Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
Perhaps the term Reactionary should be used to describe POVs such as the one perpetuated by this thread, and Progressive should be used to describe the opposite ideology (which is usually referred to as "Liberal" with "the L-word" hurled about like an insult).
"Fox News is a Reactionary Mouthpiece"
"John Kerry has the most Progressive voting record in Congress"
Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
Perhaps the term Reactionary should be used to describe POVs such as the one perpetuated by this thread, and Progressive should be used to describe the opposite ideology (which is usually referred to as "Liberal" with "the L-word" hurled about like an insult).
"Fox News is a Reactionary Mouthpiece"
"John Kerry has the most Progressive voting record in Congress"
- yep, I like it, I think I'll stick with it.
Semantics R Fun, ain't they?
There was a great bit from the West Wing a while back on what happened to liberalism in America:
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.'"
President Bush and the his Grand Old Party cabinet:
1. Racist: Yes.
2. Ignorant: Very much so.
3. Stupid: Clearly.
Ignorant / Stupid? Maybe. Up to your individual discretion, but Racist?
Alberto R. Gonzalez, White House Counsel
Colin Powell, Secretary of State and
Condoleezza Rice, National-Security Adviser
Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Rod Paige, Secretary of Education
Mel Martinez, then Alphonso Jackson as Sec's of HUD
EIGHT members of minority groups in major cabinet-level positions?
Peddle that BS stereotype somewhere else.
It is utter and complete crap. Ad-hom attacks are SOOO 1988.
Democrats need a new playbook besides "Republicans are racists"
That lie sure isn't working among Hispanics, who are polling way ahead of 2000 election year numbers for Republicans and Bush. Remember, it was the Dixiecrats who faught the CRM, and a Republican wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.
Please point me to some hard evidence that Bush is a racist. I need some fodder for the water cooler. 8)
1. It isn't necessary for me to read all your previous posts to respond to this particular one. That's not only irrational, but also just plain silly.
2. Maybe you don't identify yourself as "conservative", however you used the word "liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought. It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking. There are a lot of things that came to mind when I looked at that cartoon, but name calling was not one of them. Obvisously you are educated enough to know that you are merely trying to stir people up with the way you phrase things, so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t. If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
Care to address the thread instead of addressing me with backhanded personal attacks.
Go look at the guys site. He calls himself that. It is his description of himself.
Maybe you should look at the section of his website where he has items for sale.
The first item you would see is this...
Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back from the Right
Political Manifesto (All prose, no cartoons), 2004
"liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought.-Hence my opinion of the comic has no thought, it is just supposed name calling.
It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking.-Hence I am dumb.
so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t-Hence I shouldn't respond when people like you substitute personal attacks for discussion.
give them a rational argument/thought-Hence my thoughts are irrational.
I'm doing this to show the mods how people you are filling your invectives with attacks on me instead of discussing the topic.
Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
Perhaps the term Reactionary should be used to describe POVs such as the one perpetuated by this thread, and Progressive should be used to describe the opposite ideology (which is usually referred to as "Liberal" with "the L-word" hurled about like an insult).
"Fox News is a Reactionary Mouthpiece"
"John Kerry has the most Progressive voting record in Congress"
- yep, I like it, I think I'll stick with it.
Semantics R Fun, ain't they?
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
There was a great bit from the West Wing a while back on what happened to liberalism in America:
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.'"
Cheers
Scott
Neither one of you address that the word liberal is what the author calls himself. You try to cast this as me assigning the label to him for derogatory reasons when that is what he calls himself.
As for reactionary, I suppose it would be an upgrade from racist, stupid and ignorant. Which is obviously what Pat Tillman, buckeye, and likely yourselves think about anyone who doesn't share your exact worldview.
I'll say it again. It's not a personal attack if someone points out that your thread is erroneous.
I don't know who Ted Rall is and I don't care.
I don't think he's calling Tillman racist, ignorant or stupid.
Amazingly enough, you've never pointed out how the thread is erroneous(actually you preferred the word dishonest and lying earlier, both personal attacks). You've just claimed it is over and over. It is a backhanded personal attack because you are seeking to discredit the thread by simply repeating a charge ad-nasueum.
Well, a most interesting development out of the bush admin is that you have colin with little power and condi with near total subservience, while all of the whites have gone on a wacko spree with little resistance.
Quote:
Democrats need a new playbook besides "Republicans are racists"
But then we have this kind of stuff:
Quote:
The highest ranking African-American in the California Republican Party on Tuesday condemned the racism he has endured working for the GOP...
"As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and (Republican National Committee) lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me (to) fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage.
Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
These reactionaries rely on myths for every part of their platform, from "iraqi wmd" to "liberal media." At least we know that the reactionaries can only hold the illusion for so long.
I made it quite clear that it goes beyond what he things because it uses the same tactics some liberals use to discredit conservative thought instead of debate it.
On the rare occasions that a conservative does have an informed thought that is free of bigotry and prejudice, liberals will happily debate the issue. Or at least explain - slowly and carefully, using small words - why the thought is flawed. (Insert big smiley here to show that I don't really think all conservatives are selfish, stupid, prone to a simplistic worldview and scared of anything that is Not Like Us).
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also I didn't demand, I requested. Big difference.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why the hell don't you just address the comic and the hatefulness it puts forth. You've posted three times and not even addressed the content of the comic once.
That doesn't sound like a 'request' to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
And that just comes accross as petulant.
Oh yeah, the Rall cartoon sucks. If you're going to look for the humor in yet another needless death it had better be a good joke.
But don't be some person that pretends to "honor" what Pat Tillman was fighting for while at the same time labeling what he died for a lie and lost cause because the only honor you are paying him and other soldiers is lip service.
Ahhhh...I see what you're getting at. You're scrambling around for another way to imply that anyone who is opposed to the war in Iraq must hate all American soldiers and want them to suffer and die.
Neither one of you address that the word liberal is what the author calls himself. You try to cast this as me assigning the label to him for derogatory reasons when that is what he calls himself.
I don't care if he calls himself Jesus Christ. What he calls himself isn't the issue. What's at issue is your characterization of his politics as somehow representitive of something other than his own politics.
This, again, is a typical Limbaugh tactic:
1) Point out some extremist or whacko who associates himself with liberalism
2) Describe that person as representative of all liberals
3) Talk about maggot infested liberals
4) Somehow bring Bill Clinton into it
Quote:
As for reactionary, I suppose it would be an upgrade from racist, stupid and ignorant.
You're not sure?
Quote:
Which is obviously what Pat Tillman, buckeye, and likely yourselves think about anyone who doesn't share your exact worldview.
Karl Rove would be out of a job if he ever took absurd advice like that!
Would you be less likely to vote for George Bush if you knew that he was high on cocaine when he gave the order to invade Iraq? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he had fathered multiple illegitimate black babies? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he was Satan incarnate?
Ignorant / Stupid? Maybe. Up to your individual discretion, but Racist?
Alberto R. Gonzalez, White House Counsel
Colin Powell, Secretary of State and
Condoleezza Rice, National-Security Adviser
Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Rod Paige, Secretary of Education
Mel Martinez, then Alphonso Jackson as Sec's of HUD
EIGHT members of minority groups in major cabinet-level positions?
Peddle that BS stereotype somewhere else.
It is utter and complete crap. Ad-hom attacks are SOOO 1988.
Democrats need a new playbook besides "Republicans are racists"
That lie sure isn't working among Hispanics, who are polling way ahead of 2000 election year numbers for Republicans and Bush. Remember, it was the Dixiecrats who faught the CRM, and a Republican wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.
Please point me to some hard evidence that Bush is a racist. I need some fodder for the water cooler. 8)
1. I'm not a Democrat.
2. Having a racialy diverse cabinet does not exclude racists from office. It is simply good political strategy.
Comments
Perhaps the term Reactionary should be used to describe POVs such as the one perpetuated by this thread, and Progressive should be used to describe the opposite ideology (which is usually referred to as "Liberal" with "the L-word" hurled about like an insult).
"Fox News is a Reactionary Mouthpiece"
"John Kerry has the most Progressive voting record in Congress"
- yep, I like it, I think I'll stick with it.
Semantics R Fun, ain't they?
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
Perhaps the term Reactionary should be used to describe POVs such as the one perpetuated by this thread, and Progressive should be used to describe the opposite ideology (which is usually referred to as "Liberal" with "the L-word" hurled about like an insult).
"Fox News is a Reactionary Mouthpiece"
"John Kerry has the most Progressive voting record in Congress"
- yep, I like it, I think I'll stick with it.
Semantics R Fun, ain't they?
There was a great bit from the West Wing a while back on what happened to liberalism in America:
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.'"
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by buckeye
President Bush and the his Grand Old Party cabinet:
1. Racist: Yes.
2. Ignorant: Very much so.
3. Stupid: Clearly.
Ignorant / Stupid? Maybe. Up to your individual discretion, but Racist?
Alberto R. Gonzalez, White House Counsel
Colin Powell, Secretary of State and
Condoleezza Rice, National-Security Adviser
Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Rod Paige, Secretary of Education
Mel Martinez, then Alphonso Jackson as Sec's of HUD
EIGHT members of minority groups in major cabinet-level positions?
Peddle that BS stereotype somewhere else.
It is utter and complete crap. Ad-hom attacks are SOOO 1988.
Democrats need a new playbook besides "Republicans are racists"
That lie sure isn't working among Hispanics, who are polling way ahead of 2000 election year numbers for Republicans and Bush. Remember, it was the Dixiecrats who faught the CRM, and a Republican wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.
Please point me to some hard evidence that Bush is a racist. I need some fodder for the water cooler. 8)
Originally posted by trumptman
Are you saying that Ted Rall isn't a liberal? Are you saying that his isn't calling Tillman racist, ignorant and stupid?
Prove your point or stop your personal attack.
Nick
I'll say it again. It's not a personal attack if someone points out that your thread is erroneous.
I don't know who Ted Rall is and I don't care.
I don't think he's calling Tillman racist, ignorant or stupid.
Originally posted by buckeye
1. It isn't necessary for me to read all your previous posts to respond to this particular one. That's not only irrational, but also just plain silly.
2. Maybe you don't identify yourself as "conservative", however you used the word "liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought. It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking. There are a lot of things that came to mind when I looked at that cartoon, but name calling was not one of them. Obvisously you are educated enough to know that you are merely trying to stir people up with the way you phrase things, so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t. If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
Care to address the thread instead of addressing me with backhanded personal attacks.
Go look at the guys site. He calls himself that. It is his description of himself.
Maybe you should look at the section of his website where he has items for sale.
The first item you would see is this...
Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back from the Right
Political Manifesto (All prose, no cartoons), 2004
Soft Skull Press Paperback, 6"x9", 260 pp., $14.95
Written by Ted Rall.
Now for the backhanded personal attacks...
"liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought.-Hence my opinion of the comic has no thought, it is just supposed name calling.
It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking.-Hence I am dumb.
so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t-Hence I shouldn't respond when people like you substitute personal attacks for discussion.
give them a rational argument/thought-Hence my thoughts are irrational.
I'm doing this to show the mods how people you are filling your invectives with attacks on me instead of discussing the topic.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Very well said.
You can applaud name calling substituting for discussion all you want. The reality is he is attacking me instead of discussing the thread.
Nick
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
Perhaps the term Reactionary should be used to describe POVs such as the one perpetuated by this thread, and Progressive should be used to describe the opposite ideology (which is usually referred to as "Liberal" with "the L-word" hurled about like an insult).
"Fox News is a Reactionary Mouthpiece"
"John Kerry has the most Progressive voting record in Congress"
- yep, I like it, I think I'll stick with it.
Semantics R Fun, ain't they?
Originally posted by midwinter
There was a great bit from the West Wing a while back on what happened to liberalism in America:
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.'"
Cheers
Scott
Neither one of you address that the word liberal is what the author calls himself. You try to cast this as me assigning the label to him for derogatory reasons when that is what he calls himself.
As for reactionary, I suppose it would be an upgrade from racist, stupid and ignorant. Which is obviously what Pat Tillman, buckeye, and likely yourselves think about anyone who doesn't share your exact worldview.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I'll say it again. It's not a personal attack if someone points out that your thread is erroneous.
I don't know who Ted Rall is and I don't care.
I don't think he's calling Tillman racist, ignorant or stupid.
Amazingly enough, you've never pointed out how the thread is erroneous(actually you preferred the word dishonest and lying earlier, both personal attacks). You've just claimed it is over and over. It is a backhanded personal attack because you are seeking to discredit the thread by simply repeating a charge ad-nasueum.
So substanciate the charge, or stop repeating it.
Nick
Originally posted by buckeye
If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
*ahem*
Originally posted by Eugene
Thanks for demonstrating the higher standard.
And your point?
Originally posted by trumptman
I just love it when I am right.
Then life must really suck for you right now.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Colin Powell, Secretary of State and
Condoleezza Rice, National-Security Adviser
Well, a most interesting development out of the bush admin is that you have colin with little power and condi with near total subservience, while all of the whites have gone on a wacko spree with little resistance.
Democrats need a new playbook besides "Republicans are racists"
But then we have this kind of stuff:
The highest ranking African-American in the California Republican Party on Tuesday condemned the racism he has endured working for the GOP...
"As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and (Republican National Committee) lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me (to) fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ws/4898492.htm
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Conservative? I think that Reactionary would be more accurate.
These reactionaries rely on myths for every part of their platform, from "iraqi wmd" to "liberal media." At least we know that the reactionaries can only hold the illusion for so long.
Originally posted by trumptman
I made it quite clear that it goes beyond what he things because it uses the same tactics some liberals use to discredit conservative thought instead of debate it.
On the rare occasions that a conservative does have an informed thought that is free of bigotry and prejudice, liberals will happily debate the issue. Or at least explain - slowly and carefully, using small words - why the thought is flawed. (Insert big smiley here to show that I don't really think all conservatives are selfish, stupid, prone to a simplistic worldview and scared of anything that is Not Like Us).
Originally posted by trumptman
Also I didn't demand, I requested. Big difference.
Originally posted by trumptman
Why the hell don't you just address the comic and the hatefulness it puts forth. You've posted three times and not even addressed the content of the comic once.
That doesn't sound like a 'request' to me.
Originally posted by trumptman
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
And that just comes accross as petulant.
Oh yeah, the Rall cartoon sucks. If you're going to look for the humor in yet another needless death it had better be a good joke.
Originally posted by trumptman
But don't be some person that pretends to "honor" what Pat Tillman was fighting for while at the same time labeling what he died for a lie and lost cause because the only honor you are paying him and other soldiers is lip service.
Ahhhh...I see what you're getting at. You're scrambling around for another way to imply that anyone who is opposed to the war in Iraq must hate all American soldiers and want them to suffer and die.
Sorry. World's just not that simple.
Originally posted by trumptman
Neither one of you address that the word liberal is what the author calls himself. You try to cast this as me assigning the label to him for derogatory reasons when that is what he calls himself.
I don't care if he calls himself Jesus Christ. What he calls himself isn't the issue. What's at issue is your characterization of his politics as somehow representitive of something other than his own politics.
This, again, is a typical Limbaugh tactic:
1) Point out some extremist or whacko who associates himself with liberalism
2) Describe that person as representative of all liberals
3) Talk about maggot infested liberals
4) Somehow bring Bill Clinton into it
As for reactionary, I suppose it would be an upgrade from racist, stupid and ignorant.
You're not sure?
Which is obviously what Pat Tillman, buckeye, and likely yourselves think about anyone who doesn't share your exact worldview.
Bite me.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
So substanciate the charge, or stop repeating it.
Karl Rove would be out of a job if he ever took absurd advice like that!
Originally posted by shetline
Karl Rove would be out of a job if he ever took absurd advice like that!
Would you be less likely to vote for George Bush if you knew that he was high on cocaine when he gave the order to invade Iraq? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he had fathered multiple illegitimate black babies? Would you be less likely to vote for him if you knew that he was Satan incarnate?
Ahh Rove. King of the push polls.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Ignorant / Stupid? Maybe. Up to your individual discretion, but Racist?
Alberto R. Gonzalez, White House Counsel
Colin Powell, Secretary of State and
Condoleezza Rice, National-Security Adviser
Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Rod Paige, Secretary of Education
Mel Martinez, then Alphonso Jackson as Sec's of HUD
EIGHT members of minority groups in major cabinet-level positions?
Peddle that BS stereotype somewhere else.
It is utter and complete crap. Ad-hom attacks are SOOO 1988.
Democrats need a new playbook besides "Republicans are racists"
That lie sure isn't working among Hispanics, who are polling way ahead of 2000 election year numbers for Republicans and Bush. Remember, it was the Dixiecrats who faught the CRM, and a Republican wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.
Please point me to some hard evidence that Bush is a racist. I need some fodder for the water cooler. 8)
1. I'm not a Democrat.
2. Having a racialy diverse cabinet does not exclude racists from office. It is simply good political strategy.
Originally posted by buckeye
1. I'm not a Democrat.
2. Having a racialy diverse cabinet does not exclude racists from office. It is simply good political strategy.
Heh. He can't be a racist! He's got good friends who are black!
Originally posted by Jubelum
I need some fodder for the water cooler. 8)
Is that where you get together with your peers and go over your 'talking points'?