objecting to Republican politcalization of those outcomes.

Republicans are no different, and the first one of you who tries to say they don't feel mixed emotions when something good happens under the watch of the other political party gets the "George W. Bush Golden Sticker for The Best Lie of the Day"!

Rausch
03-03-2005, 12:18 AM
Republicans are no different, and the first one of you who tries to say they don't feel mixed emotions when something good happens under the watch of the other political party gets the "George W. Bush Golden Sticker for The Best Lie of the Day"!

Most of the rest I can agree with, but that's just ****ing stupid.

I care about America and the American people. And when Clinton lobbed missles into Europe to keep a bunch of 'tarded Muslims and 'tarded Christians from going Hitler, with a minimum American casualties, I was ecstatic.

And on the other side of the coin, if Dems/libs were smart, they'd be harping on about how Bush has been completely owned by Putin. Both by Putin supporting terrorist nations and by Putin's moves away from Democracy.

Just from a political angle, I have absolutely no idea why they haven't milked that for all it's worth...

patteeu
03-03-2005, 01:00 AM
Without having seen this interview, I'd say (based on the Opinion Journal injected "[laughther]" that her comments were partly TIC.

...

This seems possible to me. She said some pretty outrageous things, but in the context of a comedy show, I can see how she could have been carried away by the joking around and she might have said these things in a half-joking/betray-my-inner-thoughts kind of way. If I'm not mistaken though, Baby Lee actually saw it so I defer to his judgement.

As for this Soderberg quote:

I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.

The quote below, copied from my signature, is from a guy who disagrees:

"It is strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." -- Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese Druze leader and longtime critic of the United States

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 01:10 AM
I saw it and there was no TIC...there was no joking. I think that lack of TIC was kind of frutrating Stewart who, as always (imo) made the best of it.

The part the reeallly stood out to me was the "there's still hope this thing might not work"

SBK
03-03-2005, 01:29 AM
I saw it and there was no TIC...there was no joking. I think that lack of TIC was kind of frutrating Stewart who, as always (imo) made the best of it.

The part the reeallly stood out to me was the "there's still hope this thing might not work"

It wouldn't be that bad if she was the only nut that felt that way, but there's tons of em out there.

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 01:46 AM
It wouldn't be that bad if she was the only nut that felt that way, but there's tons of em out there.
Like KCW said...there are way to many extremists on the left and right.

BigMeatballDave
03-03-2005, 05:07 AM
Duhnise was on the Daily Show and I missed it?You bastard! You beat me to it...
:D

BigMeatballDave
03-03-2005, 05:10 AM
Republicans are no different, and the first one of you who tries to say they don't feel mixed emotions when something good happens under the watch of the other political party gets the "George W. Bush Golden Sticker for The Best Lie of the Day"!BS! I was never a fan of Clinton, but I backed him fully on our military actions in Bosnia/Yugoslavia...

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 07:03 AM
Without having seen this interview, I'd say (based on the Opinion Journal injected "[laughther]" that her comments were partly TIC.

I hope for the best in the Middle East... I'm excited about the potential for the elections to create stabilty there, but that doesn't mean that I support Bush trying to kick the history of deliberate lies and distortions under the political rug if somehow Iraq calms down.

A person can have mixed emotions... supporting Republican policy outcomes while objecting to Republican politcalization of those outcomes.

Republicans are no different, and the first one of you who tries to say they don't feel mixed emotions when something good happens under the watch of the other political party gets the "George W. Bush Golden Sticker for The Best Lie of the Day"!
Ahh yes, the "I excuse my bad behavior by hypothesizing that others do it as well" line.
As I've repeated ad infinitum, I'm a pragmatic progressive. Which means that I support what works to better US interests, however it is formed and develops.
I defy you to come up with a positive development under an admin I didn't vote for or support that I did or would express sour grapes over.
Two big positives come to mind under Clinton, budget surpluses and decreased abortions. I don't recall anyone on the opposite side saying, no matter how staunchly pro-abstinence education or pro-life they were, "we can still hope that abortions will rise under Clinton's approach so we can gloat over his failure." Further, no one complained about the budget surplus. Plenty were worried that it was founded on unique circumstances unrelated to policy [the approaching millenium] and an overheated tech sector. But those were simply accurate, clear-eyed, observations and did not approach HOPING things would implode and embarass Clinton.

KCWolfman
03-03-2005, 07:33 AM
No one bolded this:

Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.


She said a lot of stupid things, to be sure. But when she caps it off with that, it just shows it's typical partisain politics rearing its head. No different than Ann Coulter's meltdown the other night where she didn't have the right talking points prepared and couldn't answer a simple question.
Translation - You can say anything crazy you want as long as you add a caveat at the end of your statement and you shouldn't be held accountable for the crazy statements.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 08:20 AM
Ahh yes, the "I excuse my bad behavior by hypothesizing that others do it as well" line.
As I've repeated ad infinitum, I'm a pragmatic progressive. Which means that I support what works to better US interests, however it is formed and develops.
I defy you to come up with a positive development under an admin I didn't vote for or support that I did or would express sour grapes over.
Two big positives come to mind under Clinton, budget surpluses and decreased abortions. I don't recall anyone on the opposite side saying, no matter how staunchly pro-abstinence education or pro-life they were, "we can still hope that abortions will rise under Clinton's approach so we can gloat over his failure." Further, no one complained about the budget surplus. Plenty were worried that it was founded on unique circumstances unrelated to policy [the approaching millenium] and an overheated tech sector. But those were simply accurate, clear-eyed, observations and did not approach HOPING things would implode and embarass Clinton.
If you don't think Republicans were partying their ass off as Monica-Gate unfolded, then we shouldn't even be discussing this.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 08:27 AM
If you don't think Republicans were partying their ass off as Monica-Gate unfolded, then we shouldn't even be discussing this.
Where did I even remotely indicate that position?
The issue was poor mouthing developments that are positive for the nation because you don't want the opposition to look good.
That's a lot different from feeling vindicated when evidence of your suspicions of the character of AN INDIVIDUAL POLITICIAN comes to light.

If you can't see the difference between "I hope something comes up that shows xxx politician for the phony his is" and "I hope the world goes to hell so people will put my party back in power" then indeed we shouldn't be discussing this.

I'll give you a hint, it's a little like the difference between laughing when Rosie O'Donnell is nabbed for a gun violation, and hoping Rosie, her wife and kids would be murdered so you could write another pro-2nd amendment speech.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 08:47 AM
Where did I even remotely indicate that position?
The issue was poor mouthing developments that are positive for the nation because you don't want the opposition to look good.
That's a lot different from feeling vindicated when evidence of your suspicions of the character of AN INDIVIDUAL POLITICIAN comes to light.

If you can't see the difference between "I hope something comes up that shows xxx politician for the phony his is" and "I hope the world goes to hell so people will put my party back in power" then indeed we shouldn't be discussing this.

I'll give you a hint, it's a little like the difference between laughing when Rosie O'Donnell is nabbed for a gun violation, and hoping Rosie, her wife and kids would be murdered so you could write another pro-2nd amendment speech.
Yeah, we shouldn't be discussing this. You don't & won't get it. You seem intent on spinning the Clinton thing to justify your position as not showing that "Republicans do it too". You could view the Clinton thing as Rooting for what's NOT good for America (Presidential Embarassment, "No War For Monica!", etc.). But you want to prove your point, so you will find some angle that lets you justify it in your own mind.

I can't compete with that, you don't & won't get it.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 09:08 AM
Yeah, we shouldn't be discussing this. You don't & won't get it. You seem intent on spinning the Clinton thing to justify your position as not showing that "Republicans do it too". You could view the Clinton thing as Rooting for what's NOT good for America (Presidential Embarassment, "No War For Monica!", etc.). But you want to prove your point, so you will find some angle that lets you justify it in your own mind.

I can't compete with that, you don't & won't get it.
I am invested in the well being of the nation.
I am not invested in protecting any particular individual from his own personal failings.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 09:14 AM
I am invested in the well being of the nation.
I am not invested in protecting any particular individual from his own personal failings.
That's certainly ONE way to view things. I'll leave you to your views.

homey
03-03-2005, 09:16 AM
I knew watching this the other day there was going to be some neocons who were going to take what she said seriously. Lighten up, she was joking.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 09:22 AM
That's certainly ONE way to view things. I'll leave you to your views.
Tanslation - "you're right, and it pisses me off."

Thanx.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 09:30 AM
Tanslation - "you're right, and it pisses me off."

Thanx.
Translation: "I can't recognize when jAZ is willing to let me live with my own entrenched, partisan-hack views, because he knows that expecting someone to be open-minded, self-critical and party-critical all at the same time is like pushing water up hill... pointless and a total waste of effort."

Thanx.

;)

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 09:41 AM
Translation: "I can't recognize when jAZ is willing to let me live with my own entrenched, partisan-hack views, because he knows that expecting someone to be open-minded, self-critical and party-critical all at the same time is like pushing water up hill... pointless and a total waste of effort."

Thanx.

;)
talk about your tale told by an idiot. . .
what exactly is partisan about being invested in the well being of the country, but not being invested in covering for failing individuals?
Is it your position that the Democratic party is invested in covering their own when they fail, and are NOT interested in the country as a whole? Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Duck Dog
03-03-2005, 10:11 AM
I knew watching this the other day there was going to be some neocons who were going to take what she said seriously. Lighten up, she was joking.


So was Fuzzy Zeller.


How'd that whole thing turn out?

Duck Dog
03-03-2005, 10:14 AM
Yeah, we shouldn't be discussing this. You don't & won't get it. You seem intent on spinning the Clinton thing to justify your position as not showing that "Republicans do it too". You could view the Clinton thing as Rooting for what's NOT good for America (Presidential Embarassment, "No War For Monica!", etc.). But you want to prove your point, so you will find some angle that lets you justify it in your own mind.

I can't compete with that, you don't & won't get it.

A little friendly advise. You are arguing a stupid point and look foolish doing it. I'd stop while your behind. Don't worry about your pride and dignity, you lost those long ago. Just do yourself a favor, turn around and run away from your keyboard as fast as you can.

Garcia Bronco
03-03-2005, 10:42 AM
"Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily."

Being an American and a Democrat are two different things?!?!

I knew it!

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 10:45 AM
"Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily."

Being an American and a Democrat are two different things?!?!

I knew it!
Someone drag out the Vign diagrams. ;)

jAZ
03-03-2005, 04:26 PM
talk about your tale told by an idiot. . .
what exactly is partisan about being invested in the well being of the country, but not being invested in covering for failing individuals?
Is it your position that the Democratic party is invested in covering their own when they fail, and are NOT interested in the country as a whole? Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No, my position is that the most partisan on both sides can recognize the mixed emotions that come from a situation. Republicans cheered the embarassment of Clinton/Monica and made political hay out of the entire situation at the expense of the national interest...

That you want to RINGLEADER my point into something it's not is suprising coming from someone who claims to be so pure of political heart.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 04:38 PM
No, my position is that the most partisan on both sides can recognize the mixed emotions that come from a situation. Republicans cheered the embarassment of Clinton/Monica and made political hay out of the entire situation at the expense of the national interest...

That you want to RINGLEADER my point into something it's not is suprising coming from someone who claims to be so pure of political heart.
Two problems I see leading to this disconnect.
First is that you view 'the expense of the national interest' in so one-sided a manner.
I never once prayed, beforehand, that Clinton would lie to me and the rest of the nation. I never once prayed that he would lie under oath. And once he did, the national interest of maintaining an image of an all-powerful president had to be balanced again the national interest of insuring that no individual is bigger than the rule of law.
Which leads me to the second, you are comparing a reaction to something that happened, with hopes for the future. If Ms. Soderberg were on TV tsk-tsking, or even ha-ha-ing, about things that HAVE gone wrong, there'd be an entirely different analysis. We've endured years of Meme's Uh-Ohs and Ha-has, and it's only in it's cumulative effect that there arises an appearance of anti-Americanism in her glee. Ms. Soderberg's "we can HOPE that things go wrong" is an entirely different animal.
I may have predicted any number of Clinton's policies would fail, but I never HOPED they would. I want the policies of our leaders to work, that's my pragmatic side.

And I never 'cheered' the embarassment of Clinton, I did find it satisfying that he exposed the traits I saw in him in a way that wingtards like you couldn't continue to ignore.

Chief Henry
03-03-2005, 04:46 PM
Several libs/dems on this board just can't beleave they actually have a stupid gunt on National TV spewing this raw jizm that they only talk about behind closed doors. She's just spilled the beans. But we knew what thier inner views and feelings were before she spewded her guts.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 04:46 PM
Two problems I see leading to this disconnect.
First is that you view 'the expense of the national interest' in so one-sided a manner.
I never once prayed, beforehand, that Clinton would lie to me and the rest of the nation. I never once prayed that he would lie under oath. And once he did, the national interest of maintaining an image of an all-powerful president had to be balanced again the national interest of insuring that no individual is bigger than the rule of law.
Which leads me to the second, you are comparing a reaction to something that happened, with hopes for the future. If Ms. Soderberg were on TV tsk-tsking, or even ha-ha-ing, about things that HAVE gone wrong, there'd be an entirely different analysis. We've endured years of Meme's Uh-Ohs and Ha-has, and it's only in it's cumulative effect that there arises an appearance of anti-Americanism in her glee. Ms. Soderberg's "we can HOPE that things go wrong" is an entirely different animal.
I may have predicted any number of Clinton's policies would fail, but I never HOPED they would. I want the policies of our leaders to work, that's my pragmatic side.

And I never 'cheered' the embarassment of Clinton, I did find it satisfying that he exposed the traits I saw in him in a way that wingtards like you couldn't continue to ignore.
Maybe I was wrong, you do get it.

You just want to parse it down to the point where you can continue to defend an indefensible position: "Republicans Don't 'Do It Too'".

jAZ
03-03-2005, 04:50 PM
Several libs/dems on this board just can't beleave they actually have a stupid gunt on National TV spewing this raw jizm that they only talk about behind closed doors. She's just spilled the beans. But we knew what thier inner views and feelings were before she spewded her guts.
Wow... as one sided and hackish as that post is... it's the most accurate post to date.

The problem is that she was dumb enough to talk bluntly about the mixed emotions that come from success in Iraq. The Republicans will attempt to erase history and make politcal hay out of any success that comes there. Democrats will try to erase the present and make political hay out of any failures (past of present).

Politicians, their analysts and their advisors are paid to think like this. That's Karl Rove's job. He's a wicked and twisted as anyone on the Democratic side (if not more so). It's his job to find the opponents weaknesses and exploit them as best as public opinion and shadowy activities will allow.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 04:51 PM
Maybe I was wrong, you do get it.

You just want to parse it down to the point where you can continue to defend an indefensible position: "Republicans Don't 'Do It Too'".
I'd never make such a blanket statement over something over which I have no control.
I will say, I don't do it.
And I will assure you that I am critical those who do regardless of party.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 04:54 PM
she was dumb enough to talk bluntly about the mixed emotions that come from success in Iraq.
Her mixed emotions come from her partisanship, not from the success.
The only thing that should come from the success is happiness.
Jon Stewart gets it. I get it.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 04:55 PM
I'd never make such a blanket statement over something over which I have no control.
I will say, I don't do it.
And I will assure you that I am critical those who do regardless of party.
And since I don't know you personally, nor have I really paid close attention to your activities around here, I won't attempt to disprove that claim, though I have my doubts.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 04:57 PM
And since I don't know you personally, nor have I really paid close attention to your activities around here, I won't attempt to disprove that claim, though I have my doubts.
And you have a convenient repository for those doubts, safely ensconced by a pair of posterior folds.
Feel free to place them there.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 05:07 PM
Her mixed emotions come from her partisanship, not from the success.
The only thing that should come from the success is happiness.
Jon Stewart gets it. I get it.
Those mixed emotions come from the fact that the nature of paritsan politics prevents overwhelmingly visible recognition of a success on the other side. Not because an outcome doesn't merit such recognition, but because (as we must all know by now) politicians being praise will do whatever they can to gain some kind of political benefit from what should be nothing more than an honest "atta-boy".

But politics is dirty, and no one gives an inch because they don't trust the other side will give an inch back.

That dynamic in politics is crushing to good government, but it's a reality. Hell, the same thing happens here. People on this board will during a debate, take a small concession and attempt to claim a broad rhetorical victory by projecting that concession across the broader discussion.

People who pull that crap keep other people from being willing to concede even the most obvious and narrow points because it distracts from the discussion of the larger issues.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 05:13 PM
And you have a convenient repository for those doubts, safely ensconced by a pair of posterior folds.
Feel free to place them there.
So angry. You move closer to Brock and Lefty with each of this type of post.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 05:13 PM
Those mixed emotions come from the fact that the nature of paritsan politics prevents overwhelmingly visible recognition of a success on the other side. Not because an outcome doesn't merit such recognition, but because (as we must all know by now) politicians being praise will do whatever they can to gain some kind of political benefit from what should be nothing more than an honest "atta-boy".

But politics is dirty, and no one gives an inch because they don't trust the other side will give an inch back.

That dynamic in politics is crushing to good government, but it's a reality. Hell, the same thing happens here. People on this board will during a debate, take a small concession and attempt to claim a broad rhetorical victory by projecting that concession across the broader discussion.

People who pull that crap keep other people from being willing to concede even the most obvious and narrow points because it distracts from the discussion of the larger issues.
Again, you justify your own weakness and fear by projecting them on your 'opposition.'

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 05:14 PM
So angry. You move closer to Brock and Lefty with each of this type of post.
You're the one who admitted you didn't know enough about me to refute what I TOLD you to be true about my character, but nevertheless suspected I was lying to you.
Call me a liar, get told to shove it up your ass. Pretty simple.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 05:19 PM
You're the one who admitted you didn't know enough about me to refute what I TOLD you to be true about my character, but nevertheless suspected I was lying to you.
Call me a liar, get told to shove it up your ass. Pretty simple.
Tell someone to shove it up their ass rather than saying something like "such is your right"... and you move closer to the Brock's, Russ', Lefty's and the like.

Good company you find yourself in.

Duck Dog
03-03-2005, 05:21 PM
Tell someone to shove it up their ass rather than saying something like "such is your right"... and you move closer to the Brock's, Russ', Lefty's and the like.

Good company you find yourself in.

Oh shove it up your ass, you sissy.





ROFL

jAZ
03-03-2005, 05:22 PM
Again, you justify your own weakness and fear by projecting them on your 'opposition.'
I recognize the weakness of the system and of the humans involved in it. I recognize the weaknesses of my 'opposition' but I at least will also admit that they are not alone in this weakness. We both do it. I even believe that most EVERYONE does it.

For some reason, you seem to have trouble with the former and deny the latter.

Such is your right.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 05:24 PM
Tell someone to shove it up their ass rather than saying something like "such is your right"... and you move closer to the Brock's, Russ', Lefty's and the like.

Good company you find yourself in.
Translation: I've utterly embarassed myself on the merits, so I better start attacking on style.

I'm not gonna apologize for indelicacy when someone calls me a liar. And I'm not gonna dismiss it with 'such is your right.'
Maybe it's just me, but calling someone a liar when you have no basis is way worse 'company' than tossing a salty retort.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 05:55 PM
Translation: I've utterly embarassed myself on the merits, so I better start attacking on style.

I'm not gonna apologize for indelicacy when someone calls me a liar. And I'm not gonna dismiss it with 'such is your right.'
Maybe it's just me, but calling someone a liar when you have no basis is way worse 'company' than tossing a salty retort.
You called yourself a liar. Those are your words, and "liar" isn't the only conclusion one could draw from the words I typed. But it's a convenient way for your to go on the attack.

Such is your right.

But don't claim I said something I didn't say... that's RINGLEADER's patented move. Hands off.

I said I have my doubts. You probably honestly want to believe what you say. You might not even realize that you are doing it too. I'm not calling you a liar by pointing out these things.

That you want to shove those words into my mouth while you direct me to shove other things into my ass says a great deal about your will or ability to discuss the issue without melting down into Brock or Lefty.

:shrug:

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 06:18 PM
You called yourself a liar. Those are your words, and "liar" isn't the only conclusion one could draw from the words I typed.
OK, the choices are truthful, liar or ignoramus. I told you the truth, and you expressed that your suspicion, that you could not back up and had no means whatsoever with which to back up, was that I was either a liar or an ignoramus.
You want to call me an @sshole, douchebag, wingut, partisan, sheep, whatever? Fine, I'll just consider the source. But if you're gonna question an unambigious statement of my character, whether you question that I'm employing fraud, or suffering from ignorance, that's a whole different kind of sh!thead.
That you want to shove those words into my mouth while you direct me to shove other things into my ass says a great deal about your will or ability to discuss the issue without melting down into Brock or Lefty.
This thread will serve as evidence that I discussed the issue that was the subject of the thread calmly, rationally, and in a manner that left you panting "but everyone does it."
That is altogether separate from my response to the personal attack you resorted to after you were schooled on the merits.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 06:26 PM
OK, the choices are truthful, liar or ignoramus. I told you the truth, and you expressed that your suspicion, that you could not back up and had no means whatsoever with which to back up, was that I was either a liar or an ignoramus.
You want to call me an @sshole, douchebag, wingut, partisan, sheep, whatever? Fine, I'll just consider the source. But if you're gonna question an unambigious statement of my character, whether you question that I'm employing fraud, or suffering from ignorance, that's a whole different kind of sh!thead.
Are you saying you prefer being an refered to as an asshole rather than ignorant regarding some subject?

Weird.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 06:28 PM
... after you were schooled on the merits.
ROFL

Oh.

You were serious?

Ah well.

ROFL

jAZ
03-03-2005, 06:30 PM
This thread will serve as evidence that I discussed the issue that was the subject of the thread calmly... ... right up until you ran out of spin and resorted to Lefty-like insults.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 06:31 PM
Are you saying you prefer being an refered to as an asshole rather than ignorant regarding some subject?

Weird.
Being called an asshole by you has absolutely no effect on me.
Having someone opine that I'm ignorant of, or lying about, my own mind is offensive, no matter how petty the source.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 06:32 PM
Being called an asshole by you has absolutely no effect on me.
Having someone opine that I'm ignorant of, or lying about, my own mind is offensive, no matter how petty the source.
Well then you are super-human. Color me impressed.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 06:38 PM
... right up until you ran out of spin and resorted to Lefty-like insults.
This thread is played, the contents will speak for themselves. I will simply note the progression
Maybe I was wrong, you do get it. [Concession]

You just want to parse it down to the point where you can continue to defend an indefensible position: "Republicans Don't 'Do It Too'". [last ditch effort at a caveat]
I'd never make such a blanket statement over something over which I have no control.
I will say, I don't do it. [Denial]
And I will assure you that I am critical those who do regardless of party.
And since I don't know you personally, nor have I really paid close attention to your activities around here, I won't attempt to disprove that claim, [Concession II]though I have my doubts. [Desperation personal attack]
At that point you were beaten on the merits, and took it into the mud. No spin. Stand up for your shortcomings. You'll feel better.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 06:39 PM
Well then you are super-human. Color me impressed.
Ignoring that kind of insult from your requires no suprhuman effort. As I said, simply consider the source.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 07:03 PM
This thread is played, the contents will speak for themselves. I will simply note the progression
At the risk of offending you, that is either an ignorant statement or a lie. You aren't "simply noting the progression"... you are (maybe inadvertanly) translating my words (incorrectly at that). I've corrected your errors.


Maybe I was wrong, you do get it. [Sarcasm]

You just want to parse it down to the point where you can continue to defend an indefensible position: "Republicans Don't 'Do It Too'". [clarification so as to not be seen as an actual concession]

I'd never make such a blanket statement over something over which I have no control.
I will say, I don't do it. [Agreed, this is a Denial by BL]
And I will assure you that I am critical those who do regardless of party.


And since I don't know you personally, nor have I really paid close attention to your activities around here, I won't attempt to disprove that claim, [Concession to the possibility that you are correct]though I have my doubts. [Raising a doubt that I would raise towards anyone who appears to claim to possess the super-human purity of heart and thought... nothing personal]

At that point you were beaten on the merits...
If you say it often enough even myth becomes fact, right?

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 07:33 PM
Fine, lay out your case defending Mrs. Soderberg's statements beyond "I don't care how craven her statements are because I believe, with no evidence in support, that everybody does the same thing."

jAZ
03-03-2005, 07:47 PM
Fine, lay out your case defending Mrs. Soderberg's statements beyond "I don't care how craven her statements are because I believe, with no evidence in support, that everybody does the same thing."
I don't defend them beyond that. I think it's stupid that she said it, but I think it's basic human nature to be torn between to conflicting interests. I make no assertions about what she meant or what she wanted to say.

I simply say that most if not all people have been in her shoes when it comes to one subject or another... even if they never shared the thought publicly or even recognized a personal feeling that didn't quite reach the level of an actual thought.

I personally fall on the side of Jon Stewart on this one, as I have said repeatedly (long before last week) that I am excited about the potential for elections in Iraq to improve the situation over there.

I will also say again that I recognize within myself the contrast of that sense of excitement and the sense of hesitation that comes from not wanting to allow Bush and the Republicans to kick under the rug all the failures that they have brought upon themselves along the way.

I will not accept an "ends justify the means" approach to governing. And unfortuately, giving too much praise for policy outcomes of the other party gives them political ammuntion that they will not hesitate use against the other party.

I wish it didn't work that way, so that I were free to offer praise whenever it was warrented. I certainly strive to do just that.

jAZ
03-03-2005, 07:56 PM
And with that, I will say goodnight. I'm off to the driving range, and then back to work.

Night.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 07:58 PM
giving too much praise for policy outcomes of the other party gives them political ammuntion that they will not hesitate use against the other party.
I'll hammer the success of this policy all the livelong day against the likes of Rangel and Dean, especially as they continue to deny.
OTOH, I give the likes of Leiberman as much credit for weathering the storm of naysaying, just as I will Bush.
So it's still not about party.

KCWolfman
03-03-2005, 08:02 PM
If you don't think Republicans were partying their ass off as Monica-Gate unfolded, then we shouldn't even be discussing this.
I thought it was bad form to mention the previous POTUS as an excuse?

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 08:02 PM
I will also say again that I recognize within myself the contrast of that sense of excitement and the sense of hesitation that comes from not wanting to allow Bush and the Republicans to kick under the rug all the failures that they have brought upon themselves along the way.
Again, there is all the difference in the world between continuing to be critical of their past failures, and HOPING for future failures to ward off having to grant them begrudging respect.
You don't want those things swept under the rug, keep them in the public eye. Don't rely on the misery of others and decreased security for us to carry the water.

KCWolfman
03-03-2005, 08:04 PM
I knew watching this the other day there was going to be some neocons who were going to take what she said seriously. Lighten up, she was joking.
Based upon what?

I see nothing to indicate she was, nor did it look to be her intent when I watched the program.

You are using the Al Franken excuse (it was satire, so I can say it and not mean it). There is nothing to support your statement.

Baby Lee
03-03-2005, 08:06 PM
And if she were joking, Jon deserves an Emmy for the mock horror he was portraying.

KCWolfman
03-03-2005, 08:06 PM
Tell someone to shove it up their ass rather than saying something like "such is your right"... and you move closer to the Brock's, Russ', Lefty's and the like.

Good company you find yourself in.
What?

I was merely speaking satire.... How can I be held accountable for joking?


ROFL

KCWolfman
03-03-2005, 08:08 PM
You called yourself a liar. Those are your words, and "liar" isn't the only conclusion one could draw from the words I typed. But it's a convenient way for your to go on the attack.

Such is your right.

:

He bitches about me and my style and he steals Duhnise's "you must be projecting as I can't help how you think."

jAZ has become a sad sad little man.

alanm
03-04-2005, 04:51 AM
Yeah, we shouldn't be discussing this. You don't & won't get it. You seem intent on spinning the Clinton thing to justify your position as not showing that "Republicans do it too". You could view the Clinton thing as Rooting for what's NOT good for America (Presidential Embarassment, "No War For Monica!", etc.). But you want to prove your point, so you will find some angle that lets you justify it in your own mind.

I can't compete with that, you don't & won't get it.
I've got no problem with the President getting his knob polished under the desk in the oval office. He just shouldn't have lied about it.

alanm
03-04-2005, 04:58 AM
And you have a convenient repository for those doubts, safely ensconced by a pair of posterior folds.
Feel free to place them there.
ROFL ROFL ROFL

KCTitus
03-04-2005, 09:51 AM
...but I think it's basic human nature to be torn between to conflicting interests. I make no assertions about what she meant or what she wanted to say.

At what point does one begin to do some self introspection when they're conflicted abotu issues that are good for their own country.

She's wasnt joking, that's a complete non-starter. Democrats have painted themselves into a corner were nothing but bad news or bad things happening to America is what they look/hope for.

That's pathetic.