The psychology of a "dittohead"

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Coulter's comparison isn't flawed, it's incoherent on the face of it. Comparing inner city murder rates in America with combat deaths in Iraq in order to make some point about failed liberal policy doesn't make any sense. The situations aren't analogous, the policies, circumstances and solutions involved have no bearing on one another, and even as some kind of vague rhetorical jab the whole thing just doesn't hang together.



    I suppose pointing that out means there is no difference between me and Ann Coulter.
  • Reply 62 of 80
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I'll gladly claim Clinton was treated more fairly than Bush.



    By whom?
  • Reply 63 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    It's an disingenuous argument.



    She compared the murder rate over a year to how many months in Iraq?



    Also... are the US troops in every corner of Iraq... is the population of Iraq ALL U.S. soldiers? Why doesn't she include all the allied deaths... or how about ALL murders in Iraq... including bombings...



    I know why.



    Because the comparison is bullshit.




    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Coulter's comparison isn't flawed, it's incoherent on the face of it. Comparing inner city murder rates in America with combat deaths in Iraq in order to make some point about failed liberal policy doesn't make any sense. The situations aren't analogous, the policies, circumstances and solutions involved have no bearing on one another, and even as some kind of vague rhetorical jab the whole thing just doesn't hang together.



    I suppose pointing that out means there is no difference between me and Ann Coulter.




    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Dude, trumpet. I know it's good to go through the motions to defend the other side, but come on, Ann Coulter's comparison really is crap. Forgetting the arguing about the interpretation of the different populations, just the six months to one year alone makes the whole thing flawed.



    I believe I said the comparison was likely still invalid (I think I even pointed out it would have to be police to soldiers)



    I mostly thought that the refutation of it was just as flawed. I do like addaboxes comments on it though.



    Nick
  • Reply 64 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    Here here. I respect guys like Trumpt and SDW for articulating their arguments and supporting THEIR ideology, partisan or not. Some of their posts may enrage me, vice verse, but that's a good thing. It would be a boring world if we couldn't passionately debate topics, issues and ideology. Now if I could just get them on my side of the fence...



    Your side of the fence... well like everyone in So Cal, I've got this script and....



    I mean if you're going to sell out, it should at least have some entertainment value right?



    North, if you are a FCP guru, I could use some help on a small project. I'll PM ya with details.



    Nick
  • Reply 65 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    There's something so horrible about this new game of pretending that partisanship is always symetrical.



    After the long years of unbridled Clinton hate, any criticism of Bush is "just the same".



    Really? Really. After innumerable tax-payer funded fishing expeditions to find something, anything to "kill Bill"? Travelgate. Haircutgate. Vince Foster's death. Monicagate, Whitewater, private investigators hired to find anybody with an axe to grind, secret service supeanas, actual impeachment for god's sake.... Not to mention the truly savage talk radio drum beating-- ugly, cruel jokes about Chelsea's looks. Hillary is a dyke. They hang sex toys on the Whitehouse Christmas tree. They have orgies, they eat christian babies, there is no degradation to base to be intrinsic to Clinton's character.



    And not one bit of it about policy. About disagreeing with the president's behavior as president. It's all about how Clinton, and his family, are "scum-bags".



    But none of this says anything about the Republican will to power because Democrats do "exactly the same thing." When the dems block a handful of judicial nominations, criticize Bush's handling of the economy as favoring the wealthy, the handling of Iraq as ill-concieved, the Justice department as heavy-handed, that's "exactly the same thing." When there is some heat behind those criticisms, deriving from a sense of being casualy lied to about the gravest matters of war and peace, that's "exactly the same thing".



    To our right-wing apologists on this board, goddamit, just blow me. This kind of willful distortion of such an evident truth goes beyond friendly partisan argument to something really ugly and evil. To fail to make these kind of distinctions at this point in the country's history is cowardly and stupid.



    As someone remarked, the Republicans don't want to govern. They want to rule. And If it takes delegitimizing whole chunks of the apparatus of governence to do it, well, they never much cared for government in the first place, did they?




    I won't blow you. I prefer the reach around.



    Perhaps my memory is just a bit off but I remember every bit of this on the left as well. Bush has been called stupid, an average student, a frat party boy. He had that drunk driving charge (OMG a DUI, he can?t govern) dropped right before the election.



    How about Newt asking his wife for a divorce while in a hospital bed, how about Bork smokng some pot. Clarence Thomas and the pubic hair on the coke can.



    Chelsea?s looks, how about the Bush twins buying beer underage. Or them making fun of Jeb?s daughter for a prescription drug addiction.



    Yep those all sound like policy issues to me.



    As for the Clintons and eating Christian babies, I?m shocked. I thought they were inclusive. They should eat all the babies, not just the Christian ones.





    Nick
  • Reply 66 of 80
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Yea but Bush and his cronies, relations, etc, have done a lot WORSE things then Clinton. Clinton lied once. Bush and his admin have gone through many, many scandals that are FAR worse and aren't receiving coverage. They almost got a CIA operative killed. They lied to the country. They started a war based on lies to save businesses. That got hundreds of Americans killed. KILLED. The Dubya's family have a rich history of drug abuse. They arguably stole the election for crying out loud. He went AWOL. He is letting business leaders convicted of white collar crimes off the hook. He killed many more people by banning stem cell research (my gf could benefit from that, she has arthritis at 19 and they don't know why.) He oh screw this just look at the amount of topics now railing against Bush and his various acts here in AO. And yet look at how nice the media treats him compared to Clinton who got a BJ in office and lied about it. Trumptman you have to agree that there is a disparity here. It is the reverse of what it should be, too, bass ackwards, if you will.
  • Reply 67 of 80
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I won't blow you. I prefer the reach around.



    Perhaps my memory is just a bit off but I remember every bit of this on the left as well. Bush has been called stupid, an average student, a frat party boy. He had that drunk driving charge (OMG a DUI, he can?t govern) dropped right before the election.



    How about Newt asking his wife for a divorce while in a hospital bed, how about Bork smokng some pot. Clarence Thomas and the pubic hair on the coke can.



    Chelsea?s looks, how about the Bush twins buying beer underage. Or them making fun of Jeb?s daughter for a prescription drug addiction.



    Yep those all sound like policy issues to me.



    As for the Clintons and eating Christian babies, I?m shocked. I thought they were inclusive. They should eat all the babies, not just the Christian ones.





    Nick




    Reach-around? Good choice. Endorsed by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in fact. Remember: courtesy is contagious!



    Every time I hear that the Republicans are pushing some new Medicare reform that will result in old folks making choices between dog food to eat and their prescription drugs, I'll be sure to take all of the lefty apologies in this thread into consideration.



    The idea that conservative media (who at least ADMITS its bias) is a threat to the other side is ludicrous, as is the idea that there isn't a leftward bias to the mass media in this country. I cannot fathom the depths of denial necessary to blind someone to the bias of Peter Jennings or Dan Rather. I think that the obvious bias out there has done more than anything else to push folks away from moderate positions and toward conservatism in this country. It's hard to explain the shift in any other way, other than rising income demographics.
  • Reply 68 of 80
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Dude, I like Peter Jennings...those lovable beady little eyes...He lived in Hong Kong for a while.
  • Reply 69 of 80
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    Unfortunately, once clinton entered office it reached a whole new level. There has always been, "this president is horrible" discussion no matter what admin. Once clinton entered though, it went from zero to clinton "killed vince foster" in no seconds flat.





    ...blah blah blah






    How many times have I read that Reagan killed gays with AIDS? He was also single handily responsible for all homeless people. Who was that guy on the hunger strike.
  • Reply 70 of 80
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Has this turned into a Dittohead convention? hehe.
  • Reply 71 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Yea but Bush and his cronies, relations, etc, have done a lot WORSE things then Clinton. Clinton lied once. Bush and his admin have gone through many, many scandals that are FAR worse and aren't receiving coverage. They almost got a CIA operative killed. They lied to the country. They started a war based on lies to save businesses. That got hundreds of Americans killed. KILLED. The Dubya's family have a rich history of drug abuse. They arguably stole the election for crying out loud. He went AWOL. He is letting business leaders convicted of white collar crimes off the hook. He killed many more people by banning stem cell research (my gf could benefit from that, she has arthritis at 19 and they don't know why.) He oh screw this just look at the amount of topics now railing against Bush and his various acts here in AO. And yet look at how nice the media treats him compared to Clinton who got a BJ in office and lied about it. Trumptman you have to agree that there is a disparity here. It is the reverse of what it should be, too, bass ackwards, if you will.



    Actually I don't care to get into the entire history of the Clinton administration but I do remember a few issues that didn't quite stick to him.



    First his wife used illegal closed meetings in an attempt to take over the entire health care industry. There was a matter with a few hundred FBI files including files from prominent members of Congress who were Republican. There were the Rose Law firm files which mysteriously appeared after repeatedly being requested and denied. There was Hillary turning $1000 into a large sum with insane odds and also as a novice trader. Of course there was no insider trading or information there. He was accused of rape, adultery, and sexual groping repeatedly. The only reason the Lewinski matter stuck is because he lied about it under oath.



    I could go on, but I think that is a decent start. I really don't know all the claims made on Clinton because I didn't listen to every nutball that made them. Out of all those, I think the only thing that stuch was Lewinski.



    Nick
  • Reply 72 of 80
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Don't forget Gore and his illegal fund raising from the Chinese.
  • Reply 73 of 80
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Don't forget the hair cut. $3k or something?
  • Reply 74 of 80
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I won't blow you. I prefer the reach around.



    Perhaps my memory is just a bit off but I remember every bit of this on the left as well. Bush has been called stupid, an average student, a frat party boy. He had that drunk driving charge (OMG a DUI, he can?t govern) dropped right before the election.



    How about Newt asking his wife for a divorce while in a hospital bed, how about Bork smokng some pot. Clarence Thomas and the pubic hair on the coke can.



    Chelsea?s looks, how about the Bush twins buying beer underage. Or them making fun of Jeb?s daughter for a prescription drug addiction.



    Yep those all sound like policy issues to me.



    As for the Clintons and eating Christian babies, I?m shocked. I thought they were inclusive. They should eat all the babies, not just the Christian ones.





    Nick




    Reach around it is, but I get to wear a party hat...



    --Bush called stupid, average student, frat boy etc. Hardly withering criticism, pretty average for a sitting pres. The point of my post was that the shrillness of the Clinton years went way beyond "I think that guy's a dope".



    --Newt asking his wife for a divorce. This was brought up as a direct response to the "moraler than thou" posturing of the get Clinton gang. I never saw it mentioned in any other context.



    --Bork smoking pot, Clarence Thomas. Judicial nomination fights. I'm not arguing that Democrats can't be partisan, I'm arguing that the Clinton years represented a massive escalation of truly visicous rhetoric.



    Bush twins drinking-- eye rolling at the daughters of the moralizer-in-chief being caught trying to buy prescription drugs and alchohol illegally= calling an 11 year old girl ugly on a nationally syndicated radio show? This is my point in a nutshell. On this issue to even approximate parity between the Clinton loathing and now it would require two or three liberal talk shows to specualte that the only way the Bush twins could ever get laid would be if they passed out and got raped by pro life activists and suggesting that might not be a bad idea as it could be the best thing that ever happended to them.



    Do you get it? Pointing out hypocrisy is fair game for anybody. Ditto complaining about the perception of poor performance, or the great American pastime of kvetching about those in power. Finding examples of these will always be easy.



    What happened during Clinton's tenure was an order of magnitude worse. It involved a palpable sense that someone should simply kill him and his family, slowly if possible. That he (and his family) somehow represented somethiing so fundamentally loathsome that all normative standards of decorum and respect for the office no longer applied. Very simular to the rage directed at a child molester. Not part of the human family.



    And those liberals call Bush a frat boy! I guess we're all in this together, right?
  • Reply 75 of 80
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    hmmm... all that investigating...



    how many charges were brought?



    I remember alot of accusations that went nowhere.



    You're back to bringing up all that bullshit that went nowhere.



    The very things they tried to tear him down with.



    I don't remember and ILLEGAL meetings held by Hillary?
  • Reply 76 of 80
    wow. a complete waste of thread.



    partisanship exists.



    lick it and love it, 'cause it's not going anywhere.
  • Reply 77 of 80
    Yeah. I give up.



    Guess there's no such thing as a dittohead on this board.



    Or at least they're not admitting it. and Rightly so.
  • Reply 78 of 80
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Guess there's no such thing as a dittohead on this board.



    Or at least they're not admitting it. and Rightly so.




    What the hell is that supposed to mean? You must have a short memory, because your original message began with:

    Quote:

    Are there any Rush fans here? I don't mean conservatives.



    Is it that surprising nobody here listens to him on a regular basis? Who do you suspect listens to Rush? What about Leykis? Does anybody listen to him? Name names.



    The board conservatives might share views with conservative public personas. That doesn't make them dittoheads. I'm quite sure nobody on this board burned Dixie Chicks albums or poured French wine down storm drains. Just the same, you're banal attacks injected between tales of woe do not make you a dittohead.



    In fact, FCiB and trumpetman seem almost apologetic in their replies. Clearly they are among the most conservative members of this board. To me this sort of complacency means they are a fair bit more moderate than the accusers.



    But please, don't let me continue interrupting your witch hunt
  • Reply 79 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Reach around it is, but I get to wear a party hat...



    --Bush called stupid, average student, frat boy etc. Hardly withering criticism, pretty average for a sitting pres. The point of my post was that the shrillness of the Clinton years went way beyond "I think that guy's a dope".



    --Newt asking his wife for a divorce. This was brought up as a direct response to the "moraler than thou" posturing of the get Clinton gang. I never saw it mentioned in any other context.



    --Bork smoking pot, Clarence Thomas. Judicial nomination fights. I'm not arguing that Democrats can't be partisan, I'm arguing that the Clinton years represented a massive escalation of truly visicous rhetoric.



    Bush twins drinking-- eye rolling at the daughters of the moralizer-in-chief being caught trying to buy prescription drugs and alchohol illegally= calling an 11 year old girl ugly on a nationally syndicated radio show? This is my point in a nutshell. On this issue to even approximate parity between the Clinton loathing and now it would require two or three liberal talk shows to specualte that the only way the Bush twins could ever get laid would be if they passed out and got raped by pro life activists and suggesting that might not be a bad idea as it could be the best thing that ever happended to them.



    Do you get it? Pointing out hypocrisy is fair game for anybody. Ditto complaining about the perception of poor performance, or the great American pastime of kvetching about those in power. Finding examples of these will always be easy.



    What happened during Clinton's tenure was an order of magnitude worse. It involved a palpable sense that someone should simply kill him and his family, slowly if possible. That he (and his family) somehow represented somethiing so fundamentally loathsome that all normative standards of decorum and respect for the office no longer applied. Very simular to the rage directed at a child molester. Not part of the human family.



    And those liberals call Bush a frat boy! I guess we're all in this together, right?




    Right hypocracy is fair game. Clinton, defender of the poor, but making da dough from insider trading. Defender of women's rights... right to drop their panties into my El Camino with astroturf in the back. Now of course we can move on to the wife's 8 million dollar advance no buying influence even while being a sitting senator, etc.



    Adda, as honestly as I can put this across, I NEVER heard anyone mention killing Clinton or anything of that nature. I think people enjoyed watching him twist in the wind more than anything. They guy was so smart and slick with his words. He is/was a master politician and somehow managed to stick himself when no one else could.



    The funniest part of all of it, was that he did Monica while being bored from the government shut down that he caused via refusing to sign the spending bills, but managed to get the Republicans blamed for that shut down.



    I mean honestly why would any Republican wish him dead. Between him and Terry the Republicans make nothing but gains. His brand of politics got himself elected, but it hasn't helped his party at all. I bet more Republicans would want him around again to kick rather than having him dead. It is the sort of glee the Dems got out of pointing at Nixon over and over.



    Nick
  • Reply 80 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Yeah. I give up.



    Guess there's no such thing as a dittohead on this board.



    Or at least they're not admitting it. and Rightly so.




    I work as a school teacher. Having the radio on from 9-12 in my room wouldn't go over to well with the parents.



    I will admit to tuning to KFI (the station he is on around here) on holidays, but he always has had a guest host on those days. I actually end up listening to them more because the ones I have heard are Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell who are some very smart gentlemen and favorites of mine.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.