Assault On Reason

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 If you are going to say that the Dems are just morally superior to the Repubs and would not resort to the same 'tricks', fine. But IMO you are being naive. -ERD50

If a Democrat does something wrong he/she is "troubled", and "needs help", if a Republican does something wrong, he/she needs to "admit they're wrong, resign immediately, and get a lawyer"...........

Yeah, no double standard in Washington...........

[ladelfina]

ERD50, As far as voting goes I would have agreed with you before the current crop found themselves in the halls of power. They are the direct descendants of the Nixonian rat-f***ers (Atwater and Segretti begat Rove, and not just metaphorically). These guys take it WAY beyond Nixonian.. to the level of an "extreme" sport, and I think they delight in how blatant they can be (besides voter suppression, see: signing statements, concocting evidence for the Iraq war, outing of CIA agents, refusal of subpoenas, warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, suspension of habeas corpus, ignoring laws about documentation, AG lying to Congress and laughing about it, shaking down Ashcroft on his possible deathbed, etc.).

Are the Dems "weak" in the face of this? Yes.
Should they take it to the same level of outrageousness? Unclear.
If I were to answer whether Dems right now are more 'righteous', I'd say "absolutely". Only because they haven't, and shouldn't, stoop to the craven level of the Perles and Abrams and Cheneys and Yoos that currently run the joint.

Dems are not saintly, but are weak the way any average person would be when faced with a ruthless thug who will stop at nothing. They would have to TOP the current bad behavior to "win". Where would that lead us, given where we already are? I shudder to think.

I'd kinda hope some sense of order and the rule of law will once again prevail. I may not bet money on it, but that is my fervent wish.


--
Can I please say, with all due respect to FinanceDude.. you are just proving Gore's point. WHO CARES if he put on weight? ..that he wears "earth tones"? WTF cares! THIS is the appalling level of 'political discourse' that offends our intelligence. Now go join Chris Matthews to 'debate' Hillary's chubby legs... go read in all the papers about her (gasp!) cleavage. [Like Gore, she can't win for losing - she is either too "mannish", or now, it seems, too female.] It's decided already: Clinton and Gore must be put in the public stocks for ridicule, while a**holes like Giuliani and Romney ("double Guantanamo!") and Lieberman get the Very Serious Person red carpet treatment. The MSM courtiers have spoken.

This is the level of schoolyard BS that indicates the opposing contingent is largely made up of angry bullies with no real substantive arguments they can successfully put forth.

Let's just put the f***ing presidency up on American Idol, and then we can have a Jessica Simpson (hot!) or Justin Timberlake (has a personal trainer!) for pres... It's obvious how much hate and resentment the knuckle-draggers have for anyone with an ounce of smarts. I lived through the painful decrees handed down not only to Gore and Dukakis, but to John Anderson (does anyone even remember him? He got my vote.): all "too wonky"! "Wonky" means "able to speak off-the-cuff in complete sentences and paragraphs". Let's elect blithering idiots instead!!

GWB didn't even WANT to be governor OR president. He wanted to be baseball commissioner.

The Accidental Candidate: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

Imagine the damage he'd be doing if he were actually INTO his job.

[Danny]

ladelfina - I voted for Anderson!
...we maybe the only ones on the forum that did.

ERD - I agree with a lot of what you said(except for the naive part!).

Gore was tarnished by association because of Clinton's hanky-panky, Bush was positioned as having a higher morality - the anti-Clinton, Nader was in the race, I remember being turned off by his condescending attitude towards Bush in one of the debates, etc.

In any case, he would have made mistakes, but I think they would have been minor compared to what has happened - don't think he would have gone into Iraq and would have been more gentle on the constitution, would have done better with Katrina, etc.

FD - remember how the repubs hounded/impeached Clinton over lying about a sex act that he tried to hide from his wife & daughter? No one is impeaching Bush yet, but there is lot of contempt of congress in the works...

[jnojr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj My sentiments exactly. The right wing has a won the propaganda war a long time ago.

How so? The left controls the media and the educational systems. As our population moves more into cities and away from rural areas, the left is gaining more and more control over our lives.

Granted, right-wing talk radio, for example, flourishes while liberal radio withers and dies. But that's because, IMO, the right more nearly reflects the values and beliefs of the productive members of our society. The left prospers upon the backs of millions and millions of drones.

Quote:

As a group of people, we Americans are the most insular, myopic and arrogant people on the face of the earth, shaped in part by the constant propaganda we've been fed about being the best place on earth.

The US is far from perfect, but what's a better country to live in, overall?

Quote:

Meanwhile, by every social measure, we are ranked among the lowest of any developed country.

But productive members of society don't want those "social measures"! In most of the industrialized world, the millions of drones clamoring for more freebies is the "social measure" you hear about. And most of our problems, like the health care mess, for example, are caused or exacerbated by the "social measures".

Quote:

As for Al Gore not getting elected, that's what happens when the masses no longer have a voice and special interest and those with the means to influence policies win. The propaganda has been so successful that the average American no longer knows how to vote in the best interest.

"The masses" have a voice. They used it to elect GWB. Just because the election didn't go your way doesn't mean that some tiny special interest is suppressing the vast majority.

The problem is, with both parties being controlled by the extreme fringe elements, it's no longer a question of who is "right" and who is "wrong"... most of us who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid or idealogically tied up in Party politics are left either voting for the lesser of two evils, or giving up on voting entirely. Tens of millions of people think, "What's the point?" when their choice is between Bush the neo-con or Gore the nutcase.

I regret voting for Bush, because the (slightly) lesser of two evils is still evil. If I could go back, I wouldn't be voting for Gore or Kerry, that's for sure... I think I'd just skip the Presidential election, or write someone in. And that's just what I'll do next year if another neo-con wins the Republican nomination... if Romney or Giuliani is the R, I'll vote for Fred Thompson as an independant, or write him in.

[ladelfina]

FinanceDude.. Whaaaat!?

Quote:

If a Democrat does something wrong he/she is "troubled", and "needs help", if a Republican does something wrong, he/she needs to "admit they're wrong, resign immediately, and get a lawyer"........

Clinton ran around, but he never campaigned on "traditional family values über alles".

Let's put aside all the homosexual drug addict preachers and Rush Limbaugh and Newt et al. for a bit.. they're yesterday's news. Here, "ripped from the headlines":

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/16/...it-to-govern’/

Quote:

At a press conference this afternoon, Sen. David Vitter broke his silence and spoke for the first time since he acknowledged being on the D.C. madam’s list. A remorseless Vitter attacked his “long time political enemies and those hoping to profit from the situation.” Vitter said he would not answer questions on the issue, claiming that “might sell newspapers but wouldn’t serve my family or my constituents well.” Watch it: In Oct. 1998, Vitter attacked President Clinton, arguing the proper question was not whether people cared but rather whether Clinton was “morally unfit to govern.” Quote: Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care — because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern. [Times-Picayune, 10/29/98]

Vitters had better damn well get a lawyer; soliciting prostitution is a crime.
Hypocritical, much?

Quote:

Yeah, no double standard in Washington..

Oops.. Vitters has "quietly gone back to work" says the AP. Move along, folks.. nothing to see.

---
As far as "THE MASSES" speaking out and electing GWB.. again the 'victors' seem to want to re-write history. In both 2000 and 2004, even in the best of lights, Bush just squeaked by. The other half of "the masses" (now a huge majority.. he's about as popular right now as Nixon during Watergate) are fed up with him.

This is exactly the "assault on reason" that Gore correctly identifies. You don't have to be a Gore fan to acknowledge the pervasiveness of a kind of fantasy alternate reality on the right. Win by (maybe) .005%? .5%? 1%? .. and it is a mandate? The "masses" have spoken? Yikes! Take a remedial math class.

Yeah.. vote for Fred. I hear he smells great! Plus, his second wife is hot.

WTF? Just shoot me.

---
and one is perfectly free to dislike Gore, but why is he "a nutcase", exactly?
He's not singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb .. bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann", is he?
He doesn't cultivate the media dressed up in drag..
He doesn't wear magic underwear with masonic symbols.
We'll leave that to the "serious", "sane" candidates.

Get a grip, y'all!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina He wanted to be baseball commissioner.

Maybe he thinks he is.

That would explain a lot of things.

For starters, maybe he's just quoting Yogi Berra a lot.

[martyb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien FD - Theory...What Theory? ....this is a little discourse between marty, erd and I ....you don't have to read the thread you know...we ain't hurtin' nobody...least I'm not hurt, not sure about marty though

Nope, I'm not hurtin', just couldn't really join in the fun since SOME of us are still w**king for a living & can't play on the forum while on the clock. Seems like I recall how the Democrats tried really hard to keep a bunch of absentee votes from military members who were stationed overseas from being counted in that infamous election as well. Could that be because it's widely known that military folks are predominately more conservative type voters? Hmmmmmmmmm? I've heard plenty of the wild-ass stories about minorities being prevented from voting but have never seen any credible proof. The issue with the military overseas absentee situation was a fact, and was reported by the news while all the election BS was going on. Why do you think the Dems would try so hard to prevent military personnel who were actively defending their country from casting their legal votes?

[ladelfina]

Oh please.. THIS is what the current crop of Republicans thinks of the military:


I remember Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.. disagreed with much of what they did.. agreed with some of it, more again was outright criminal. I didn't like Kerry much at all.. but what clinched my Kerry vote was what you see in the picture above. That's when the Republicans jumped the shark.

Sustaining candidates, one who went AWOL even from his marginal, tangential 'service' and another who got IIRC nine deferments.. what is there left to do but make a mockery of someone who actually served in combat rather than skipping out??

Wrapped in the flag, they made fun of a wounded combat vet.

They made fun of a wounded combat vet.
They made light of his injuries and of the horrors of war.
They sneered at his service.

This is the Assault on Reason.
This is when I understood there was no depth, no sewer, they would not descend to.


[Someone I'm sure will say "well, what about the dirty hippies who spit on vets?" Assuming that this urban myth is even true.. at least it might be construed as consistent with an anti-war mindset.]

Pro-war NON-veterans mocking veterans.. that's your Assault on Reason.

[Danny]

marty - sorry you work and can't always come out and play at the forum.
I remember the military vote thing. There was a lot of tit-for-tat between the two camps when they were maneuvering against each other, I remember Bush sued to prevent a recount...

...as far as "I've heard plenty of the wild-ass stories about minorities being prevented from voting but have never seen any credible proof. The issue with the military overseas absentee situation was a fact" - Katherine Harris hired ChoicePoint prior to the election to identify and remove thousands of names from the state voters list on the condition that these people were convicted felons. Many of these would-be voters were turned away at the polls or even prior to reaching the polling places. It would later be discovered that approximately 97% of the people removed from the list — and thus denied the right to vote in the election — were not felons at all. The majority of these voters were African-American, and as African-Americans predominantly vote Democratic, the situation suggested foul play" - this is documented marty, so I think it could be considered a fact also.

But in any case, in the words of Tony Snow when faced with anything critical of the White House's performance, "that's old news, we want to keep looking forward..."

My point is we would have been much better off with Gore or anyone else...I think Bush must be the worst president and Iraq America's worst blunder...

Hope you'll soon not be working and can waste spend more time on the forum

[Gillette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien - Katherine Harris hired ChoicePoint prior to the election to identify and remove thousands of names from the state voters list on the condition that these people were convicted felons. Many of these would-be voters were turned away at the polls or even prior to reaching the polling places. It would later be discovered that approximately 97% of the people removed from the list — and thus denied the right to vote in the election — were not felons at all. The majority of these voters were African-American, and as African-Americans predominantly vote Democratic, the situation suggested foul play" - this is documented marty, so I think it could be considered a fact also.

Personally I don't care if you want to beat dead horses until the cows come home, but I do take exception to not quoting sources. This is the second time you've cut & pasted this exact verbage on this thread. No source = plagiarisim.

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeps Personally I don't care if you want to beat dead horses until the cows come home, but I do take exception to not quoting sources. This is the second time you've cut & pasted this exact verbage on this thread. No source = plagiarisim.

Ok, neeps, please just put the bat down and sit down.... now that I think about it, it was careless of me not to footnote the quote that I cut and pasted, no excuses, it was an innocent mistake I never thought of it as my words just in a hurry to justify my position, but I can see now that it would appear like I was using my own words...thanks for pointing it out, .
here some links the first had the "quote", the second is background, and also by clicking on the highlighted Choicepoint links in my previous posts will be lead to their involvement. Can we let the cows come home now and let me get out and golf...

Katherine Harris

Florida Central File

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeps Personally I don't care if you want to beat dead horses until the cows come home, but I do take exception to not quoting sources. This is the second time you've cut & pasted this exact verbage on this thread. No source = plagiarisim.

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Yeah, like you're an FD!

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien Ok, neeps, please just put the bat down and sit down.... now that I think about it, it was careless of me not to footnote the quote that I cut and pasted, noexcuses, thanks for pointing it out, I'll try to do better in the future... here some links the first had the "quote", the second is background, and also by clicking on the highlighted Choicepoint links in my previous posts will be lead to their involvement. Can we let the cows come home now and let me get out and golf... Katherine Harris Florida Central File

Here is a choice quote from The Guardian:

Quote:

One elections supervisor, Linda Howell of Madison County, was so upset by the errors that she refused to use the Harris/ChoicePoint list. How could she be so sure the new list identified innocent people as felons? Because her own name was on it, 'and I assure you, I am not a felon'.

But was her guilt choosing ChoicePoint and then not supervising the following actions or was it by design? Did she know that the list actually came from Texas?
A blacklist burning for Bush | Business | The Observer

Quote:

'It's just fundamental industry practice that you don't roll out the list statewide until you have tested it and tested it again,' he said. 'Dershowitz is right: they had to know that this jeopardised thousands of people's registrations. And they would also know the [racial] profile of those voters.'

[ladelfina]

More of the Assault on Reason:

Think Progress » ‘The most trusted name in news.’
v. short video re. CNN

When the "talent" is mutinying.. maybe there's hope.
(until they figure out that's part of the 'infotainment', too)

Earlier mutiny: Look at how they sneer at and scorn the MSNBC news anchor-gal..

YouTube - MSNBC Anchor Rips Up Paris Hilton News Story

I found it surprisingly uncomfortable to watch.. you get the sense that everyone is *really* on edge about deviating from what the powers-that-be have decreed. And that the sneering is almost forced.. One of the few times I've thought a studio anchor actually earned the hundred$/minute they were getting for their little blurb.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien here some links the first had the "quote" that I stoled and didn't credit, Katherine Harris

So, now that we have the source, we can evaluate those quotes a bit:

...It would later be discovered that approximately 97% of the people removed from the list — and thus denied the right to vote in the election — were not felons at all. The majority of these voters were African-American, and as African-Americans predominantly vote Democratic, the situation suggested foul play"

Hmmm, 'suggested foul play' - that caught my eye. Was there actually foul play? What was done about it then? Who 'suggested' it. Ahh, here's your answer - the reference from that source goes back to ....

American Blackout (2006) is a documentary film directed by Ian Inaba. It premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.

So the Sundance Film Festival and a music video director are now our standards for sources of factual information??

weak, weak, weak.... And this is what I mean by the weak Dems. If this stuff is so 'known', why don't they DO something about it, rather than rely on some guy at a Film Festival to address it?

I would not be totally surprised if the Dems hand the election to the Repubs again.

This reminds me of a 'discussion' I had on another forum with a guy complaining about all the errors in the voting machines. He went on and on about how these errors cost the Dems votes, here, here, and there. How can the errors *always* be stacked against the Dems? It's either wacko conspiracy theories, or the Dems are just too weak to protect public polling places - and what does that say about them?

-ERD50

[Bigritchie]

I think whether you vote heads or tails, you are still voting for the same coin at this point.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Aint that the truth. Political parties used to be pretty dang different from each other 50-100+ years ago.

Now they're pretty much the same guy, couple of different POV's on a few hot button issues designed to mobilize groups of voters.

Truth is, if you crossed out the names and dates and just listed the political goings on, you wouldnt be able to tell who was doing what when.

[Danny]

erd50 - you're right I guess we can find facts to support our positions if we look hard enough...and they can be interpreted differently depending on the prism we look through.... there is this report from the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the Florida Voting Irregularities that I think supports the point I was attempting to make, but I maybe only looking at what justifies my position....

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien . there is this report from the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the Florida Voting Irregularities that I think supports the point I was attempting to make, but I maybe only looking at what justifies my position....

Thanks Dan, a much better source. I will read it in detail a bit later, but one thing did jump out at me that goes to the heart of my feeling that the Dems need to step up to the plate and be proactive and take some responsibility, rather than complaining after the fact. That is the comments on the infamous Butterfly Ballot, and other ballot design issues.

As I recall, BOTH parties must approve the ballots before they are accepted. So the 'whining' that we heard about these Butterfly ballots disenfranchising many Democratic voters - who is to blame for that? Why were the Dems not watching out for themselves? This is what concerns me. They could not even take the time and trouble to identify and head off this problem when they had every chance, and we are supposed to believe that they can deal with matters that are much, much harder to control? That is a tough one to swallow.

-ERD50