Oh man, are you saying Bush Jr., Sr., Reagan and others didn't get verbally pasted with childish taunts and accusations by opposition flamethrowers?
10%? Is that some kind of fictitious quota? Pass the slime, please. You hate the right because they're wearing blinders. They hate you because you're so narrow-minded. And here I am hating you both. I'm going to dig up some fake crap on that dead bitch Mother Teresa now.
Oh man, are you saying Bush Jr., Sr., Reagan and others didn't get verbally pasted with childish taunts and accusations by equivalent flamethrowers?
10%? Is that some kind of fictitious quota? Pass the slime, please.
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.
I also don't remember liberal foundations funding hit pieces and slanderous new stories against regaan and bush sr. that where "Scaife" like in quality.
If you know of any accusations against carter,regean, or bush sr. that consistently reached the level of venom and sensationalist accusations that where thrown at clinton then feel free to enlighten us.
All kidding aside. I truly hopes he comes back with an entirely new perspective on those with a drug addiction. Gone are the days that he can lambast them. He could show some real class by spending the first hour talking about what he went thru and how its changed his perpective....for the better...
Actaully, since the the name of this thread is " The psychology of a "dittohead" I would REALLLLLLLYYYY like to hear from ditto people. Imposible as it would be I would love to see a break down of
% of dittos that lost faith in him and stop listening
% of dittos that thought it was wrong and forgave him
% of dittos that somehow justfied it and blamed it on the media
Of course he was/is addicted to prescr. drugs which doesn't have the stigma of say if he were addicted to crack.
I'm paraphrasing what's in the latest al franken book. BTW to those less informed, al franken is nothing like those on hate radio. He points out lies and hypocrisy.
He does not make shite up.
Read his latest book and you will see for yourselves.
Or rest your brain and continue to believe the "liberal media" is the root of all the world's problems.
Yes and after I read his book, I'll listen to Rush and with your logic since they're published/broadcasted I'll believe them both because if one extreme nut is right how can the other not be?
Also who the hell said Clinton killed anybody? Nobody in their right mind would believe this, INCLUDING GWB.
Quote:
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.
And who thought it went to a whole knew level? You?? Hard core extremiest? Yeah I'd believe that. However i can see why the normal person could have a beef wtih him since he had AN AFFAIR AS HEAD OF THIS COUNTRY. Attack the GWB and you'll have SDW going nuts i'm sure he thinks the attacks on GWB have reached a point where they're 10 times worse then the ones on Clinton that you claim were terrible. When you're so devoted to a party line that any attack on him or her turns into something completely unfair that's when you get people like Rush and Franken
Oh man, are you saying Bush Jr., Sr., Reagan and others didn't get verbally pasted with childish taunts and accusations by opposition flamethrowers?
10%? Is that some kind of fictitious quota? Pass the slime, please. You hate the right because they're wearing blinders. They hate you because you're so narrow-minded. And here I am hating you both. I'm going to dig up some fake crap on that dead bitch Mother Teresa now.
I hear her and the pope had a gang bang with 10 kids. Granted I heard it from this hybrid retard called Albaugh so take it at what you will
That must be it. When franken uncovers and calls a wingnut out for the lies that they themselves spoke its EXACTLY the same as all the wingnut books that came out over the past 12 years. Sure.
If you honestly believe that bush JUNIOR, carter,regan or bush sr. had receieved the same level of venom as clinton did then your simply not looking hard enough.
When you go back over the past 12 years and go over each and everything thing clinton was accused of you will find things that you and I and (GWB even) know not to believe, unfortunately, when its droned on over radio and in books long enough, The psychology of a "dittohead" permits to many of his followers believe it.
That must be it. When franken uncovers and calls a wingnut out for the lies that they themselves spoke its EXACTLY the same as all the wingnut books that came out over the past 12 years. Sure.
If you honestly believe that bush JUNIOR, carter,regan or bush sr. had receieved the same level of venom as clinton did then your simply not looking hard enough.
When you go back over the past 12 years and go over each and everything thing clinton was accused of you will find things that you and I and (GWB even) know not to believe, unfortunately, when its droned on over radio and in books long enough, The psychology of a "dittohead" permits to many of his followers believe it.
What I find amazing is how you and chu practice that which you so brazenly claim to hate.
You create an us vs. them scenario with you/us being simplistically good and them being simplistically bad.
You claim it is worse/terrible now and was better in the past.
You use anecdotal information and give mainstream significance to oddball claims. (Bernie the 2 to 5 am guy on KGOD claimed St. Peter told him Clinton ws the anti-christ)
You endorse and use tactics that involve lot of name calling over discussion of policy. (Franken's whole book is basically name calling/taunting)
Lastly and worst of all you believe everyone that disagrees with you is pretty much mentally ill/bad.
How can anyone claim Bill Clinton was treated more fairly than GWB?
Come on, let's be honest here.
Do we need to start pulling Rush's tapes out of the archives? I think you'd need a couple trucks to do so. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter got rich and famous from Clinton bashing. Period.
Once again you assume that Al is the flipside of the coin to Rush... why? Because he critisizes Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity? Defends the liberal side...
All partisans are not the same... but from your point of view... both me and Trumpt are just flat wrong... because we have opinions that we distinguish from the other... see things differently and are willing to defend our views.
And they are MY views... not someone elses that I just follow blindly.
Once again you assume that Al is the flipside of the coin to Rush... why? Because he critisizes Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity? Defends the liberal side...
All partisans are not the same... but from your point of view... both me and Trumpt are just flat wrong... because we have opinions that we distinguish from the other... see things differently and are willing to defend our views.
And they are MY views... not someone elses that I just follow blindly.
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...
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?
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?
Ann Coulter is wrong. Shocking, I know, but once the initial jolt has worn off, see how everyone's favorite conservative zombie has screwed up...this time.
"The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year "War on Poverty." So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?"
The population of Washington, D.C. is roughly 600,000 people. There are roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. Ann Coulter's assertion is that 262 murders in Washington D.C. over a twelve-month period is the same as 239 deaths in Iraq over a six-month period. Extrapolated over a twelve-month period, that would put the post-war deaths in Iraq at about 478. Even if it's not, and you assume that no other soldiers are going to die in Iraq over the next half year, you're still left with the problem that in order for the death rate in D.C. to match up with the death rate in Iraq, there would have to have been 1,103 murders in D.C. last year. If you extend that over two comparable year-long periods, the number is 2,206 - an 842% increase over the current murder rate of Washington, D.C.
How can anyone claim Bill Clinton was treated more fairly than GWB?
Come on, let's be honest here.
Do we need to start pulling Rush's tapes out of the archives? I think you'd need a couple trucks to do so. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter got rich and famous from Clinton bashing. Period.
I'll gladly claim Clinton was treated more fairly than Bush. Likewise I don't recall Laura Bush getting an 8 million dollar advances(while still serving even, but of course not ethical concerns), or Franken writing any books about Clinton being a liar. (Add Joe to that too)
Why would you use partisan people to claim how someone was treated? Rush treats Bush better than Clinton, well no sh*t. Likewise Franken treats Clinton as god and calls Rush a big fat idiot. (high minded policy discussion going on there.)
You don't use partisans to measure the middle ground.
Ann Coulter is wrong. Shocking, I know, but once the initial jolt has worn off, see how everyone's favorite conservative zombie has screwed up...this time.
"The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year "War on Poverty." So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?"
The population of Washington, D.C. is roughly 600,000 people. There are roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. Ann Coulter's assertion is that 262 murders in Washington D.C. over a twelve-month period is the same as 239 deaths in Iraq over a six-month period. Extrapolated over a twelve-month period, that would put the post-war deaths in Iraq at about 478. Even if it's not, and you assume that no other soldiers are going to die in Iraq over the next half year, you're still left with the problem that in order for the death rate in D.C. to match up with the death rate in Iraq, there would have to have been 1,103 murders in D.C. last year. If you extend that over two comparable year-long periods, the number is 2,206 - an 842% increase over the current murder rate of Washington, D.C.
Chu,
You know I try to be pretty fair when I think someone is making an informed, convincing point. So please understand where I am coming from on this. Could it be that Ann considered the population of Iraq in her comparison to Washington D.C. I mean we can argue that the comparison isn't valid (police would be soldiers in a city setting for example) but it appeared to me she was comparing Iraq to Washington D.C. size-wise and for proportional deaths.
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...
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.
Comments
10%? Is that some kind of fictitious quota? Pass the slime, please. You hate the right because they're wearing blinders. They hate you because you're so narrow-minded. And here I am hating you both. I'm going to dig up some fake crap on that dead bitch Mother Teresa now.
Originally posted by Eugene
Oh man, are you saying Bush Jr., Sr., Reagan and others didn't get verbally pasted with childish taunts and accusations by equivalent flamethrowers?
10%? Is that some kind of fictitious quota? Pass the slime, please.
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.
I also don't remember liberal foundations funding hit pieces and slanderous new stories against regaan and bush sr. that where "Scaife" like in quality.
If you know of any accusations against carter,regean, or bush sr. that consistently reached the level of venom and sensationalist accusations that where thrown at clinton then feel free to enlighten us.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/11/1....ap/index.html
All kidding aside. I truly hopes he comes back with an entirely new perspective on those with a drug addiction. Gone are the days that he can lambast them. He could show some real class by spending the first hour talking about what he went thru and how its changed his perpective....for the better...
a. tried prescription pain killers
b. are no longer Rush fans
c. tried painkillers and are BIGGER fans
% of dittos that lost faith in him and stop listening
% of dittos that thought it was wrong and forgave him
% of dittos that somehow justfied it and blamed it on the media
Of course he was/is addicted to prescr. drugs which doesn't have the stigma of say if he were addicted to crack.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
I'm paraphrasing what's in the latest al franken book. BTW to those less informed, al franken is nothing like those on hate radio. He points out lies and hypocrisy.
He does not make shite up.
Read his latest book and you will see for yourselves.
Or rest your brain and continue to believe the "liberal media" is the root of all the world's problems.
Yes and after I read his book, I'll listen to Rush and with your logic since they're published/broadcasted I'll believe them both because if one extreme nut is right how can the other not be?
Also who the hell said Clinton killed anybody? Nobody in their right mind would believe this, INCLUDING GWB.
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.
And who thought it went to a whole knew level? You?? Hard core extremiest? Yeah I'd believe that. However i can see why the normal person could have a beef wtih him since he had AN AFFAIR AS HEAD OF THIS COUNTRY. Attack the GWB and you'll have SDW going nuts i'm sure he thinks the attacks on GWB have reached a point where they're 10 times worse then the ones on Clinton that you claim were terrible. When you're so devoted to a party line that any attack on him or her turns into something completely unfair that's when you get people like Rush and Franken
Originally posted by Eugene
Oh man, are you saying Bush Jr., Sr., Reagan and others didn't get verbally pasted with childish taunts and accusations by opposition flamethrowers?
10%? Is that some kind of fictitious quota? Pass the slime, please. You hate the right because they're wearing blinders. They hate you because you're so narrow-minded. And here I am hating you both. I'm going to dig up some fake crap on that dead bitch Mother Teresa now.
I hear her and the pope had a gang bang with 10 kids. Granted I heard it from this hybrid retard called Albaugh so take it at what you will
If you honestly believe that bush JUNIOR, carter,regan or bush sr. had receieved the same level of venom as clinton did then your simply not looking hard enough.
When you go back over the past 12 years and go over each and everything thing clinton was accused of you will find things that you and I and (GWB even) know not to believe, unfortunately, when its droned on over radio and in books long enough, The psychology of a "dittohead" permits to many of his followers believe it.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
That must be it. When franken uncovers and calls a wingnut out for the lies that they themselves spoke its EXACTLY the same as all the wingnut books that came out over the past 12 years. Sure.
If you honestly believe that bush JUNIOR, carter,regan or bush sr. had receieved the same level of venom as clinton did then your simply not looking hard enough.
When you go back over the past 12 years and go over each and everything thing clinton was accused of you will find things that you and I and (GWB even) know not to believe, unfortunately, when its droned on over radio and in books long enough, The psychology of a "dittohead" permits to many of his followers believe it.
What I find amazing is how you and chu practice that which you so brazenly claim to hate.
You create an us vs. them scenario with you/us being simplistically good and them being simplistically bad.
You claim it is worse/terrible now and was better in the past.
You use anecdotal information and give mainstream significance to oddball claims. (Bernie the 2 to 5 am guy on KGOD claimed St. Peter told him Clinton ws the anti-christ)
You endorse and use tactics that involve lot of name calling over discussion of policy. (Franken's whole book is basically name calling/taunting)
Lastly and worst of all you believe everyone that disagrees with you is pretty much mentally ill/bad.
You call all these things... the high ground.
Nick
Come on, let's be honest here.
Do we need to start pulling Rush's tapes out of the archives? I think you'd need a couple trucks to do so. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter got rich and famous from Clinton bashing. Period.
All partisans are not the same... but from your point of view... both me and Trumpt are just flat wrong... because we have opinions that we distinguish from the other... see things differently and are willing to defend our views.
And they are MY views... not someone elses that I just follow blindly.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Once again you assume that Al is the flipside of the coin to Rush... why? Because he critisizes Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity? Defends the liberal side...
All partisans are not the same... but from your point of view... both me and Trumpt are just flat wrong... because we have opinions that we distinguish from the other... see things differently and are willing to defend our views.
And they are MY views... not someone elses that I just follow blindly.
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...
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?
Originally posted by addabox
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?
Bravo! Ding ding ding ding!
The Arrogance Astounds!
There's something so horrible about this new game of pretending that partisanship is always symetrical.
Its like the 5000 pound elephant in the room people can't or won't see. So true.
he doea exactly the same thing AL does in his book...
he breaksdown people's arguments... and thereby making thier arguments pointless.
http://www.pandagon.net/
I Work Statistics Like Car Washes In The Summer
Ann Coulter is wrong. Shocking, I know, but once the initial jolt has worn off, see how everyone's favorite conservative zombie has screwed up...this time.
"The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year "War on Poverty." So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?"
The population of Washington, D.C. is roughly 600,000 people. There are roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. Ann Coulter's assertion is that 262 murders in Washington D.C. over a twelve-month period is the same as 239 deaths in Iraq over a six-month period. Extrapolated over a twelve-month period, that would put the post-war deaths in Iraq at about 478. Even if it's not, and you assume that no other soldiers are going to die in Iraq over the next half year, you're still left with the problem that in order for the death rate in D.C. to match up with the death rate in Iraq, there would have to have been 1,103 murders in D.C. last year. If you extend that over two comparable year-long periods, the number is 2,206 - an 842% increase over the current murder rate of Washington, D.C.
Originally posted by Northgate
How can anyone claim Bill Clinton was treated more fairly than GWB?
Come on, let's be honest here.
Do we need to start pulling Rush's tapes out of the archives? I think you'd need a couple trucks to do so. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter got rich and famous from Clinton bashing. Period.
I'll gladly claim Clinton was treated more fairly than Bush. Likewise I don't recall Laura Bush getting an 8 million dollar advances(while still serving even, but of course not ethical concerns), or Franken writing any books about Clinton being a liar. (Add Joe to that too)
Why would you use partisan people to claim how someone was treated? Rush treats Bush better than Clinton, well no sh*t. Likewise Franken treats Clinton as god and calls Rush a big fat idiot. (high minded policy discussion going on there.)
You don't use partisans to measure the middle ground.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
here's someting I found at Pandagon...
he doea exactly the same thing AL does in his book...
he breaksdown people's arguments... and thereby making thier arguments pointless.
http://www.pandagon.net/
I Work Statistics Like Car Washes In The Summer
Ann Coulter is wrong. Shocking, I know, but once the initial jolt has worn off, see how everyone's favorite conservative zombie has screwed up...this time.
"The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year "War on Poverty." So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?"
The population of Washington, D.C. is roughly 600,000 people. There are roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. Ann Coulter's assertion is that 262 murders in Washington D.C. over a twelve-month period is the same as 239 deaths in Iraq over a six-month period. Extrapolated over a twelve-month period, that would put the post-war deaths in Iraq at about 478. Even if it's not, and you assume that no other soldiers are going to die in Iraq over the next half year, you're still left with the problem that in order for the death rate in D.C. to match up with the death rate in Iraq, there would have to have been 1,103 murders in D.C. last year. If you extend that over two comparable year-long periods, the number is 2,206 - an 842% increase over the current murder rate of Washington, D.C.
Chu,
You know I try to be pretty fair when I think someone is making an informed, convincing point. So please understand where I am coming from on this. Could it be that Ann considered the population of Iraq in her comparison to Washington D.C. I mean we can argue that the comparison isn't valid (police would be soldiers in a city setting for example) but it appeared to me she was comparing Iraq to Washington D.C. size-wise and for proportional deaths.
Nick
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.