Linking to a freeper post of a Krauthammer speech.
That would be like sammi jo linking to a liberal conspiracy site post of a Dowd speech had we found 1000 Iraqi nuclear warheads on stealth bomber drones programed with NYC coordinates and God climbed down from heaven to personally endorse Bush.
Neocons are smart guys for the most part, most of that brain-power goes toward constucting complex theories on why their political philosophies make sense even when disproven by fact. Most of the time that entails misrepresentations of opposing views, as is the case here.
While the democrats have massive short comings in foreign policy (which are thankfully being corrected), you aren't going to find out what they are reading this garbage. I read a whole lot of what comes out of these guys and their mentors, and while it's a good way to figure out why they think what they think, there's not usually much in terms of good, solid fact or realistic theory.
Unfortunately for drewprops, his point only applies to Bush because Kerry and Edwards sure aren't "extreme." Don't know where that one came from...
No, I wouldn't call Edwards or Kerry extreme...did I say that?
And Giant, I beg to differ....that last post was 100% tinfoil free (and must we all make Sammi Jo the poster child of crazy nutwad posts). The speech that I linked to is something that I first listened to earlier this week on C-Span on my XM radio. Is C-Span now some kind of Neocon bastion? The next program they had on there was bashing conservatives over the head. I wasn't listening to a broadcast from Cheney's secret bunker on a shortwave or anything....
No, I wouldn't call Edwards or Kerry extreme...did I say that?
"It would be nice if we could all take a and shape that leader to be more well-rounded and less of a characterization of that parties most extreme elements."
Thanks Shawn for proving that I didn't call them extreme, I was beginning to worry that I'd lost my mind! Yes, I used a broad generalization for all times, all candidates, all parties. Thanks for paying attention.
No, Dean didn't say he was dropping out....he said he was suspending his campaign.
Thanks Shawn for proving that I didn't call them extreme, I was beginning to worry that I'd lost my mind! Yes, I used a broad generalization for all times, all candidates, all parties. Thanks for paying attention.
Presidential candidates are generally "characterized by the extreme elements" in their parties? Certainly doesn't seem that way. I think a case can be made that the extreme elements influence a candidate to some degree, but to say that candidates are generally characterized by those elements just isn't true. Obviously, I think a range of candidates within a party's ideological spectrum run for the nomination. Regardless, that would mean you would regard Kerry and Edwards as at least "nice" for being moderates. You would probably like Bill Clinton for the same reason. Personally, I'd like to see a rather extreme candidate like Dennis Kucinich actually have a chance of winning the general election, nevermind the nomination. Candidates characterized by extreme elements like Kucinich generally don't have much of a chance unless they lie about what they're doing- i.e, Bush.
Yes, I have heard of them. So what? George Soros has too. 527s are the way soft money will find it's way back into politics. Dems have generally relied on soft money more than has the GOP. This means 527s will probably skew the numbers even farther away from making your point.
Quote:
What in the hell constitutes different for you then?
Not these numbers. Six times as many of Bush's donors were over $2000 as were under $200. Kerry had 4.5 times as many $2000+ donors as under $200. Big deal. (edit: these calculations are based on the numbers that were available a few days ago. Apparently, they've changed a bit in the last couple of days. Now the difference between the two is even narrower.)
Quote:
Have you proved it untruthful?
I don't have to. You made the claim. What the hell am I supposed to do? You didn't give ANY evidence for your charge.
Comments
Originally posted by drewprops
Liberal Internationalism?
Linking to a freeper post of a Krauthammer speech.
That would be like sammi jo linking to a liberal conspiracy site post of a Dowd speech had we found 1000 Iraqi nuclear warheads on stealth bomber drones programed with NYC coordinates and God climbed down from heaven to personally endorse Bush.
Neocons are smart guys for the most part, most of that brain-power goes toward constucting complex theories on why their political philosophies make sense even when disproven by fact. Most of the time that entails misrepresentations of opposing views, as is the case here.
While the democrats have massive short comings in foreign policy (which are thankfully being corrected), you aren't going to find out what they are reading this garbage. I read a whole lot of what comes out of these guys and their mentors, and while it's a good way to figure out why they think what they think, there's not usually much in terms of good, solid fact or realistic theory.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Uh, we talking about Bush here? Or is the definition of moderate a bit askew?
Unfortunately for drewprops, his point only applies to Bush because Kerry and Edwards sure aren't "extreme." Don't know where that one came from...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Unfortunately for drewprops, his point only applies to Bush because Kerry and Edwards sure aren't "extreme." Don't know where that one came from...
No, I wouldn't call Edwards or Kerry extreme...did I say that?
And Giant, I beg to differ....that last post was 100% tinfoil free (and must we all make Sammi Jo the poster child of crazy nutwad posts). The speech that I linked to is something that I first listened to earlier this week on C-Span on my XM radio. Is C-Span now some kind of Neocon bastion? The next program they had on there was bashing conservatives over the head. I wasn't listening to a broadcast from Cheney's secret bunker on a shortwave or anything....
Originally posted by drewprops
No, I wouldn't call Edwards or Kerry extreme...did I say that?
"It would be nice if we could all take a and shape that leader to be more well-rounded and less of a characterization of that parties most extreme elements."
Forgetting about Edwards and Kerry then?
No, Dean didn't say he was dropping out....he said he was suspending his campaign.
Originally posted by drewprops
Thanks Shawn for proving that I didn't call them extreme, I was beginning to worry that I'd lost my mind! Yes, I used a broad generalization for all times, all candidates, all parties. Thanks for paying attention.
Presidential candidates are generally "characterized by the extreme elements" in their parties? Certainly doesn't seem that way. I think a case can be made that the extreme elements influence a candidate to some degree, but to say that candidates are generally characterized by those elements just isn't true. Obviously, I think a range of candidates within a party's ideological spectrum run for the nomination. Regardless, that would mean you would regard Kerry and Edwards as at least "nice" for being moderates. You would probably like Bill Clinton for the same reason. Personally, I'd like to see a rather extreme candidate like Dennis Kucinich actually have a chance of winning the general election, nevermind the nomination. Candidates characterized by extreme elements like Kucinich generally don't have much of a chance unless they lie about what they're doing- i.e, Bush.
Originally posted by torifile
I guess you haven't heard about 527's?
Yes, I have heard of them. So what? George Soros has too. 527s are the way soft money will find it's way back into politics. Dems have generally relied on soft money more than has the GOP. This means 527s will probably skew the numbers even farther away from making your point.
What in the hell constitutes different for you then?
Not these numbers. Six times as many of Bush's donors were over $2000 as were under $200. Kerry had 4.5 times as many $2000+ donors as under $200. Big deal. (edit: these calculations are based on the numbers that were available a few days ago. Apparently, they've changed a bit in the last couple of days. Now the difference between the two is even narrower.)
Have you proved it untruthful?
I don't have to. You made the claim. What the hell am I supposed to do? You didn't give ANY evidence for your charge.
Originally posted by shetline
Let's see how this works. Next election...
Bush gets 51%
Kerry (or another Dem) gets 49%
Nader gets 2%
Ummm, that adds up to 102%.