PDA

View Full Version : Hillary - "we're prepared to demonize the opposition"


Baby Lee
06-18-2007, 04:03 PM
For those who bemoan current intonations that dissent = unpatriotic
Clinton’s biggest blunder, as Bernstein tells it, was to offend the very legislators whose support she needed most. At a retreat for Democratic senators in the spring of 1993, Clinton was asked whether it was realistic to pursue such an ambitious health-care program, given her husband’s many other legislative initiatives. She responded that the Administration was prepared to “demonize” those who opposed the task force’s recommendations.

“That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton,” Senator Bill Bradley, of New Jersey, told Bernstein. “You don’t tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy.”

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 04:14 PM
Oh so she's a neoCon too? ROFL

Baby Lee
06-18-2007, 04:18 PM
Oh so she's a neoCon too? ROFL
Is there ANYTHING you won't label neocon?

Had a bowl of neocon oce-cream last night, it had nuts in it.

The Mitsubishi Lancer is a neocon car.

The latest fashions from Milan are positively neocon.

Did you catch the finale of The Sopranos? Positively neocon.

FAX
06-18-2007, 04:21 PM
You have to admire a woman who doesn't let the fact she employs a bedazzled hula hoop as an anklet get in the way of her ambition.

FAX

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 04:22 PM
Is there ANYTHING you won't label neocon?
A few...just a few.

Had a bowl of neocon oce-cream last night, it had nuts in it.

The Mitsubishi Lancer is a neocon car.

The latest fashions from Milan are positively neocon.

Did you catch the finale of The Sopranos? Positively neocon.

'Cept those aren't political...silly!
Ah well I got the suspected reaction....just note the smiley though.
:)

Direckshun
06-18-2007, 04:22 PM
For those who bemoan current intonations that dissent = unpatriotic
Yes, you truly are fighting the good fight.

Baby Lee
06-18-2007, 04:26 PM
A few...just a few.



'Cept those aren't political...silly!
Ah well I got the suspected reaction....just note the smiley though.
:)
Demonizing your opposition is a tactic, not an ideology. Neocon means something different than 'whatever the current admin does that I don't like.'

Pitt Gorilla
06-18-2007, 04:26 PM
The more bad news about Hillary the better.

Baby Lee
06-18-2007, 04:27 PM
Yes, you truly are fighting the good fight.
Tonight's edition of non sequitur theater is brought to you by Buick.

That's Buick, the epitome of 21st Century Luxury.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 04:30 PM
Demonizing your opposition is a tactic, not an ideology.

I know that. But demonizing is part of their style.

Neocon means something different than 'whatever the current admin does that I don't like.'
Believe me I'm quite studied and read up on these dudes...it's not as black & white as that. I can understand how it appears that way...although sometimes I am being sarcastic or tic with it. Like here.Other than that I don't agree with it no matter what it's called. It's nice to have it for shorthand though.

Back to your regularly sheduled programming. :p

Logical
06-18-2007, 05:16 PM
...
Did you catch the finale of The Sopranos? Positively neocon.I don't know about the other stuff but I believe this one.

Logical
06-18-2007, 05:21 PM
You have to admire a woman who doesn't let the fact she employs a bedazzled hula hoop as an anklet get in the way of her ambition.

FAX

I am guessing this is some sort of Zen message.

StcChief
06-18-2007, 05:38 PM
and they wonder why everybody thinks she's a Biatch

trndobrd
06-18-2007, 07:26 PM
Is there ANYTHING you won't label neocon?

Had a bowl of neocon oce-cream last night, it had nuts in it.

The Mitsubishi Lancer is a neocon car.

The latest fashions from Milan are positively neocon.

Did you catch the finale of The Sopranos? Positively neocon.


"Neocon" is the new "Smurfy".

Direckshun
06-18-2007, 07:32 PM
Tonight's edition of non sequitur theater is brought to you by Buick.

That's Buick, the epitome of 21st Century Luxury.
That is what I get for watching the Selective Scorn Network.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 07:35 PM
"Neocon" is the new "Smurfy".
You just gave me a brilliant idea!!!

© BucEyedPea 2007

I'll never tell. I'm gonna be RICH!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Cochise
06-18-2007, 07:51 PM
Damn, Hillary has sure got a gusneocon stuck in her kerneoconstoink.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-18-2007, 09:00 PM
For those who bemoan current intonations that dissent = unpatriotic

The real question here:

What are you doing reading a pinko rag like the New Yorker? Is it some form of flagellation? :p

On a separate note, isn't it nice that there isn't anyone defending these clearly reprehensible (if in fact true) actions/words by Clinton?

Like the cheese, apparently the patteeu stands alone.

Sully
06-18-2007, 09:08 PM
meadowneoconpark

Taco John
06-18-2007, 10:48 PM
It worked for Bush and Rove.

Problem is, if the nation has to suffer a Giuliani / Hillary slug fest, people might lose faith in democracy altogether. I couldn't vote for either of them.

Pitt Gorilla
06-19-2007, 01:21 AM
It worked for Bush and Rove.

Problem is, if the nation has to suffer a Giuliani / Hillary slug fest, people might lose faith in democracy altogether. I couldn't vote for either of them.I don't think I could either.

Cochise
06-19-2007, 08:03 AM
I think a lot of people saying they couldn't vote for Hillary would change their mind pretty quickly if she got the nomination. Not pointing at you two, I'm just saying.

stevieray
06-19-2007, 08:06 AM
I think a lot of people saying they couldn't vote for Hillary would change their mind pretty quickly if she got the nomination. Not pointing at you two, I'm just saying.

she's going to win...regardless of how much those here try to downplay it.

Amnorix
06-19-2007, 08:09 AM
One sentence 15 years ago. oooookay.

She's not my preferred candidate, but i'll state here and now that I'd more than likely vote for her over the Republican candidate.

Amnorix
06-19-2007, 08:12 AM
and they wonder why everybody thinks she's a Biatch
Biatch is the standard descriptor given to any highly successful woman. It gets a bit old, really.

If they're not staying in the kitchen and bedroom, then they're a biatch. Okay. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 08:12 AM
Yup! She's going to win...and the more I hear about how the GOP candidates say they'll nuke Iran ( and are compassionate conservatives now too) means I may just have to vote for her too. Not that she necessarily wouldn't nuke Iran either.

All the GOP, save Paul, sound like Bush. Even Newt Gingrich has been saying the more the GOP'ers sound like Bush admin, they will lose. I think he's right on this one.

Margarte Thatcher gets called the Iron Lady but Hill is a biatch!

Cochise
06-19-2007, 08:17 AM
she's going to win...regardless of how much those here try to downplay it.

I just saw that USA Today/Gallup had her up on him by double digits, whether Gore was in the race or not. I think she is going to do well among the poor and minorities, people like that in the dependency groups who get the goodies promised in the campaign.

Obama might be the overwhelming favorite among latte drinkers and Prius drivers, but I don't think we are going to see the primaries bear that out across all voters.

Cochise
06-19-2007, 08:19 AM
Yup! She's going to win...and the more I hear about how the GOP candidates say they'll nuke Iran ( and are compassionate conservatives now too) means I may just have to vote for her too. Not that she necessarily wouldn't nuke Iran either.

All the GOP, save Paul, sound like Bush. Even Newt Gingrich has been saying the more the GOP'ers sound like Bush admin, they will lose. I think he's right on this one.

Margarte Thatcher gets called the Iron Lady but Hill is a biatch!

Can we officially bury the "but i AM a conservative!" act, now that you've pledged your support for Clinton? Really, Kotter's "I'm a Democrat" act is more plausible. ROFL

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 08:29 AM
That is what I get for watching the Selective Scorn Network.
I don't 'scorn.' I observe.
And I kinda see this as more of an anti-selective 'scorn' observation.

You know reminding those persons who are 'sick and tired of being told that their differing views are not right' that this isn't something that sprung anew from the loins of KKKarl Rove!!!111.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 08:34 AM
Can we officially bury the "but i AM a conservative!" act, now that you've pledged your support for Clinton? Really, Kotter's "I'm a Democrat" act is more plausible. ROFL
No. That's called a protest vote. Just like the last election.

Those are the choices: two parties of big govt.

My top issue is war...in particular Iran right now. I happen to feel it would be national suicide. Then I will vote GOP for Congress in a divided vote. Divided govt is the safest route right now. Heck! Pat's the one that says we can't implement conservativism and have to be practical. Just taking his advice. In fact listening to him Radar and one or two others drives me to it. If there is little difference then how much does it matter? There are no conservatives left in Washington. Yep! It's official.

Are you aware that it as the American Conservative mag that urged it's readers to vote Democratic in that last election? Yup! You guys are the one's driving the conservatives out of the party. ( particularly when you make the above type post). The Libertarian party is surging with new memberships and they are former GOP'ers.

Radar Chief
06-19-2007, 08:42 AM
No.

Isn’t the definition of a “neocon” someone that claims to be conservative but acts differently? :hmmm:

You guys are the one's driving the conservatives out of the party.

And it’s always this arbitrary “you guys” that are to blame for everything, isn’t it. ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 08:47 AM
Isn’t the definition of a “neocon” someone that claims to be conservative but acts differently? :hmmm:
I'm not "claiming" to be conservative with such a vote though. I'm claimin' it as a protest. I know what it is.


And it’s always this arbitrary “you guys” that are to blame for everything, isn’t it. ROFL
That's an overgeneralization. I referring to how some conservatives sound today regarding invading nations and claiming we have to do it for oil. Or nuking Iran.

With this post I think I'll make it a definite for Hill.
Keep it up and I'll campaign for her. :p

Radar Chief
06-19-2007, 09:02 AM
I'm not "claiming" to be conservative with such a vote though. I'm claimin' it as a protest. I know what it is.

You mean like a “neocon”. Claiming to be “conservative” then voting differently. :Poke:

With this post I think I'll make it a definite for Hill.
Keep it up and I'll campaign for her. :p

What would it matter to me if you did?
Not like Shillary is getting my vote regardless.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 09:12 AM
You mean like a “neocon”. Claiming to be “conservative” then voting differently.

That's just it, it's not voting differently....it's a choice liberals...'er leftists or big govt types if you prefer.

You haven't gotten it yet. :Poke:



What would it matter to me if you did?
Not like Shillary is getting my vote regardless.
It mattered enough to elicit a response. :Poke:

I also said I just "may have to" if I keep hearing this Nazi talk basically...I never said it as an absolute.

Now I am writing out a check for Hillary, after I mail my Paul check today. :p

Radar Chief
06-19-2007, 09:23 AM
That's just it, it's not voting differently....it's a choice liberals...'er leftists or big govt types if you prefer.

You haven't gotten it yet. :Poke:

Really? Primaries haven’t even taken place yet and you’re casting your cyber vote for Billary. How do you “know” what the other choices will be? :shrug:

It mattered enough to elicit a response. :Poke:

I like to point and laugh. Surprised you haven’t figured that about my twisted sense of humor by now.

Now I am writing out a check for Hillary, after I mail my Paul check today. :p

As long as you’re happy with what your money “buys”, good for you. Whatever tickles your giggle spot. ;)

Cochise
06-19-2007, 09:26 AM
And it’s always this arbitrary “you guys” that are to blame for everything, isn’t it. ROFL

It's the good old "neocon" boogeyman.

Neocon, I guess meaning anyone who disagrees on any point at all from this neo-libertarian sort of alignment.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:42 AM
I miss Senator Bradley, and Senator Nunn....and Zell. :(

Cochise
06-19-2007, 12:01 PM
I miss Senator Bradley, and Senator Nunn....and Zell. :(

Boohahaha! They must have been eaten by the NEOCON under their bed! Bet you won't sleep tonight knowing there are NEOCONS about! :eek: :eek:

Taco John
06-19-2007, 12:14 PM
I think a lot of people saying they couldn't vote for Hillary would change their mind pretty quickly if she got the nomination. Not pointing at you two, I'm just saying.



I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul regardless of who gets the nomination on either side.

Taco John
06-19-2007, 12:16 PM
I don't 'scorn.' I observe.



ROFL

Cochise
06-19-2007, 12:22 PM
I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul regardless of who gets the nomination on either side.

I am not going to rule out going LP or another third party either, if no one new emerges. The only GOP candidates I like much right now are also-rans.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 12:23 PM
I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul regardless of who gets the nomination on either side.
Really? Are you going to do a write-in because I don't think he'll run on a 3P ticket. That's an idea though. :hmmm:

I will definitely be nominating Paul and am entertaining campaigning for him.
I just don't know who I'm really voting for until I really know who is actually running on all sides.


I just love yankin' the right's chain though.http://www.footballhuddles.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/hehehmn.gif

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 12:33 PM
ROFL
Not sure what you find funny.

Taco John
06-19-2007, 04:35 PM
Really? Are you going to do a write-in because I don't think he'll run on a 3P ticket. That's an idea though. :hmmm:


If the vote comes between Hillary and Rudy - I can't vote for either one. They are two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned, only one of them looks much prettier in a dress, and the other wears pant suits instead.

I might give up on politics altogether if that's the "choice" we have.

I *could* vote for Obama, based on his position on Iraq, which is my number one issue. I think, though, that you're probably ahead of me on the curve, and I should really be thinking about Iran. I'd like to think that this nation is not so stupid as to permit our government to get involved with an invasion of Iran. But then, we've elected George W. Bush twice, so...



I will definitely be nominating Paul and am entertaining campaigning for him.
I just don't know who I'm really voting for until I really know who is actually running on all sides.

I've actually considered campaigning for Paul in my area as well. Being a new father, however, and a very busy executive who is currently working 60+ hours a week, I'm not sure I'd be able to dedicate the kind of time that it would take. Instead, I'll probably continue to send money to his campaign in hopes that he can keep in the conversation.

It's nice to finally see a real conservative (as opposed to a modern "rightie") in the discussion. I may end up writing him in just to show that I'm behind what he stands for.

Taco John
06-19-2007, 04:36 PM
Not sure what you find funny.

That's because you mistakenly believe what you wrote.

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 04:39 PM
I don't 'scorn.' I observe.
And I kinda see this as more of an anti-selective 'scorn' observation.

You know reminding those persons who are 'sick and tired of being told that their differing views are not right' that this isn't something that sprung anew from the loins of KKKarl Rove!!!111.
I observe as well.

Allow me to recommend both sides of the coin instead of just the one you prefer.

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 04:42 PM
That's because you mistakenly believe what you wrote.
I take it you don't?
I've been pretty clear for years. Politicians I disagree with, I disagree with. I don't hate them, or scorn them, or call them bitches or a-holes or losers or chimps or pinkos or seeyah next tuesdays, etc.

MoF, generally when politics are not involved, I associate much more with liberals [fiscal AND social] than conservatives [fiscal OR social].

The bedrock of my disassociation with the Dem party is the scorn they hiss and spit for 'Rethug Nazis,' ie, anyone 'not them.'

patteeu
06-19-2007, 04:45 PM
Tonight's edition of non sequitur theater is brought to you by Buick.

That's Buick, the epitome of 21st Century Luxury.

And it's a favorite of neocons, too!

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 04:45 PM
I observe as well.

Allow me to recommend both sides of the coin instead of just the one you prefer.
I'll bite, which side did I miss?
The thread header references the current intonations that dissent=unpatriotic and observed the historical flipside that Hillary unleashed [not just on dissenters of other parties, but all dissenters].

You sure this is a coin? Maybe a dungeons and dragons 3 sided die? With an invisible 3rd side you need to unveil?

patteeu
06-19-2007, 04:48 PM
I think a lot of people saying they couldn't vote for Hillary would change their mind pretty quickly if she got the nomination. Not pointing at you two, I'm just saying.

No doubt in my mind.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 04:50 PM
And it's a favorite of neocons, too!
I didn't know Buicks were your favorite. o:-)

Infidel Goat
06-19-2007, 07:05 PM
Obama might be the overwhelming favorite among latte drinkers and Prius drivers, but I don't think we are going to see the primaries bear that out across all voters.

I neither drink latte nor drive a Prius, but I'm definitely run with a group of democrats that support either Obama or Edwards. Honestly, I can't name a single friend who would name Hillary as his or her first choice democratic candidate.

Hillary might well win the nomination--but I don't think that she will.

As long as it becomes a clear two person race (Hillary vs. Obama or Hillary vs. Edwards), I think that you will see the Obama-Edwards faction move together against Hillary.

The best thing for Hillary would be for Edwards and Obama to perform just well enough in the early races that neither one wants to drop out. As long as they keep splitting the I-Don't-Want-Hillary-Vote, Hillary will remain the national poll front runner.

If either Edwards or Obama drop out early enough, I think the other guy will beat Hillary for the nomination. At least that's my hope . . .

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2007, 08:24 AM
I take it you don't?
I've been pretty clear for years. Politicians I disagree with, I disagree with. I don't hate them, or scorn them, or call them bitches or a-holes or losers or chimps or pinkos or seeyah next tuesdays, etc.

MoF, generally when politics are not involved, I associate much more with liberals [fiscal AND social] than conservatives [fiscal OR social].

The bedrock of my disassociation with the Dem party is the scorn they hiss and spit for 'Rethug Nazis,' ie, anyone 'not them.'

So does that make you a one issue voter? :)

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 09:07 AM
So does that make you a one issue voter? :)
Actually, the issue only really steels my resolve when it comes to the Federal Chief Executive.
When I was younger and living in S.KC, I was more than pleased to place my vote for Skelton every time ['course, Pops works for a certain S.KC Defense Contractor, sooo].
On the local level, I was proud to vote for Pat Dougherty as a rep, who's now a senator [and you'll be hard pressed to find someone more liberal, kind of Mo's own mini-Wellstone]. But he's a guy who believes what he believes passionately without animus to those who disagree.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2007, 01:37 PM
Actually, the issue only really steels my resolve when it comes to the Federal Chief Executive.
When I was younger and living in S.KC, I was more than pleased to place my vote for Skelton every time ['course, Pops works for a certain S.KC Defense Contractor, sooo].
On the local level, I was proud to vote for Pat Dougherty as a rep, who's now a senator [and you'll be hard pressed to find someone more liberal, kind of Mo's own mini-Wellstone]. But he's a guy who believes what he believes passionately without animus to those who disagree.

In all honesty, I don't understand the logic behind it.

You say that you are pushed to the R's because all Democrats label all R's as "Rethug Nazi's."

Isn't that in an of itself the same kind of broad generalization that you are claiming is keeping you away from the Democrats? Furthermore, isn't it complicated even further by the fact that elements of the right have brought such lovely terms such as "feminazi" into our lexicon, as well as the fact that the mere term "liberal" is considered a perjorative in this country?

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 01:48 PM
In all honesty, I don't understand the logic behind it.

You say that you are pushed to the R's because all Democrats label all R's as "Rethug Nazi's."

Isn't that in an of itself the same kind of broad generalization that you are claiming is keeping you away from the Democrats? Furthermore, isn't it complicated even further by the fact that elements of the right have brought such lovely terms such as "feminazi" into our lexicon, as well as the fact that the mere term "liberal" is considered a perjorative in this country?
No disrespect, but this issue has been examined both in my mind and on this board on previous occasions in great depth.
Rehashing all of it is a wearying prospect, and was not at all what I envisioned undertaking when I made the simple remark that I don't hate people with whom may I disagree philosophically.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2007, 02:01 PM
No disrespect, but this issue has been examined both in my mind and on this board on previous occasions in great depth.
Rehashing all of it is a wearying prospect, and was not at all what I envisioned undertaking when I made the simple remark that I don't hate people with whom may I disagree philosophically.

Links?? :p

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 03:09 PM
Links?? :p
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3025170&postcount=38

I'll expand slightly.

It's not that the right doesn't demonize the left. It's that, when they do I take it either as;
1) TIC hyperbole. case in point Rush's 'feminazi' appellation. Do you really think Rush hates feminists? He'd love nothing more than the be able to say he met with Gloria Allred or Gloria Steinem and that they found out he wasn't the monster they thought he was previously
2) The irrelevant rantings of someone I wouldn't care to share space with in any situation. Say Fred Phelps. The disgusting things he says are self-apparently disgusting to me. Or Michael Medved ranting about Hollywood. It doesn't bother me because I know it's wrong and I don't care what the guy thinks.

But like I said, I hang with the liberal crowd. So I live my life in fear that they'll sense that I have any non-orthodox leanings. That they'll shun me for thinking people are capable of greatness, or that Bush is not the devil incarnate, or that religious people who think homosexuality is a sin necessarily. To go off on a tangent, I view sin as 'that which seperates one from God.' So, you can be homosexual, but if it doesn't interefere with your relationship with God, good on you. But if it creates seperation, it's sin, the same as drink, debauchery, self-centeredness, pre-occupation with materialism, or any other of a million mortal concerns].

So basically, I get the sense that those who I might disagree with on the right will either let me disagree with them civilly, or if they don't, I don't care what they think. But those I disagree with on the left, I DO care about their estimation of me, and have first-hand experience of their shunning.

To that end, cards on the table, I'm a little bit of damaged goods, because I got dumped by a girlfriend of 4 years, one I was on the cusp of proposing to, and she was on board with [already 6 months of leaving the Bridal magazines out for me to see], because I let it slip that I voted for Bob Dole. That I could support that 'mean old man' changed everything she thought about me.

So have at it, dissect my hypocrisy. Point out what a dumb sonofabitch I am. I can take it.

Radar Chief
06-20-2007, 03:20 PM
To that end, cards on the table, I'm a little bit of damaged goods, because I got dumped by a girlfriend of 4 years, one I was on the cusp of proposing to, and she was on board with [already 6 months of leaving the Bridal magazines out for me to see], because I let it slip that I voted for Bob Dole. That I could support that 'mean old man' changed everything she thought about me.

:eek: Wow, you’re kidding right? :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2007, 03:51 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3025170&postcount=38

I'll expand slightly.

It's not that the right doesn't demonize the left. It's that, when they do I take it either as;
1) TIC hyperbole. case in point Rush's 'feminazi' appellation. Do you really think Rush hates feminists? He'd love nothing more than the be able to say he met with Gloria Allred or Gloria Steinem and that they found out he wasn't the monster they thought he was previously
2) The irrelevant rantings of someone I wouldn't care to share space with in any situation. Say Fred Phelps. The disgusting things he says are self-apparently disgusting to me. Or Michael Medved ranting about Hollywood. It doesn't bother me because I know it's wrong and I don't care what the guy thinks.

But like I said, I hang with the liberal crowd. So I live my life in fear that they'll sense that I have any non-orthodox leanings. That they'll shun me for thinking people are capable of greatness, or that Bush is not the devil incarnate, or that religious people who think homosexuality is a sin necessarily. To go off on a tangent, I view sin as 'that which seperates one from God.' So, you can be homosexual, but if it doesn't interefere with your relationship with God, good on you. But if it creates seperation, it's sin, the same as drink, debauchery, self-centeredness, pre-occupation with materialism, or any other of a million mortal concerns].

So basically, I get the sense that those who I might disagree with on the right will either let me disagree with them civilly, or if they don't, I don't care what they think. But those I disagree with on the left, I DO care about their estimation of me, and have first-hand experience of their shunning.

To that end, cards on the table, I'm a little bit of damaged goods, because I got dumped by a girlfriend of 4 years, one I was on the cusp of proposing to, and she was on board with [already 6 months of leaving the Bridal magazines out for me to see], because I let it slip that I voted for Bob Dole. That I could support that 'mean old man' changed everything she thought about me.

So have at it, dissect my hypocrisy. Point out what a dumb sonofabitch I am. I can take it.

When I was working a PT job in college, we were required to evaluate the company every year. One of the questions on said evaluation was "this company has open and honest two way communication." There was no way I could agree with that, so I slammed them as much as a "disagree strongly" bubble could.

The relevance being, as long as people are honest with why they believe what they believe, rather than purposely illusory in order to hide deeper seated reasonings, I may disagree, but I have no direct antipathy--unless they are pointedly hateful.

It's obvious that you were here, so it's not really my place to levy judgment on you based upon what you've posted, which seems quite sincere.

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 03:58 PM
To be clear, I believe what I believe on issues regardless of the source of the analysis.
My hangups with portions on the DNC is on a personality/temperment level.
Again, not to beat a dead horse [and purposefully hyperbolizing the matter immediately hereafter], but given the people I generally associate with, it'd be a whole lot easier if I were some commie/hippy/treehugging fool. :p

So don't go thinking 'eh, his stance on free trade is just masking Fruedian childhood trauma.'

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2007, 04:02 PM
To be clear, I believe what I believe on issues regardless of the source of the analysis.
My hangups with portions on the DNC is on a personality/temperment level.
Again, not to beat a dead horse [and purposefully hyperbolizing the matter immediately hereafter], but given the people I generally associate with, it'd be a whole lot easier if I were some commie/hippy/treehugging fool. :p

So don't go thinking 'eh, his stance on free trade is just masking Fruedian childhood trauma.'

To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about it at all.

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 04:06 PM
To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about it at all.
Wasn't sure what you meant by 'hiding deeper seated reasonings.'

go bowe
06-20-2007, 04:32 PM
well, bob dole really was a little mean around the edges...

well, maby more than that...

go bowe
06-20-2007, 04:38 PM
Wasn't sure what you meant by 'hiding deeper seated reasonings.'ok then, tell the chef to go easy on the seasonings...

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 04:53 PM
A related exposition

http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/the-limits-of-political-junkiedom/
Pure political junkies don’t really notice this as they can always live “in the moment.” They are like the guy in Memento: everything is perpetually new. Every new issue is taken upon its face value, and analogies are just tools used to bludgeon the other side and not to remind us that we have been here before.

For Political Scientists, however, we have always been here before. Every new political issue can be related to older issues. You don’t have to take anything at its face value, because chances are it is in reality an older controversy dressed up in new clothes. And, as much as it pains me to repudiate the me of 15 years ago, I can see a lot of merit in this view. Political junkies always see the world they live in as a “tipping point” (the most overused trope of the last fifty years). Every issue is of epoch making importance, each setback is a “disaster”, and every politician can be categorically labelled as ally, enemy, hero or traitor. Contrary to a common opinion Political Science has actually taught us some things, including that such hyperbole is largely nonsense. Today, I cannot blame these professors for not getting worked up about the controversies of the moment. Why should they? So the political junkies of today get themselves in a tizzy over the guilt or innocence of a man named Scooter? So what? In so many ways it is no different from all of the political junkies who got worked up (and still do) over Sacco & Vanzetti, Whittaker Chambers or Alger Hiss. The names may change, but the motivations remain largely the same. In any event, Political Science is more interested in abstracting out patterns of political behavior as opposed to obsessing about the minutiae of the political tabloids.

Political junkies simply do not and cannot recognize when their world is deja vu all over again.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 07:24 PM
To that end, cards on the table, I'm a little bit of damaged goods, because I got dumped by a girlfriend of 4 years, one I was on the cusp of proposing to, and she was on board with [already 6 months of leaving the Bridal magazines out for me to see], because I let it slip that I voted for Bob Dole. That I could support that 'mean old man' changed everything she thought about me.

Wow.

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 01:22 PM
Ari weighs in;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/a-secret-woman-in-c_b_53725.html
It's not just that she's a private person. There are plenty of public servants who are zealous about guarding their personal lives and equally zealous about keeping their public lives -- and public policies -- transparent. But, like Bush and Cheney, Clinton seems devoted to secrecy for its own sake.

As Bernstein shows, what was most shocking about her handling of the health care fiasco during her husband's administration wasn't that she kept the plan secret from its critics, but that she kept it secret even from those who would have been champions of the plan had they known anything about it.

This passion for concealment is a pattern that, as Bernstein demonstrates, has been repeated throughout Clinton's life. It was there in the head-scratching decision to hide her college thesis from public view because it was about radical organizer Saul Alinsky. It was there in her refusal for 30 years to admit that she had failed the bar exam the first time she took it. It was there in the way she glossed over in her memoir her summer internship at the law firm of Treuhaft, Walker, and Burnstein -- one of the most renowned left-wing law firms in the nation. It was there in the way she handled the Whitewater and Travelgate investigations, which, as Bernstein told me, "ended up unnecessarily prolonging them."

Cochise
06-26-2007, 01:48 PM
I think that often, when I read the posts here, about political junkies.

Political junkies think every issue is different, life-threatening, and must win. While there are a few of these that come along once in a great while, they are the minority. I used to be one of those people, but you can see after observing for a few years that it's the same two worldviews in collision 90% of the time. No one is going to agree with anyone else, ever. No one is going to change their mind, ever. It's all futility.

The people who vote hard line one way or the other don't determine what happens, it's the people who don't know what's going on who decide who is in office, by and large. They are swayed by whomever woos them more effectively that cycle for whatever reason and the whole thing just wobbles as it will.

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 02:08 PM
Wow.
Heh, . . . some commercial about youth sports on the TV at lunch reminded me of another of our wierder dust-ups.

Anyone remember the 'if you let me play' commercial by Nike?
The purpose of it was to make the case that girls will get much more than athletic skill out of participating in sports.

That commercial made her steaming mad. "Why should girls have to ask permission to play sports?!?!"
"Honey, it's because they're KIDS, asking their PARENTS to play. It's not about male/female dominion. It's because parents are their authority figures."
"Whatever, that commercial just pisses me off . . ."

patteeu
06-26-2007, 03:25 PM
Heh, . . . some commercial about youth sports on the TV at lunch reminded me of another of our wierder dust-ups.

Anyone remember the 'if you let me play' commercial by Nike?
The purpose of it was to make the case that girls will get much more than athletic skill out of participating in sports.

That commercial made her steaming mad. "Why should girls have to ask permission to play sports?!?!"
"Honey, it's because they're KIDS, asking their PARENTS to play. It's not about male/female dominion. It's because parents are their authority figures."
"Whatever, that commercial just pisses me off . . ."

LOL

Too bad the two of you didn't get hitched. I'm sure you'd have lots of good stories to tell us as the years go by. :)

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 03:32 PM
LOL

Too bad the two of you didn't get hitched. I'm sure you'd have lots of good stories to tell us as the years go by. :)
Don't get me started on when I said Shawshank was just a 'decent' movie, instead of lauding it to the heavens.

It's like I don't even know you. . . :deevee:

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2007, 03:50 PM
Don't get me started on when I said Shawshank was just a 'decent' movie, instead of lauding it to the heavens.

It's like I don't even know you. . . :deevee:

Holy crap, you are LUCKY she bolted then. :shake:

If that woman hasn't already had a nervous breakdown, one (or more)are in her future. Good riddance, dude.

(FTR, I know that which I speak....I had a four year relationship flame out. In retrospect, it was the best thing that could have happened. Yikes. :eek:

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 03:54 PM
Holy crap, you are LUCKY she bolted then. :shake:

If that woman hasn't already had a nervous breakdown, one (or more)are in her future. Good riddance, dude.

(FTR, I know that which I speak....I had a four year relationship flame out. In retrospect, it was the best thing that could have happened. Yikes. :eek:
Yeah, I thought I got off lucky for a while, 10 EFFING years ago. :banghead:

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 07:30 AM
Don't get me started on when I said Shawshank was just a 'decent' movie, instead of lauding it to the heavens.

It's like I don't even know you. . . :deevee:


That reminds me of an engineer I used to work with. He was a younger guy that was dating a girl he met on the Internet.
I asked him how that was going one day and he told me they’d broken up. I asked why and he told me they’d been talking and he told her, “I think you’re just more emotionally than I am.” He said her response was to start crying then she yelled, “I am not!” ROFL

Amnorix
06-27-2007, 07:43 AM
Don't get me started on when I said Shawshank was just a 'decent' movie, instead of lauding it to the heavens.

It's like I don't even know you. . . :deevee:

Eh? "decent movie". I wouldn't've married you either then. Obviously you have no taste at all...



:)

Amnorix
06-27-2007, 07:44 AM
(FTR, I know that which I speak....I had a four year relationship flame out. In retrospect, it was the best thing that could have happened. Yikes. :eek:

Ditto here. College girlfiiend. Borderline manic-depressive. :eek:

Cochise
06-27-2007, 08:48 AM
Everybody has one of those freaks in the past. It makes you wonder though if someone else out there talks about you as the freak in their past :hmmm: