All that shows is the hypocrisy. Or round about thinking of the Republican party leadership.
It's a distillation. The essence of the argument.
No one said anyone was a traitor... or anti-semetic... unamerican or unpatriotic... or sick or perverse...
I would love for the Islamic community to demand prayer in schools for their children... just to see the hypocricy of the christian right. Then the argument would be "this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs... not false gods".
All that shows is the hypocrisy. Or round about thinking of the Republican party leadership.
It's a distillation. The essence of the argument.
No one said anyone was a traitor... or anti-semetic... unamerican or unpatriotic... or sick or perverse...
I would love for the Islamic community to demand prayer in schools for their children... just to see the hypocricy of the christian right. Then the argument would be "this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs... not false gods".
First I've seldom heard school prayer advocates claim that the children have to pray to a particular god or even practice a particular religion.
And again the double standard shows. Coulter does it and calls it paraphrasing, you call it distillation. I call it hateful sterotyping. Franken calls the practioners of it liars, but only if they are on the right.
Ann Coulter MAKES SH!T UP! She'll take a quote out of context to make her "paraphrased point".
Actually I do agree that a couple of those things on the list go a little over the line. But the Republican party is beholden to the Christian Right... and they say PLENTY that's over the line.
Bush stated that he wanted to use force to enforce UN sanctions... but then ignored the UN when it would not support his rush to use force.
The republican party and the adminstration takes these positions ALL the time.
Ann Coulter MAKES SH!T UP! She'll take a quote out of context to make her "paraphrased point".
Actually I do agree that a couple of those things on the list go a little over the line. But the Republican party is beholden to the Christian Right... and they say PLENTY that's over the line.
Bush stated that he wanted to use force to enforce UN sanctions... but then ignored the UN when it would not support his rush to use force.
The republican party and the adminstration takes these positions ALL the time.
You get funnier by the second. That entire list is "made up shit." It isn't backed by a single fact, bit or research, statistic or anything else.
I suppose saying that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton is what... a quote taken out of context to make a point? It is 100% hateful bullshit.
You get funnier by the second. That entire list is "made up shit." It isn't backed by a single fact, bit or research, statistic or anything else.
I suppose saying that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton is what... a quote taken out of context to make a point? It is 100% hateful bullshit.
Nick
Sure, the statement (joke) is a bit harsh. But, to liberals, the essence of the joke, we believe, is fundamentally true. Aren't Republicans particularly disgusted with Hillary Clinton? Doesn't the republican party unilaterally fight against gay rights? Do they hate AIDS victims? Now that AIDS is no longer a sinners disease, probably not.
Do we believe ALL Republicans feels this way? No. But, your elected leader's actions and statements in Congress/White House say otherwise. Bush, on the white house lawn, spoke clearly into a microphone, in front of the entire press corps, and said that he doesn't agree with the supreme court's decision to overturn the Texas gay sex ban. Bush said, "And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other." Codify that? He basically admitted that he was ready to callously discriminate against 10% (approx) of his own population by enacting laws against them. Wow! To me, that's particularly hateful. To me, that's the president using his religious ideology and the white house to further his personal crusade against secularism.
Sure, the statement (joke) is a bit harsh. But, to liberals, the essence of the joke, we believe, is fundamentally true. Aren't Republicans particularly disgusted with Hillary Clinton? Doesn't the republican party unilaterally fight against gay rights? Do they hate AIDS victims? Now that AIDS is no longer a sinners disease, probably not.
Do we believe ALL Republicans feels this way? No. But, your elected leader's actions and statements in Congress/White House say otherwise. Bush, on the white house lawn, spoke clearly into a microphone, in front of the entire press corps, and said that he doesn't agree with the supreme court's decision to overturn the Texas gay sex ban. Bush said, "And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other." Codify that? He basically admitted that he was ready to callously discriminate against 10% (approx) of his own population by enacting laws against them. Wow! To me, that's particularly hateful. To me, that's the president using his religious ideology and the white house to further his personal crusade against secularism.
You are astonishing. You basically equate policy disagreement to equal hate and then wonder why Democrats disagreeing with Bush about Iraq can be portrayed as hate speech.
You add the pot, the water and the fire, then sit in it and are astonished to wonder why the hell it is getting hot in here.
I don?t think that Republican?s are any more disgusted with Hillary Clinton then say how disgusted Democrats were with say Newt Gingrich. Of course I don?t recall a major news magazine creating a cartoon portraying her as the Grinch. Likewise I don?t recall any magazine portraying her with a black eye as we can witness this week with Bush and Time magazine.
Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is not a hateful position. Nor is believing that should be codified into law. It happens to be the position of over half the Democratic candidates. I suppose since they don?t support homosexual marriage it is okay for me to claim they hate homosexuals and declare that they must want them all to die from AIDS/HIV.
The issues with the Texas case have been gone over a million times. It is clear it was possible to throw out the baby with the bath water on that decision and they choose to do so. They could have simply ruled on the equal protection clause. Instead they ruled on the privacy clause which is much broader and could allow legal challenges to other sexual acts which are still not socially acceptable even to very broad-minded people.
I guess since the Democrats didn?t suppose the AARP endorsed prescription drug plan so they must ?hate? seniors. Of coure seniors are at least as much of the population as you claim the homosexual population to be so they must be really hateful people.
Of course that isn?t true. I?m sure there will be half a dozen links posted to someone about why the Bush policy is bad. However the point remains, disagreeing on a policy or program doesn?t mean you hate that group. Democrats continue to pull out the ?hate? card whenever there is a policy disagreement. So they shouldn't complain if the reasoning is reversed back onto them because reasoning isn?t a one way street.
I don?t think that Republican?s are any more disgusted with Hillary Clinton then say how disgusted Democrats were with say Newt Gingrich. Of course I don?t recall a major news magazine creating a cartoon portraying her as the Grinch. Likewise I don?t recall any magazine portraying her with a black eye as we can witness this week with Bush and Time magazine.
Funny that you choose to look past the bright red lipstick on the other side of his face and only at the black eye. Curious. Because the picture instantly evokes the idea of "love him/hate him", nothing more, nothing less.
Do I really need to search for disparaging caricatures of Hillary? No doubt they are in complete abundance.
Quote:
Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is not a hateful position. Nor is believing that should be codified into law. It happens to be the position of over half the Democratic candidates. I suppose since they don?t support homosexual marriage it is okay for me to claim they hate homosexuals and declare that they must want them all to die from AIDS/HIV.
How's the pot of water feeling? Warm?
I disagree with with both Republicans and Democrats and I fully support gay marriage. However, settling on civil unions is a fine compromise for me. Enacting LAWS based on religious ideology is wrong. We can argue forever on this, but nothing will change my opinion. I'm sorry, but believing that it should be codified is discriminatory (and yes, discrimination is a form of hatred). Period.
Quote:
I guess since the Democrats didn?t suppose the AARP endorsed prescription drug plan so they must ?hate? seniors. Of coure seniors are at least as much of the population as you claim the homosexual population to be so they must be really hateful people.
How's the pot of water feeling now? Hot?
Quote:
Of course that isn?t true. I?m sure there will be half a dozen links posted to someone about why the Bush policy is bad. However the point remains, disagreeing on a policy or program doesn?t mean you hate that group. Democrats continue to pull out the ?hate? card whenever there is a policy disagreement. So they shouldn't complain if the reasoning is reversed back onto them because reasoning isn?t a one way street.
You might want to get out of that pot before you get scalded.
Your argument is terribly flawed and I doubt very much you would allow anyone else to make such flagrant comparisons. Comparing support for perscription drugs and writing laws against a minority group ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
In the end, I was simply trying to explain why liberals might find that "joke" pertinent. Funny even. Instead, you choose to paint me as hell-bent on setting up straw men when I did nothing of the sort. Typically, you choose not to understand why we would find it funny.
Do I really need to search for disparaging caricatures of Hillary? No doubt they are in complete abundance.
I very doubt you'd be able to find any. Everyone knows that Senator Clinton was treated with nothing but the utmost respect by conservatives while she served the nation as First Lady. She was never vilified or targeted specifically by anyone at all, and was even still, just as during her time in the White House, everyone felt for her a deep and soundly reasoned affection. We can see this profound respect for her most clearly in the way that she, like her husband (former President Clinton) is always referred to using either her full title (Senator Clinton) or the slightly more informal last-name reference of "Clinton."
Funny that you choose to look past the bright red lipstick on the other side of his face and only at the black eye. Curious. Because the picture instantly evokes the idea of "love him/hate him", nothing more, nothing less.
Do I really need to search for disparaging caricatures of Hillary? No doubt they are in complete abundance.
Yes and of course the caricatures of Hillary were called "The Politics of Personal Destruction Destruction."which of course no one would claim is an attempt to chill discussion or dissention.
Quote:
How's the pot of water feeling? Warm?
I disagree with with both Republicans and Democrats and I fully support gay marriage. However, settling on civil unions is a fine compromise for me. Enacting LAWS based on religious ideology is wrong. We can argue forever on this, but nothing will change my opinion. I'm sorry, but believing that it should be codified is discriminatory (and yes, discrimination is a form of hatred). Period.
So by your own reasoning then you admit that both Republicans and Democrats are hateful and discriminatory. At least your brush is broad. As for why that should make the water warm for me, I've stated I support civil unions and likewise last polls I read showed the support of marriage issue at no more than 40% of the populace. I wouldn't call that hot or even warm water.
I'm not going to argue against your opinion about it being hatred since you've painted your view so broad it likely means that about 75% of the population is hateful and discriminatory. Last poll I read on homosexual marriage had 75% against in the Republican party and about 53% against it in the Democratic Party.
Quote:
You might want to get out of that pot before you get scalded.
Your argument is terribly flawed and I doubt very much you would allow anyone else to make such flagrant comparisons. Comparing support for perscription drugs and writing laws against a minority group ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
In the end, I was simply trying to explain why liberals might find that "joke" pertinent. Funny even. Instead, you choose to paint me as hell-bent on setting up straw men when I did nothing of the sort. Typically, you choose not to understand why we would find it funny.
It's your own view that is limited and flawed. Do you deny it is possible to discriminate against someone because of their age? As for comparing the two you have shown the reasoning yourself, lack of support = hate. The Republicans haven't written laws that address homosexuals specifically. The fallout from the laws just hits them disproportionately. Don't try to get around the issue.
Codifying marriage for example doesn't say, "We hate homosexuals and won't allow them to marry," or even "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so." It would just say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Likewise the law doesn't say, "We hate old people and their need for prescription drugs so they should just wander off and die." However lack of support would imply that for those that use the hate card, much how you imply it by those who codify it regarding marriage.
As for whether I found it funny. I could understadn why a Klan member might think a joke about black people is funny. That doesn't mean I don't consider the joke hateful and unfunny myself. Likewise when say a Rush Limbaugh calls feminists, femi-nazi's he is portrayed by liberals as hateful and bigoted for his jokes. As I said the reasoning isn't a one way street. If reducing a group to a misleading stereotype is hateful for feminists, it is hateful for Christians as well.
So far Bush has only run one political ad and the Democrats have condemned it in the most shrill language and asked for it to not be run. How is that anything but attempting to short circuit critique?
?Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.?
Tell me how that's not attempting to "short circuit critique." And you have to ask why.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The language of calling others hateful has been with the Democrats for a long time. The associations are often unfounded and conspiratorial. The fact that Republicans are hitting back in that manner just means they are adopting the tools of their enemies.
Is the English language not in common use between Democrats and Republicans? Jeez, I didn't think the parties were that different.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I remember not too long ago that there was a debate on AO about a DNC flash ad that was running on the DNC website. It showed Bush pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off a cliff basically to her death. This type of stuff has been dragged out over and over. A tax cut = kill the poor, the elderly, etc. In the last election the NAACP ran ads associating Bush with the dragging death of a black man. How are those anything but claims of hate leveled against Republicans? Are they seriously not supposed to reply in kind?
What's a "claim of hate?"
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Democrats use a very shrill tone while claiming that they would have performed perfectly. I don?t think it is going to continue to be effective for them. Likewise it is going to be very hard to make claims of censorship and limiting speech when they have made those claims already from the very first Bush ad.
Performed perfectly? Is that the claim, now?
?Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.?
?Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.?
Tell me how that's not attempting to "short circuit critique." And you have to ask why.
[/i]
Tis' Shawn the parsemaster.
I'll tell you what instead of asking questions why don't you answer some for a change. How is referring to "some" meant to chill discussion? It doesn't claim the attackers are supporting the terrorists or any other such thing. The ad even makes clear that Bush supported preemptive defense which is the actual crux of the criticism.
Proving a negative is almost impossible in this case. "Prove it is not short circuiting critiques" How would I even do that? Why don't you prove that it did stop the critiques. Show how the Democrats have suddenly shut up and are no longer talking about Iraq.
Only Democrats (and Shawn) could claim that stating your position is now an attempt to stifle discussion.
I'll tell you what instead of asking questions why don't you answer some for a change. How is referring to "some" meant to chill discussion? It doesn't claim the attackers are supporting the terrorists or any other such thing. The ad even makes clear that Bush supported preemptive defense which is the actual crux of the criticism.
Proving a negative is almost impossible in this case. "Prove it is not short circuiting critiques" How would I even do that? Why don't you prove that it did stop the critiques. Show how the Democrats have suddenly shut up and are no longer talking about Iraq.
Only Democrats (and Shawn) could claim that stating your position is now an attempt to stifle discussion.
Nick
Well, I'll gladly explain it to you:
Implicit in the statement ?some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists? is the notion that criticism of the President lends support to terrorists. Now let's be honest. Is that the position of Democrats? Democrats have criticized the president on almost everything he has done- including not attacking terrorists enough. Josh Marshall has said that pretty much no Democrat anywhere takes the position stated in the ad. So the question becomes just what on earth the statement refers to....and the answer is criticism of the President in other areas. So tell me: how isn't that an attempt to stifle dissent- something on which the President has an extensive record.
?Some are now attacking the Democrats for attacking the right-wing extremists.?
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinney
Some are now attacking the Democrats for attacking those who oppose quality health-care for all Americans.
Eww... better pull those ads Chinney, you are "implying" that someone has a position...scary stuff... they might... it might ...be "implied" that they might no longer state their position due to your ad.
Of course if you can't prove that it "doesn't" attempt to stifle discussion, then you are an evil, bad human being.
Implicit in the statement ?some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists? is the notion that criticism of the President lends support to terrorists. Now let's be honest. Is that the position of Democrats? Democrats have criticized the president on almost everything he has done- including not attacking terrorists enough. Josh Marshall has said that pretty much no Democrat anywhere takes the position stated in the ad. So the question becomes just what on earth the statement refers to....and the answer is criticism of the President in other areas. So tell me: how isn't that an attempt to stifle dissent- something on which the President has an extensive record.
Spitting on the mirror again???
Thanks for arguing with yourself. You say, "Hey everyone is criticizing Bush on almost everything concerning Iraq. One guy says no Democrats take this position, so the ad can't possibly refer to them. So the "some" in the ad isn't about Democrats and now all the Democrats will shut up about the President. It is stopping criticism....stifling dissent.
I suppose that might make sense to someone... somewhere...
Associating someone with a position that isn't theirs will stop them from stating their position. That is what you have said.
If anything I would think it would cause someone to restate their position yet again to make it clear that their position has been misconstrued.
Likewise I asked for proof of anyone who has been silenced by this ad. The proof is... (crickets chirping)
There is not a single Democrat that has stopped criticism of Bush from this ad. According to Josh Marshall it isn't even their position so how could the "some" be them? Because you imply it is.
Thanks for arguing with yourself. You say, "Hey everyone is criticizing Bush on almost everything concerning Iraq. One guy says no Democrats take this position, so the ad can't possibly refer to them. So the "some" in the ad isn't about Democrats and now all the Democrats will shut up about the President. It is stopping criticism....stifling dissent.
I suppose that might make sense to someone... somewhere...
That isn't what I said.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Associating someone with a position that isn't theirs will stop them from stating their position. That is what you have said.
No, you're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If anything I would think it would cause someone to restate their position yet again to make it clear that their position has been misconstrued.
I agree. Democrats should speak out against being portrayed as soft-on-terrorism or supporters of terrorism. Oh wait, then they'd be called "shrill."
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise I asked for proof of anyone who has been silenced by this ad. The proof is... (crickets chirping)
There is not a single Democrat that has stopped criticism of Bush from this ad. According to Josh Marshall it isn't even their position so how could the "some" be them? Because you imply it is.
The ad is probably ineffective. But it does convey the idea that criticism of the president relates to support of terrorists. Is that a statement our President and his party should make- that criticism is bad?
The ad is probably ineffective. But it does convey the idea that criticism of the president relates to support of terrorists. Is that a statement our President and his party should make- that criticism is bad?
I'll tell you what Shawn. You post a link to the Democratic ads that show the President in a good light, that talk about Bush but don't criticize him or that say that Republican criticism of Democrats is a good thing.
You are a funny, funny boy. Now wipe the spit off the mirror.
Quote:
No, you're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
Generally speaking?? Of course the exception is anytime a Republican is advertising I suppose. You state that there is no relationship, oh except when the ad is from Bush.
Still waiting on that proof that Bush somehow silenced Democrats.... still waiting...how many Democrats are afraid to speak up? Hmmmm.... How many presidential candidates on the Democratic side will no longer address Bush on Iraq? Hmmmm....
The assertion is that Bush is stopping criticism. Please feel free to prove it any time you care to do so.
I'll tell you what Shawn. You post a link to the Democratic ads that show the President in a good light, that talk about Bush but don't criticize him or that say that Republican criticism of Democrats is a good thing.
You are a funny, funny boy. Now wipe the spit off the mirror.
Strawman. That's not what I said about the Bush ad in question.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Generally speaking?? Of course the exception is anytime a Republican is advertising I suppose. You state that there is no relationship, oh except when the ad is from Bush.
You're generalizing again. The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Still waiting on that proof that Bush somehow silenced Democrats.... still waiting...how many Democrats are afraid to speak up? Hmmmm.... How many presidential candidates on the Democratic side will no longer address Bush on Iraq? Hmmmm....
The assertion is that Bush is stopping criticism. Please feel free to prove it any time you care to do so.
Interesting. I argued the opposite- that the ad is ineffective in stopping criticism. However, it certainly is an attempt to.
Strawman. That's not what I said about the Bush ad in question.
I disagree, you said "Is that a statement our President and his party should make- that criticism is bad?"
Quote:
You're generalizing again. The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
I would be generalizing except for one fact. Bush has only run one ad. If he has only run one, and one is criticized, then that isn't taking the exception and applying it as the rule.
Quote:
Interesting. I argued the opposite- that the ad is ineffective in stopping criticism. However, it certainly is an attempt to. [/B]
I'll let others attempt to sort out the twisted reasoning you display there. An ineffective attempt to stop criticism for a position no Democrat has while referred to as "some" is bad for Democracy?
Chase that tail... chase that tail...
Nick
P.S. Eww... I used "others." Obviously that is code for... I don't know...but I'm sure the people who don't have the position it refers to will be properly chilled in their attempts to criticize it.... HAHAHAHAHA
Comments
It's a distillation. The essence of the argument.
No one said anyone was a traitor... or anti-semetic... unamerican or unpatriotic... or sick or perverse...
I would love for the Islamic community to demand prayer in schools for their children... just to see the hypocricy of the christian right. Then the argument would be "this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs... not false gods".
Originally posted by chu_bakka
All that shows is the hypocrisy. Or round about thinking of the Republican party leadership.
It's a distillation. The essence of the argument.
No one said anyone was a traitor... or anti-semetic... unamerican or unpatriotic... or sick or perverse...
I would love for the Islamic community to demand prayer in schools for their children... just to see the hypocricy of the christian right. Then the argument would be "this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs... not false gods".
First I've seldom heard school prayer advocates claim that the children have to pray to a particular god or even practice a particular religion.
And again the double standard shows. Coulter does it and calls it paraphrasing, you call it distillation. I call it hateful sterotyping. Franken calls the practioners of it liars, but only if they are on the right.
Nick
Actually I do agree that a couple of those things on the list go a little over the line. But the Republican party is beholden to the Christian Right... and they say PLENTY that's over the line.
Bush stated that he wanted to use force to enforce UN sanctions... but then ignored the UN when it would not support his rush to use force.
The republican party and the adminstration takes these positions ALL the time.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ann Coulter MAKES SH!T UP! She'll take a quote out of context to make her "paraphrased point".
Actually I do agree that a couple of those things on the list go a little over the line. But the Republican party is beholden to the Christian Right... and they say PLENTY that's over the line.
Bush stated that he wanted to use force to enforce UN sanctions... but then ignored the UN when it would not support his rush to use force.
The republican party and the adminstration takes these positions ALL the time.
You get funnier by the second. That entire list is "made up shit." It isn't backed by a single fact, bit or research, statistic or anything else.
I suppose saying that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton is what... a quote taken out of context to make a point? It is 100% hateful bullshit.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You get funnier by the second. That entire list is "made up shit." It isn't backed by a single fact, bit or research, statistic or anything else.
I suppose saying that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton is what... a quote taken out of context to make a point? It is 100% hateful bullshit.
Nick
Sure, the statement (joke) is a bit harsh. But, to liberals, the essence of the joke, we believe, is fundamentally true. Aren't Republicans particularly disgusted with Hillary Clinton? Doesn't the republican party unilaterally fight against gay rights? Do they hate AIDS victims? Now that AIDS is no longer a sinners disease, probably not.
Do we believe ALL Republicans feels this way? No. But, your elected leader's actions and statements in Congress/White House say otherwise. Bush, on the white house lawn, spoke clearly into a microphone, in front of the entire press corps, and said that he doesn't agree with the supreme court's decision to overturn the Texas gay sex ban. Bush said, "And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other." Codify that? He basically admitted that he was ready to callously discriminate against 10% (approx) of his own population by enacting laws against them. Wow! To me, that's particularly hateful. To me, that's the president using his religious ideology and the white house to further his personal crusade against secularism.
Originally posted by Northgate
Sure, the statement (joke) is a bit harsh. But, to liberals, the essence of the joke, we believe, is fundamentally true. Aren't Republicans particularly disgusted with Hillary Clinton? Doesn't the republican party unilaterally fight against gay rights? Do they hate AIDS victims? Now that AIDS is no longer a sinners disease, probably not.
Do we believe ALL Republicans feels this way? No. But, your elected leader's actions and statements in Congress/White House say otherwise. Bush, on the white house lawn, spoke clearly into a microphone, in front of the entire press corps, and said that he doesn't agree with the supreme court's decision to overturn the Texas gay sex ban. Bush said, "And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other." Codify that? He basically admitted that he was ready to callously discriminate against 10% (approx) of his own population by enacting laws against them. Wow! To me, that's particularly hateful. To me, that's the president using his religious ideology and the white house to further his personal crusade against secularism.
You are astonishing. You basically equate policy disagreement to equal hate and then wonder why Democrats disagreeing with Bush about Iraq can be portrayed as hate speech.
You add the pot, the water and the fire, then sit in it and are astonished to wonder why the hell it is getting hot in here.
I don?t think that Republican?s are any more disgusted with Hillary Clinton then say how disgusted Democrats were with say Newt Gingrich. Of course I don?t recall a major news magazine creating a cartoon portraying her as the Grinch. Likewise I don?t recall any magazine portraying her with a black eye as we can witness this week with Bush and Time magazine.
Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is not a hateful position. Nor is believing that should be codified into law. It happens to be the position of over half the Democratic candidates. I suppose since they don?t support homosexual marriage it is okay for me to claim they hate homosexuals and declare that they must want them all to die from AIDS/HIV.
The issues with the Texas case have been gone over a million times. It is clear it was possible to throw out the baby with the bath water on that decision and they choose to do so. They could have simply ruled on the equal protection clause. Instead they ruled on the privacy clause which is much broader and could allow legal challenges to other sexual acts which are still not socially acceptable even to very broad-minded people.
I guess since the Democrats didn?t suppose the AARP endorsed prescription drug plan so they must ?hate? seniors. Of coure seniors are at least as much of the population as you claim the homosexual population to be so they must be really hateful people.
Of course that isn?t true. I?m sure there will be half a dozen links posted to someone about why the Bush policy is bad. However the point remains, disagreeing on a policy or program doesn?t mean you hate that group. Democrats continue to pull out the ?hate? card whenever there is a policy disagreement. So they shouldn't complain if the reasoning is reversed back onto them because reasoning isn?t a one way street.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don?t think that Republican?s are any more disgusted with Hillary Clinton then say how disgusted Democrats were with say Newt Gingrich. Of course I don?t recall a major news magazine creating a cartoon portraying her as the Grinch. Likewise I don?t recall any magazine portraying her with a black eye as we can witness this week with Bush and Time magazine.
Funny that you choose to look past the bright red lipstick on the other side of his face and only at the black eye. Curious. Because the picture instantly evokes the idea of "love him/hate him", nothing more, nothing less.
Do I really need to search for disparaging caricatures of Hillary? No doubt they are in complete abundance.
Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is not a hateful position. Nor is believing that should be codified into law. It happens to be the position of over half the Democratic candidates. I suppose since they don?t support homosexual marriage it is okay for me to claim they hate homosexuals and declare that they must want them all to die from AIDS/HIV.
How's the pot of water feeling? Warm?
I disagree with with both Republicans and Democrats and I fully support gay marriage. However, settling on civil unions is a fine compromise for me. Enacting LAWS based on religious ideology is wrong. We can argue forever on this, but nothing will change my opinion. I'm sorry, but believing that it should be codified is discriminatory (and yes, discrimination is a form of hatred). Period.
I guess since the Democrats didn?t suppose the AARP endorsed prescription drug plan so they must ?hate? seniors. Of coure seniors are at least as much of the population as you claim the homosexual population to be so they must be really hateful people.
How's the pot of water feeling now? Hot?
Of course that isn?t true. I?m sure there will be half a dozen links posted to someone about why the Bush policy is bad. However the point remains, disagreeing on a policy or program doesn?t mean you hate that group. Democrats continue to pull out the ?hate? card whenever there is a policy disagreement. So they shouldn't complain if the reasoning is reversed back onto them because reasoning isn?t a one way street.
You might want to get out of that pot before you get scalded.
Your argument is terribly flawed and I doubt very much you would allow anyone else to make such flagrant comparisons. Comparing support for perscription drugs and writing laws against a minority group ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
In the end, I was simply trying to explain why liberals might find that "joke" pertinent. Funny even. Instead, you choose to paint me as hell-bent on setting up straw men when I did nothing of the sort. Typically, you choose not to understand why we would find it funny.
Originally posted by Northgate
Do I really need to search for disparaging caricatures of Hillary? No doubt they are in complete abundance.
I very doubt you'd be able to find any. Everyone knows that Senator Clinton was treated with nothing but the utmost respect by conservatives while she served the nation as First Lady. She was never vilified or targeted specifically by anyone at all, and was even still, just as during her time in the White House, everyone felt for her a deep and soundly reasoned affection. We can see this profound respect for her most clearly in the way that she, like her husband (former President Clinton) is always referred to using either her full title (Senator Clinton) or the slightly more informal last-name reference of "Clinton."
Oh wait. That was in bizarro world.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Northgate
Funny that you choose to look past the bright red lipstick on the other side of his face and only at the black eye. Curious. Because the picture instantly evokes the idea of "love him/hate him", nothing more, nothing less.
Do I really need to search for disparaging caricatures of Hillary? No doubt they are in complete abundance.
Yes and of course the caricatures of Hillary were called "The Politics of Personal Destruction Destruction."which of course no one would claim is an attempt to chill discussion or dissention.
How's the pot of water feeling? Warm?
I disagree with with both Republicans and Democrats and I fully support gay marriage. However, settling on civil unions is a fine compromise for me. Enacting LAWS based on religious ideology is wrong. We can argue forever on this, but nothing will change my opinion. I'm sorry, but believing that it should be codified is discriminatory (and yes, discrimination is a form of hatred). Period.
So by your own reasoning then you admit that both Republicans and Democrats are hateful and discriminatory. At least your brush is broad. As for why that should make the water warm for me, I've stated I support civil unions and likewise last polls I read showed the support of marriage issue at no more than 40% of the populace. I wouldn't call that hot or even warm water.
I'm not going to argue against your opinion about it being hatred since you've painted your view so broad it likely means that about 75% of the population is hateful and discriminatory. Last poll I read on homosexual marriage had 75% against in the Republican party and about 53% against it in the Democratic Party.
You might want to get out of that pot before you get scalded.
Your argument is terribly flawed and I doubt very much you would allow anyone else to make such flagrant comparisons. Comparing support for perscription drugs and writing laws against a minority group ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
In the end, I was simply trying to explain why liberals might find that "joke" pertinent. Funny even. Instead, you choose to paint me as hell-bent on setting up straw men when I did nothing of the sort. Typically, you choose not to understand why we would find it funny.
It's your own view that is limited and flawed. Do you deny it is possible to discriminate against someone because of their age? As for comparing the two you have shown the reasoning yourself, lack of support = hate. The Republicans haven't written laws that address homosexuals specifically. The fallout from the laws just hits them disproportionately. Don't try to get around the issue.
Codifying marriage for example doesn't say, "We hate homosexuals and won't allow them to marry," or even "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so." It would just say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Likewise the law doesn't say, "We hate old people and their need for prescription drugs so they should just wander off and die." However lack of support would imply that for those that use the hate card, much how you imply it by those who codify it regarding marriage.
As for whether I found it funny. I could understadn why a Klan member might think a joke about black people is funny. That doesn't mean I don't consider the joke hateful and unfunny myself. Likewise when say a Rush Limbaugh calls feminists, femi-nazi's he is portrayed by liberals as hateful and bigoted for his jokes. As I said the reasoning isn't a one way street. If reducing a group to a misleading stereotype is hateful for feminists, it is hateful for Christians as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So far Bush has only run one political ad and the Democrats have condemned it in the most shrill language and asked for it to not be run. How is that anything but attempting to short circuit critique?
?Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.?
Tell me how that's not attempting to "short circuit critique." And you have to ask why.
Originally posted by trumptman
The language of calling others hateful has been with the Democrats for a long time. The associations are often unfounded and conspiratorial. The fact that Republicans are hitting back in that manner just means they are adopting the tools of their enemies.
Is the English language not in common use between Democrats and Republicans? Jeez, I didn't think the parties were that different.
Originally posted by trumptman
I remember not too long ago that there was a debate on AO about a DNC flash ad that was running on the DNC website. It showed Bush pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off a cliff basically to her death. This type of stuff has been dragged out over and over. A tax cut = kill the poor, the elderly, etc. In the last election the NAACP ran ads associating Bush with the dragging death of a black man. How are those anything but claims of hate leveled against Republicans? Are they seriously not supposed to reply in kind?
What's a "claim of hate?"
Originally posted by trumptman
Democrats use a very shrill tone while claiming that they would have performed perfectly. I don?t think it is going to continue to be effective for them. Likewise it is going to be very hard to make claims of censorship and limiting speech when they have made those claims already from the very first Bush ad.
Performed perfectly? Is that the claim, now?
?Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
?Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.?
Tell me how that's not attempting to "short circuit critique." And you have to ask why.
[/i]
Tis' Shawn the parsemaster.
I'll tell you what instead of asking questions why don't you answer some for a change. How is referring to "some" meant to chill discussion? It doesn't claim the attackers are supporting the terrorists or any other such thing. The ad even makes clear that Bush supported preemptive defense which is the actual crux of the criticism.
Proving a negative is almost impossible in this case. "Prove it is not short circuiting critiques" How would I even do that? Why don't you prove that it did stop the critiques. Show how the Democrats have suddenly shut up and are no longer talking about Iraq.
Only Democrats (and Shawn) could claim that stating your position is now an attempt to stifle discussion.
Nick
?Some are now attacking the Democrats for attacking the right-wing extremists.?
Originally posted by trumptman
Tis' Shawn the parsemaster.
I'll tell you what instead of asking questions why don't you answer some for a change. How is referring to "some" meant to chill discussion? It doesn't claim the attackers are supporting the terrorists or any other such thing. The ad even makes clear that Bush supported preemptive defense which is the actual crux of the criticism.
Proving a negative is almost impossible in this case. "Prove it is not short circuiting critiques" How would I even do that? Why don't you prove that it did stop the critiques. Show how the Democrats have suddenly shut up and are no longer talking about Iraq.
Only Democrats (and Shawn) could claim that stating your position is now an attempt to stifle discussion.
Nick
Well, I'll gladly explain it to you:
Implicit in the statement ?some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists? is the notion that criticism of the President lends support to terrorists. Now let's be honest. Is that the position of Democrats? Democrats have criticized the president on almost everything he has done- including not attacking terrorists enough. Josh Marshall has said that pretty much no Democrat anywhere takes the position stated in the ad. So the question becomes just what on earth the statement refers to....and the answer is criticism of the President in other areas. So tell me: how isn't that an attempt to stifle dissent- something on which the President has an extensive record.
Originally posted by Chinney
While we are at it, why not try this one:
?Some are now attacking the Democrats for attacking the right-wing extremists.?
Originally posted by Chinney
Some are now attacking the Democrats for attacking those who oppose quality health-care for all Americans.
Eww... better pull those ads Chinney, you are "implying" that someone has a position...scary stuff... they might... it might ...be "implied" that they might no longer state their position due to your ad.
Of course if you can't prove that it "doesn't" attempt to stifle discussion, then you are an evil, bad human being.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, I'll gladly explain it to you:
Implicit in the statement ?some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists? is the notion that criticism of the President lends support to terrorists. Now let's be honest. Is that the position of Democrats? Democrats have criticized the president on almost everything he has done- including not attacking terrorists enough. Josh Marshall has said that pretty much no Democrat anywhere takes the position stated in the ad. So the question becomes just what on earth the statement refers to....and the answer is criticism of the President in other areas. So tell me: how isn't that an attempt to stifle dissent- something on which the President has an extensive record.
Spitting on the mirror again???
Thanks for arguing with yourself. You say, "Hey everyone is criticizing Bush on almost everything concerning Iraq. One guy says no Democrats take this position, so the ad can't possibly refer to them. So the "some" in the ad isn't about Democrats and now all the Democrats will shut up about the President. It is stopping criticism....stifling dissent.
I suppose that might make sense to someone... somewhere...
Associating someone with a position that isn't theirs will stop them from stating their position. That is what you have said.
If anything I would think it would cause someone to restate their position yet again to make it clear that their position has been misconstrued.
Likewise I asked for proof of anyone who has been silenced by this ad. The proof is... (crickets chirping)
There is not a single Democrat that has stopped criticism of Bush from this ad. According to Josh Marshall it isn't even their position so how could the "some" be them? Because you imply it is.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Spitting on the mirror again???
Thanks for arguing with yourself. You say, "Hey everyone is criticizing Bush on almost everything concerning Iraq. One guy says no Democrats take this position, so the ad can't possibly refer to them. So the "some" in the ad isn't about Democrats and now all the Democrats will shut up about the President. It is stopping criticism....stifling dissent.
I suppose that might make sense to someone... somewhere...
That isn't what I said.
Originally posted by trumptman
Associating someone with a position that isn't theirs will stop them from stating their position. That is what you have said.
No, you're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
Originally posted by trumptman
If anything I would think it would cause someone to restate their position yet again to make it clear that their position has been misconstrued.
I agree. Democrats should speak out against being portrayed as soft-on-terrorism or supporters of terrorism. Oh wait, then they'd be called "shrill."
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise I asked for proof of anyone who has been silenced by this ad. The proof is... (crickets chirping)
There is not a single Democrat that has stopped criticism of Bush from this ad. According to Josh Marshall it isn't even their position so how could the "some" be them? Because you imply it is.
The ad is probably ineffective. But it does convey the idea that criticism of the president relates to support of terrorists. Is that a statement our President and his party should make- that criticism is bad?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The ad is probably ineffective. But it does convey the idea that criticism of the president relates to support of terrorists. Is that a statement our President and his party should make- that criticism is bad?
I'll tell you what Shawn. You post a link to the Democratic ads that show the President in a good light, that talk about Bush but don't criticize him or that say that Republican criticism of Democrats is a good thing.
You are a funny, funny boy. Now wipe the spit off the mirror.
No, you're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
Generally speaking?? Of course the exception is anytime a Republican is advertising I suppose. You state that there is no relationship, oh except when the ad is from Bush.
Still waiting on that proof that Bush somehow silenced Democrats.... still waiting...how many Democrats are afraid to speak up? Hmmmm.... How many presidential candidates on the Democratic side will no longer address Bush on Iraq? Hmmmm....
The assertion is that Bush is stopping criticism. Please feel free to prove it any time you care to do so.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll tell you what Shawn. You post a link to the Democratic ads that show the President in a good light, that talk about Bush but don't criticize him or that say that Republican criticism of Democrats is a good thing.
You are a funny, funny boy. Now wipe the spit off the mirror.
Strawman. That's not what I said about the Bush ad in question.
Originally posted by trumptman
Generally speaking?? Of course the exception is anytime a Republican is advertising I suppose. You state that there is no relationship, oh except when the ad is from Bush.
You're generalizing again. The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
Originally posted by trumptman
Still waiting on that proof that Bush somehow silenced Democrats.... still waiting...how many Democrats are afraid to speak up? Hmmmm.... How many presidential candidates on the Democratic side will no longer address Bush on Iraq? Hmmmm....
The assertion is that Bush is stopping criticism. Please feel free to prove it any time you care to do so.
Interesting. I argued the opposite- that the ad is ineffective in stopping criticism. However, it certainly is an attempt to.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Strawman. That's not what I said about the Bush ad in question.
I disagree, you said "Is that a statement our President and his party should make- that criticism is bad?"
You're generalizing again. The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
I would be generalizing except for one fact. Bush has only run one ad. If he has only run one, and one is criticized, then that isn't taking the exception and applying it as the rule.
Interesting. I argued the opposite- that the ad is ineffective in stopping criticism. However, it certainly is an attempt to. [/B]
I'll let others attempt to sort out the twisted reasoning you display there. An ineffective attempt to stop criticism for a position no Democrat has while referred to as "some" is bad for Democracy?
Chase that tail... chase that tail...
Nick
P.S. Eww... I used "others." Obviously that is code for... I don't know...but I'm sure the people who don't have the position it refers to will be properly chilled in their attempts to criticize it.... HAHAHAHAHA