PDA

View Full Version : John Stewart after 9/11...


jAZ
07-02-2006, 12:42 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dkuqoTseUPo"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dkuqoTseUPo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

|Zach|
07-02-2006, 12:55 AM
Thanks Justin.

Logical
07-02-2006, 01:02 AM
Thanks jAZ a sobering reminder.

BigRock
07-02-2006, 01:07 AM
I really liked this (Letterman's, too), but I remember an Arab American I worked with at the time disagreeing just a tad with the MLK "we're not looking at the color of people's skin" part of it. Especially with Arab shop owners and others being attacked/killed in the days after. Not a perspective I would have ever looked at it from, but he certainly had a point.

Mr. Kotter
07-02-2006, 01:23 AM
.

Logical
07-02-2006, 01:28 AM
http://www.aku-aku.com/nyc/brooklyn_bridge-a.jpg

SCTrojan
07-02-2006, 05:26 AM
Never seen that before. Great stuff.

SBK
07-02-2006, 08:14 AM
That clip really reminded me of our mindset back then.

It's too bad that the unity we all felt and experienced went away so fast. We recovered quickly thanks to that unity.

SBK
07-02-2006, 08:16 AM
http://www.aku-aku.com/nyc/brooklyn_bridge-a.jpg

I suppose one could make the argument that using those 2 lights as a memorial every night would be too much a reminder of our loss, but I think that if they are going to build a memorial building, as opposed to a usable office building there, they should just keep the lights. I think that is so neat, and the lights extend far higher than a building would.

Eskimo Joe
07-02-2006, 08:24 AM
That clip really reminded me of our mindset back then.

It's too bad that the unity we all felt and experienced went away so fast. We recovered quickly thanks to that unity.

What I see is that the unity was too short lived. Politics reared it's ugly head and started parting the people as before. To bad we can't see things in a more optimistic way than we do.

banyon
07-02-2006, 08:27 AM
I was watching on this day.

So many "comedy" shows had cancelled themselves for a week or two.

I also remember watching the first post-9-11 Conan O Brien. He remarked on the event for a couple of minutes and then when he did the sit/down transition thing he said "well, there's no other way to do this, ok for no reason, here's a baby lifting beer" and they had this clip of this infant and a barbell with beer packages on each side of it. The baby cleaned and jerked it and looked very proud of itself. It was really funny and I think was the first time I laughed after this event.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 11:49 AM
The unity was broken when people started pointing fingers at us instead of them and complaining about a failure to connect the dots. Those people can thank themselves for the aggressive dot connecting that the administration has engaged in as a result (e.g. NSA surveillance, SWIFT transaction monitoring, Patriot Act, etc.). I guess it's human nature, but it's the bad side of human nature.

jAZ
07-02-2006, 11:52 AM
The unity was broken when people started pointing fingers at us instead of them and complaining about a failure to connect the dots. Those people can thank themselves for the aggressive dot connecting that the administration has engaged in as a result (e.g. NSA surveillance, SWIFT transaction monitoring, Patriot Act, etc.). I guess it's human nature, but it's the bad side of human nature.
Bullcrap. The unity was broken when Bush started abusing 9/11 as justfication for publicly pushing for war in Iraq.

stevieray
07-02-2006, 12:17 PM
"It's too easy and it's unsatisfying" We should take heed in these words.

I pray that chaos doesn't overcome our ability to stand together.

We can always disagree on issues, but we have to believe in the end that we will do the right thing.

Thanks for sharing that Justin, it was very touching and eloquently stated.

banyon
07-02-2006, 12:42 PM
Bullcrap. The unity was broken when Bush started abusing 9/11 as justfication for publicly pushing for war in Iraq.

Yep. I was behind em' too until the fiasco.

Boyceofsummer
07-02-2006, 12:48 PM
never saw this clip or that show. The message needs to be repeated over and over. The view that is left is truly what matters. RIP all souls who perished on that day.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 01:07 PM
Bullcrap. The unity was broken when Bush started abusing 9/11 as justfication for publicly pushing for war in Iraq.

Nope, the unity was long gone by then. I'll stick with my original post.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 01:11 PM
Yep. I was behind em' too until the fiasco.

Individual members of the "disunity" may have come later, but I think the unity was broken when the recriminations for 9/11 started surfacing. And I'm not talking about the nutty "9/11 was an inside job" people, I'm talking about the "should have connected the dots" people who came well before the Iraq invasion.

Adept Havelock
07-02-2006, 01:12 PM
The unity was broken when people started pointing fingers at us instead of them and complaining about a failure to connect the dots. Those people can thank themselves for the aggressive dot connecting that the administration has engaged in as a result (e.g. NSA surveillance, SWIFT transaction monitoring, Patriot Act, etc.). I guess it's human nature, but it's the bad side of human nature.

Bullcrap. The unity was broken when Bush started abusing 9/11 as justfication for publicly pushing for war in Iraq.

I'd say there is plenty of blame to go around for both left and right on this one. Both have thrown "unity" out the window, unless they can use/abuse it for further acts of mindless partisanship and short-term political gain.

Patteeu, as for your comments on the "should have connected the dots" argument, do you also dismiss the same charges with equal aplomb when they are leveled against FDR's administration regarding Pearl Harbor? Just curious.

banyon
07-02-2006, 01:16 PM
Individual members of the "disunity" may have come later, but I think the unity was broken when the recriminations for 9/11 started surfacing. And I'm not talking about the nutty "9/11 was an inside job" people, I'm talking about the "should have connected the dots" people who came well before the Iraq invasion.

So, just to be clear. You are not blaming Taco for the disunity? :p

Reaper16
07-02-2006, 06:42 PM
So, just to be clear. You are not blaming Taco for the disunity? :p
ROFL

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:17 PM
I'd say there is plenty of blame to go around for both left and right on this one. Both have thrown "unity" out the window, unless they can use/abuse it for further acts of mindless partisanship and short-term political gain.

Patteeu, as for your comments on the "should have connected the dots" argument, do you also dismiss the same charges with equal aplomb when they are leveled against FDR's administration regarding Pearl Harbor? Just curious.

I don't know as much about the FDR/Pearl Harbor case, but yes, I do, to the extent my limited knowledge makes that possible.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:18 PM
So, just to be clear. You are not blaming Taco for the disunity? :p

Yes, I don't blame Taco, although the nutty guys I really have in mind are the people promoting the theory (like the guy who made the Loose Change video) moreso than the people falling for it. :)

Rausch
07-02-2006, 11:17 PM
Bullcrap. The unity was broken when Bush started abusing 9/11 as justfication for publicly pushing for war in Iraq.


Indeed.

I'm sure that's the moment we all decided to blame the black/arab/mexican man once again for all our problems.

Might I interrupt this R Vs. D felatio for a moment to suggest that it takes hardship to gain perspective, and once 9/11 was cleaned up and the Taliban went tits up we lost that perspective...

Hydrae
07-03-2006, 12:52 AM
Indeed.

I'm sure that's the moment we all decided to blame the black/arab/mexican man once again for all our problems.

Might I interrupt this R Vs. D felatio for a moment to suggest that it takes hardship to gain perspective, and once 9/11 was cleaned up and the Taliban went tits up we lost that perspective...


True enough

The loss of that unity is my biggest disappointment in GW. He had the opportunity to make a huge mark on history and, IMHO, has squandered it.

Rausch
07-03-2006, 03:24 PM
True enough

The loss of that unity is my biggest disappointment in GW. He had the opportunity to make a huge mark on history and, IMHO, has squandered it.

We ALL did.

penchief
07-05-2006, 12:17 PM
True enough

The loss of that unity is my biggest disappointment in GW. He had the opportunity to make a huge mark on history and, IMHO, has squandered it.

He even had the rest of the world. In fact, Chirac was the first to come to America and stand with Bush at Ground Zero. We reciprocated with Freedom Fries when they didn't agree with us. This administration squandered all of that unity and good will that resulted from 9/11, domestically and internationally. And they did it in record time.

A real uniter would have seized the moment to bring the world together in it's fight against terrorism and anarchy. Through inclusion alone, they would have had superior assets and far more cooperation. A real uniter would have done so in a way that made sense to everybody. But instead, this administration said, "You're either with us or you're against us," and then did things that a lot of people couldn't agree with.

Then they commenced to insulting our allies, undermining their domestic opponents, and subverting the constitution. It's more difficult to be "with them" on everything when so much of what they do is "against" everyone else.

They're thriving on division and chaos. That's why they tear everything down. While the rest of us are arguing about it they're putting the pieces back together the way they want them.

Bush has always been a divider, not a uniter. The unity that existed after 9/11 only gave them more leeway in manipulating the people and less resistance to imposing their agenda.

patteeu
07-05-2006, 12:23 PM
I think you guys have it backwards. democrats decided that regaining power was more important than maintaining unity. Bush didn't divide the country. He isn't the one who came up with the 'Bush Lied People Died' slogan. (Just as a rule of thumb for future reference, it's always the people who are out of power who don't want unity because they want a change in the status quo).

penchief
07-05-2006, 12:55 PM
I think you guys have it backwards. democrats decided that regaining power was more important than maintaining unity. Bush didn't divide the country. He isn't the one who came up with the 'Bush Lied People Died' slogan. (Just as a rule of thumb for future reference, it's always the people who are out of power who don't want unity because they want a change in the status quo).

Let's not even go there, Monica. After what the republican controlled congress dragged this country through over nothing? You can't be serious. If anyone ever stooped to the lowest levels just to regain power I think the Gingrich congress has set the bar.

Bush divided this country from the get go. I was initially offended that they thought they had won 100% of the vote while actually losing the popular vote. Yet, they started ramming an unpopular right-wing agenda down our throats even though the people's disapproval showed in the ratings. If somebody didn't agree with them they were mocked. Then along came 9/11. Our nation's tragedy was exactly what they needed to expedite their agenda with minimal resistance. The administration behaves as though half the nation is irrelevent. The other half just doesn't know they're getting screwed yet.

They pay lip service to our values while simultaneously advocating divisive politics. I went along with this presidency for about four or five months. After seeing how they pay lip service to something that they simultaneously work to undermine sickens me (i.e. environmental protections, etc.). How they disrespect those who disagree with their agenda angers me. And how they exhibit more zeal for stripping us of our liberties and privacy than they do in finding bin Laden or building a real coalition has worried me.

patteeu
07-05-2006, 01:10 PM
Let's not even go there, Monica. After what the republican controlled congress dragged this country through over nothing? You can't be serious. If anyone ever stooped to the lowest levels just to regain power I think the Gingrich congress has set the bar.

Bush divided this country from the get go. I was initially offended that they thought they had won 100% of the vote while actually losing the popular vote. Yet, they started ramming an unpopular right-wing agenda down our throats even though the people's disapproval showed in the ratings. If somebody didn't agree with them they were mocked. Then along came 9/11. Our nation's tragedy was exactly what they needed to expedite their agenda with minimal resistance. The administration behaves as though half the nation is irrelevent. The other half just doesn't know they're getting screwed yet.

They pay lip service to our values while simultaneously advocating divisive politics. I went along with this presidency for about four or five months. After seeing how they pay lip service to something that they simultaneously work to undermine sickens me (i.e. environmental protections, etc.). How they disrespect those who disagree with their agenda angers me. And how they exhibit more zeal for stripping us of our liberties and privacy than they do in finding bin Laden or building a real coalition has worried me.

I fully understand that your idea of "united" really means "united under a banner of socialism and globalism" but I reject that definition. democrats had an opportunity to unite behind our elected President but instead they decided to snipe from the bushes. It's their right to do so, and it's not surprising that they chose that course, but the charge that it's Bush's fault is as vacant as the idea that Ted Kennedy is a tea-totaler or that Bill Clinton was ministering young Monica.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 01:17 PM
Let's not even go there, Monica. After what the republican controlled congress dragged this country through over nothing? You can't be serious. If anyone ever stooped to the lowest levels just to regain power I think the Gingrich congress has set the bar.

Exactly.

You don't care about unity, you care about revenge.

I find it odd that liberals have such a problem with Christian fundamentalists. Both of them seem to be firmly buried in "eye for an eye" dogma...

jAZ
07-05-2006, 01:46 PM
I think you guys have it backwards. democrats decided that regaining power was more important than maintaining unity. Bush didn't divide the country. He isn't the one who came up with the 'Bush Lied People Died' slogan. (Just as a rule of thumb for future reference, it's always the people who are out of power who don't want unity because they want a change in the status quo).
Holy fuggin shit, I am completely speechless.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 01:52 PM
Holy fuggin shit, I am completely speechless.

Of course you are. You're used to double-talk and innuendo.

Baby Lee
07-05-2006, 02:05 PM
Holy fuggin shit, I am completely speechless.
All right. Assuming you are being forthright, I'll just announce now, our fellow poster Frankie, with his present illness, has the good will of the board behind him. I just pray he never says anything libr-ul again when he comes back, and thereby squanders it.

penchief
07-05-2006, 02:06 PM
Exactly.

You don't care about unity, you care about revenge.

I find it odd that liberals have such a problem with Christian fundamentalists. Both of them seem to be firmly buried in "eye for an eye" dogma...

Hey, I was only countering what Pateeu said. Pateeu made an accusation against democrats that seemed highly ironic considering the conduct of the republican congress during Whitewater and Monicagate. I simply pointed out the obvious irony. His answer tried to blunt my comments without really answering them.

"Exactly" is right! My point is that it is issues and policies that matter most. Disagreeing with issues and policies is what it should be. Not personal attacks, lies, and aggression. I don't care about revenge, I care about my country. And I hate how slogans, distortions, and manipulation are the tools of choice for this administration.

I'm not advocating "an eye for an eye" but at the same time I'm not willing to let gross hypocricy in the form of a simple sentence go by without pointing out the irony. Another thing that gets me is how so many people are willing to ignore that there are differences in the degree of one's behavior. Starting a war on false pretense and it's consequences are far more serious than a blowjob that probably never would have come to light had it not been for those who were working to undermine the presidency.

I have to wonder about the perspective of people who can't make that distinction.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 02:15 PM
Hey, I was only countering what Pateeu said. Pateeu made an accusation against democrats that seemed highly ironic considering the conduct of the republican congress during Whitewater and Monicagate. I simply pointed out the obvious irony. His answer tried to blunt my comments without really answering them.

"Exactly" is right! My point is that it is issues and policies that matter most. Disagreeing with issues and policies is what it should be. Not personal attacks, lies, and aggression. I don't care about revenge, I care about my country. And I hate how slogans, distortions, and manipulation are the tools of choice for this administration.

I'm not advocating "an eye for an eye" but at the same time I'm not willing to let gross hypocricy in the form of a simple sentence go by without pointing out the irony. Another thing that gets me is how so many people are willing to ignore that there are differences in the degree of one's behavior. Starting a war on false pretense and it's consequences are far more serious than a blowjob that probably never would have come to light had it not been for those who were working to undermine the presidency.

I have to wonder about the perspective of people who can't make that distinction.

So you're not interested in unity then? My original point stands.

penchief
07-05-2006, 03:08 PM
So you're not interested in unity then? My original point stands.

I'm all for unity. But unity is inclusive and open-minded. It's not selfish, disrespectful, and dishonest as some believe. And it's not blindly supporting members of our government when they act dishonorably or betray our trust.

Your original point was made on false pretense. I was pointing out hypocricy and you twisted it to say that my sole motive is revenge. So, what you're really saying is that you have no point.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 03:12 PM
I'm all for unity but unity is inclusive and open-minded. It's not selfish, disrespectful, and dishonest as some believe. And it's not blindly supporting members of our government when they act dishonorably or betray our trust.

Your original point was made on false pretense. I was pointing out hypocricy and you twisted it to say that my sole motive is revenge. So, you're really saying is that you have no point.

Actually, I was pointing out hypocrisy. Supposedly, you're familiar with that.

stevieray
07-05-2006, 03:14 PM
Hey, I was only countering what Pateeu said. Pateeu made an accusation against democrats that seemed highly ironic considering the conduct of the republican congress during Whitewater and Monicagate. I simply pointed out the obvious irony. His answer tried to blunt my comments without really answering them.

"Exactly" is right! My point is that it is issues and policies that matter most. Disagreeing with issues and policies is what it should be. Not personal attacks, lies, and aggression. I don't care about revenge, I care about my country. And I hate how slogans, distortions, and manipulation are the tools of choice for this administration.

I'm not advocating "an eye for an eye" but at the same time I'm not willing to let gross hypocricy in the form of a simple sentence go by without pointing out the irony. Another thing that gets me is how so many people are willing to ignore that there are differences in the degree of one's behavior. Starting a war on false pretense and it's consequences are far more serious than a blowjob that probably never would have come to light had it not been for those who were working to undermine the presidency.

I have to wonder about the perspective of people who can't make that distinction.

It isn't the blowjob, it's lying about the blowjob.

And I think that's exactly why you have to 'make' Bush a liar...because "your guy" is a liar.

penchief
07-05-2006, 03:16 PM
Actually, I was pointing out hypocrisy. Supposedly, you're familiar with that.

In that particular case, it would be hard to argue with the hypocricy that I was trying to point out. Still, you attributed untrue motives to my intent based on your opinion of me and not on the context of my comments.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 03:23 PM
In that particular case, it would be hard to argue with the hypocricy that I was trying to point out. Still, you attributed untrue motives to my intent based on your opinion of me and not on the context of my comments.

So you're admitting that you have a reputation for this type of thing? How did you earn that reputation. :hmmm:

Chief Henry
07-05-2006, 03:24 PM
The unity was broken when people started pointing fingers at us instead of them and complaining about a failure to connect the dots. Those people can thank themselves for the aggressive dot connecting that the administration has engaged in as a result (e.g. NSA surveillance, SWIFT transaction monitoring, Patriot Act, etc.). I guess it's human nature, but it's the bad side of human nature.



rep

penchief
07-05-2006, 03:30 PM
It isn't the blowjob, it's lying about the blowjob.

And I think that's exactly why you have to 'make' Bush a liar...because "your guy" is a liar.

Was it about lying about the blowjob for all those years before he lied about the blowjob?

Try answering that question before you move on. It has been very convenient for the con supporters to say, "it wasn't the blowjob, it was the lie," even though it was the relentless pursuit of damaging information (truthful or not) that was their goal for years leading up to the lie. How do you explain those half-dozen years of idiocy that occurred before the "lie?" The republican congress should be ashamed of it's conduct during the Clinton presidency.

Heck, Bush has a helluva lot more skeletons in his closet than Clinton but we can't even hold his administration to account for it's dishonest conduct of America's business, let alone his personal indiscretions.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 03:32 PM
Was it about lying about the blowjob for all those years before he lied about the blowjob?

Try answering that question before you move on. It has been very convenient for the con supporters to say, "it wasn't the blowjob, it was the lie," even though it was the relentless pursuit of damaging information (truthful or not) that was their goal for years leading up to the lie. How do you explain those half-dozen years of idiocy that occurred before the "lie?" The republican congress should be ashamed of it's conduct during the Clinton presidency.

Heck, Bush has a helluva lot more skeletons in his closet than Clinton but we can't even hold his administration's to account for it's dishonest conduct of America's business, let alone his personal indiscretions.

Eye for an eye.

stevieray
07-05-2006, 03:36 PM
Was it about lying about the blowjob for all those years before he lied about the blowjob?

Try answering that question before you move on. It has been very convenient for the con supporters to say, "it wasn't the blowjob, it was the lie," even though it was the relentless pursuit of damaging information (truthful or not) that was their goal for years leading up to the lie. How do you explain those half-dozen years of idiocy that occurred before the "lie?" The republican congress should be ashamed of it's conduct during the Clinton presidency.

Hell Bush has a helluva lot more skeletons in his closet than Clinton but we can't even hold his administration's to account for it's dishonest conduct of America's business, let alone his personal indiscretions.

Thanks for validating my point.


:thumb:

penchief
07-05-2006, 03:42 PM
Eye for an eye.

It's so simple to utter a phrase that paints someone with a broad brush rather than respond to their comments, isn't it?

Just because I'm willing to elaborate in defense of my opinion regarding a particular point that somebody else initiated.....doesn't mean that everything I believe is driven by your accusation that I want an "eye for an eye."

If you have ever listened to what I want for this country you'd know why I disagree with this administration's policies and the methods by which they've administered those policies. It has nothing to do with the idiotic way that the republican congress behaved in the 90's. It has everything to do with the direction this administration is purposely taking our country.

It just kinda' torques me a little when those of us who want to stand up about things that really matter are accused of behaving like the 90's republicans, who made a mountain out of a mole hill for selfish gain but to the detriment of our country.

htismaqe
07-05-2006, 03:46 PM
It's so simple to utter a phrase that paints someone with a broad brush rather than respond to their comments, isn't it?

Just because I'm willing to elaborate in defense of my opinion regarding a particular point that somebody else initiated.....doesn't mean that everything I believe is driven by your accusation that I want an "eye for an eye."

If you have ever listened to what I want for this country you'd know why I disagree with this administration's policies and the methods by which they've administered those policies. It has nothing to do with the idiotic way that the republican congress behaved in the 90's. It has everything to do with the direction this administration is purposely taking our country.

It just kinda' torques me a little when those of us who want to stand up about things that really matter are accused of behaving like the 90's republicans, who made a mountain out of a mole hill for selfish gain but to the detriment of our country.

ROFL

You just can't help yourself, can you.

I paint you with a broad brush because you make it so easy to do so. You're more transparent than Scotch tape.

Penchief in a nutshell:

"When I agree with what they're doing, those things "matter". The cause is noble and just. When I don't agree with what they're doing, it's all being done for selfish game and it's to the detriment of our country."

stevieray
07-05-2006, 03:53 PM
ROFL

You just can't help yourself, can you.

I paint you with a broad brush because you make it so easy to do so. You're more transparent than Scotch tape.

Penchief in a nutshell:

"When I agree with what they're doing, those things "matter". The cause is noble and just. When I don't agree with what they're doing, it's all being done for selfish game and it's to the detriment of our country."


pretty much....don't forget the "integrity" spin.

patteeu
07-05-2006, 04:21 PM
If you have ever listened to what I want for this country you'd know why I disagree with this administration's policies and the methods by which they've administered those policies. It has nothing to do with the idiotic way that the republican congress behaved in the 90's. It has everything to do with the direction this administration is purposely taking our country.

Translation = penchief is a divider not a uniter. You have an agenda and it doesn't happen to be in line with the agenda of our elected government. That's your choice, but it's not the Bush administration who forced you to head off in your own direction.

penchief
07-05-2006, 05:43 PM
ROFL

You just can't help yourself, can you.

I paint you with a broad brush because you make it so easy to do so. You're more transparent than Scotch tape.

Penchief in a nutshell:

"When I agree with what they're doing, those things "matter". The cause is noble and just. When I don't agree with what they're doing, it's all being done for selfish game and it's to the detriment of our country."

The manner with which they choose to promote their agenda says a lot. Their misjudgments and miscalculations say a lot. Their dishonesty says a lot. If you don't think that someone is capable of expressing their disapproval of this administration's conduct without being hypocritical or just trying to get revenge then I don't think you've been paying attention.

Just because I'm willing to challenge an inapt description or point out what I think is an unfair representation by another poster doesn't mean that I'm motivated by revenge.

penchief
07-05-2006, 05:50 PM
Translation = penchief is a divider not a uniter. You have an agenda and it doesn't happen to be in line with the agenda of our elected government. That's your choice, but it's not the Bush administration who forced you to head off in your own direction.

Translation = penchief knows bullshit when he sees it. I'm calling bullshit on this administration. I'm not willing to give them a free pass because I WAS paying attention before 9/11. They've proven we can't trust them. If the only thing that happens as a result of their abuses is the restoration of oversight, at this point, I think I'd be content.

penchief
07-05-2006, 07:42 PM
So you're admitting that you have a reputation for this type of thing? How did you earn that reputation. :hmmm:

No, I'm only pointing out that YOUR opinion is shaping your interpretation rather than the content/intent of my comments.

Now you're attributing a reputation to me? I said "your opinion" and you responded with "my reputation."

Quit proving my point.

htismaqe
07-06-2006, 08:01 AM
The manner with which they choose to promote their agenda says a lot. Their misjudgments and miscalculations say a lot. Their dishonesty says a lot. If you don't think that someone is capable of expressing their disapproval of this administration's conduct without being hypocritical or just trying to get revenge then I don't think you've been paying attention.

Just because I'm willing to challenge an inapt description or point out what I think is an unfair representation by another poster doesn't mean that I'm motivated by revenge.

MANY people are perfectly capable of expressing disapproval with the administration's dishonesty without being a hypocrite.

You're not one of them.

Sully
07-06-2006, 08:15 AM
You split up the country!
No, You did!
Nu uh, you did!
Nope, all your fault!
Nope, yours...

Baby Lee
07-06-2006, 08:27 AM
You split up the country!
No, You did!
Nu uh, you did!
Nope, all your fault!
Nope, yours...
No, no, no!!!

Clinton era - Repubs split up the country for not accepting Clinton as he is.
Bush era - Repubs split up the country for Bush being how he is.

Sully
07-06-2006, 08:30 AM
No, no, no!!!

Clinton era - Repubs split up the country for not accepting Clinton as he is.
Bush era - Repubs split up the country for Bush being how he is.


Whatever you say. But I think it's clear that during Madison's administration, the blame rests squarely on the Whig's shoulders for splitting up the country.

Baby Lee
07-06-2006, 08:36 AM
Whatever you say. But I think it's clear that during Madison's administration, the blame rests squarely on the Whig's shoulders for splitting up the country.
I can't even correspond with you. Every time I see your avatar, I am driven to blame it all on the Colonel.

ROFL ROFL

penchief
07-06-2006, 11:05 AM
MANY people are perfectly capable of expressing disapproval with the administration's dishonesty without being a hypocrite.

You're not one of them.

Explain it to me. What did I say that was hypocritical? All I did was point out that dems would have to go a long way to match the republicans of the nineties. I was responding to a claim made by Pateeu. Does that make him a hypocrite, too?

I dislike the Bush Administration purely because I disagree with so much of their agenda and I'm offended by the unAmerican and disrespectful way they've imposed it upon us. It has nothing to do with the nineties.

Again, I was responding to someone else in the same way you've responded to me. I don't remember making any accusations, though.

htismaqe
07-06-2006, 11:12 AM
Explain it to me. What did I say that was hypocritical? All I did was point out that dems would have to go a long way to match the republicans of the nineties. I was responding to a claim made by Pateeu. Does that make him a hypocrite, too?

I dislike the Bush Administration purely because I disagree with so much of their agenda and I'm offended by the unAmerican and disrespectful way they've imposed it upon us. It has nothing to do with the nineties.

Again, I was responding to someone else in the same way you've responded to me. I don't remember making any accusations, though.

How long have you been here? Do you want me to go back through every post you've made and point it out?

You've never been anything here BUT divisive. Sorry.

penchief
07-06-2006, 11:31 AM
How long have you been here? Do you want me to go back through every post you've made and point it out?

You've never been anything here BUT divisive. Sorry.

I understand that a lot of people don't like what I say when it comes to politics. It probably doesn't help that I'm also persistent. I realize that's a combination that can rub people the wrong way. But the last thing I try to do is make it personal by attacking someone or insulting them.

I rarely start threads. I usually get involved because I'm reading a thread and want to respond to something someone said. I've also posted plenty of times on nonpolitical threads where it would be hard to accuse me of being divisive.

My problem is that once the back-and-forth starts I keep responding instead of recognizing a good stopping point. I'll agree that I've been involved in a lot of contentious debates but I don't think that alone qualifies me as being a divisive person, does it? I prefer cooperation.

htismaqe
07-06-2006, 11:35 AM
I understand that a lot of people don't like what I say when it comes to politics. It probably doesn't help that I'm also persistent. I realize that's a combination that can rub people the wrong way. But the last thing I try to do is make it personal by attacking someone or insulting them.

I rarely start threads. I usually get involved because I'm reading a thread and want to respond to something someone said. I've also posted plenty of times on nonpolitical threads where it would be hard to accuse me of being divisive.

My problem is that once the back-and-forth starts I keep responding instead of recognizing a good stopping point. I'll agree that I've been involved in a lot of contentious debates but I don't think that alone qualifies me as being a divisive person, does it? I prefer cooperation.

I've never had a problem with you outside of the DC forum. In fact, we often found ourselves allied in the defense of LJ.

penchief
07-06-2006, 11:44 AM
I've never had a problem with you outside of the DC forum. In fact, we often found ourselves allied in the defense of LJ.

I remember.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 12:57 PM
I understand that a lot of people don't like what I say when it comes to politics. It probably doesn't help that I'm also persistent. I realize that's a combination that can rub people the wrong way. But the last thing I try to do is make it personal by attacking someone or insulting them.

I rarely start threads. I usually get involved because I'm reading a thread and want to respond to something someone said. I've also posted plenty of times on nonpolitical threads where it would be hard to accuse me of being divisive.

My problem is that once the back-and-forth starts I keep responding instead of recognizing a good stopping point. I'll agree that I've been involved in a lot of contentious debates but I don't think that alone qualifies me as being a divisive person, does it? I prefer cooperation.

No it's not that. It doesn't help when you refuse to acknowlege your own parties hypocracy even when it's blatantly pointed out to you by a liberal publication like the SF Chronical. You would have a lot more credibility if you would just drop the part line BS and get real.

penchief
07-07-2006, 10:40 PM
No it's not that. It doesn't help when you refuse to acknowlege your own parties hypocracy even when it's blatantly pointed out to you by a liberal publication like the SF Chronical. You would have a lot more credibility if you would just drop the part line BS and get real.

I've never denied that hypocricy exists on both sides of the aisle. My problem is that there is a school of thought that denies there are varying degrees in what is relevent. Some things are very relevent and some things are barely relevent. Some behavior can be far more consequential than other behavior.

For that reason, when somebody says there is no difference in the way either side has behaved (whether in power or out) is something I strongly disagree with.

Ignoring this administration's aggressive and often dishonest nature in implementing misguided policy while also shrugging off the consequences of their behavior only enables them to further impose their narrow agenda, IMO.

I think I'm being very real. Partisan politics is not a lot of fun for me. It doesn't give me contentment. I'd prefer that our government was less interested in psychological sales pitches and more interested in pragmatic governance. And I wish that more of the electorate was able to recognize their scam.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 10:06 AM
I've never denied that hypocricy exists on both sides of the aisle. My problem is that there is a school of thought that denies there are varying degrees in what is relevent. Some things are very relevent and some things are barely relevent. Some behavior can be far more consequential than other behavior.

For that reason, when somebody says there is no difference in the way either side has behaved (whether in power or out) is something I strongly disagree with.

Ignoring this administration's aggressive and often dishonest nature in implementing misguided policy while also shrugging off the consequences of their behavior only enables them to further impose their narrow agenda, IMO.

I think I'm being very real. Partisan politics is not a lot of fun for me. It doesn't give me contentment. I'd prefer that our government was less interested in psychological sales pitches and more interested in pragmatic governance. And I wish that more of the electorate was able to recognize their scam.

What you mean by "pragmatic governance" though is governance according to a penchief approved ideology. Saddam Hussein was interested in pragmatic governance.

htismaqe
07-08-2006, 08:33 PM
I've never denied that hypocricy exists on both sides of the aisle. My problem is that there is a school of thought that denies there are varying degrees in what is relevent. Some things are very relevent and some things are barely relevent. Some behavior can be far more consequential than other behavior.

For that reason, when somebody says there is no difference in the way either side has behaved (whether in power or out) is something I strongly disagree with.

Ignoring this administration's aggressive and often dishonest nature in implementing misguided policy while also shrugging off the consequences of their behavior only enables them to further impose their narrow agenda, IMO.

I think I'm being very real. Partisan politics is not a lot of fun for me. It doesn't give me contentment. I'd prefer that our government was less interested in psychological sales pitches and more interested in pragmatic governance. And I wish that more of the electorate was able to recognize their scam.

You mean like selling military secrets to the Chinese?

Or signing closed door deals to create a North American Union with NAFTA?

Rausch
07-09-2006, 03:11 AM
No, I'm only pointing out that YOUR opinion is shaping your interpretation rather than the content/intent of my comments.

I have no dog in this fight but...





...every time you use your/you're properly the baby Jesus smiles...

penchief
07-09-2006, 07:32 AM
What you mean by "pragmatic governance" though is governance according to a penchief approved ideology. Saddam Hussein was interested in pragmatic governance.

Pragmatic governance should be void of ideology. That's the problem.

This administration doesn't make decisions based on fact, differing viewpoints, potential scenarios, and potential consequences. Pragmatic government should, IMO, be one that takes into account as many facts as possible, as much knowledgable input as possible, all possible scenarios, and all potential consequences in order to produce the greatest good for our country and it's people.

This administration's decision-making process has repeatedly used knowingly manipulated information or falsehoods. They have consistently mocked experts or accused qualified voices of partisanship or aiding terrorists. They shoot first and ask questions later without thinking about the potential consequences. They do all this because they are driven by extreme ideology and not by facts, expertise, and the desire to provide the best possible outcome or the greatest good.

To a dictator, I suppose the word pragmatic could be defined as that which most likely produces results that expedite the consolodation of power. However, I feel that the word inherently implies honest evaluation and not selfish motives.

JMO.