Hard News: Weekend Warriors
311 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Perhaps the problem is that, as a gay man, Craig sees Sarah Palin’s commitment to raising children and christianity as a threat to his lifestyle?
I'm not gay, but I find people committed to raising Christianity a serious threat to my lifestyle.
-
I'm not gay, but I find people committed to raising Christianity a serious threat to my lifestyle.
Well, I was tempted to point out to that knob that I'm a Catholic -- and in the eyes of a goodly proportion of the evangelical Protestant base we Papists are even worse than Christ-killers or rag-heads. But that's more of those silly fact things. :)
-
I just found a nice site with Senate and House voting stats (apologies if it's been mentioned before) at cqpolitics.com
Also, an articulate interview with Mat Damon, questioning Palin's candidacy. Let's hope that makes it into the celebrity news.
-
Craig - thats fucked up at the trollfarm.
But yeah it is quite the irony that helen is a farmers daughter. I think it is a liberal guilt thing ;)
Coming from the wrong side of the tracks gives John Key a hunger, as it did early farm generations. Helen faced a life of thankless rural toil or the prospect of joining the educated urban elite. difficult choice.
Cindy McCain seems to be an interesting one. To look at she leaves me cold, but when you read a little more about what she actually does for charitable purposes it goes a long way beyond society hostess. Not saying it warrants votes but there does seem to be a depth there that is not much recognised.
This is a ridiculous myth. As of last month, Obama had a huge lead among the poorest Americans,
What? Do you mean BEFORE Palin entered the race?
The Berlusconi comparison is interesting. I always thought Italians voted for him because he had enough money and they did not think he would need to embezzle more. Frankly his approach is more symapthetic than the socialists who are simply trying to bolster their european credentials, as Clark is with the ETS.
"And I'm going to call bullshit on the whole "metropolitan elitist" poo-argument. "
So you reiterate that Bush & McCain are firmly establishment. Gee whiz.
Nobody has addressed Crooks argument. which seems essentially to be that liberals are incapable of introspection. I have had no evidence to the contrary presented here.Joe Wylie - your wit, your humour, your perspicacity. I truly admire you.
-
Perhaps the problem is that, as a gay man, Craig sees Sarah Palin’s commitment to raising children and christianity as a threat to his lifestyle?
OK, I'm not gonna claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but how does person x raising children affect person y's lifestyle? As for Christianity, there doesn't appear to be much that's fun that the Bible doesn't look down on, whether you're gay, straight or not fussy.
D'you think these guys have even heard of Locke, Bentham, Mill etc?
-
interviews with celebrities??? to question Palins qualifications to hold office?
Oh give me a fucking break
-
So you reiterate that Bush & McCain are firmly establishment. Gee whiz. Nobody has addressed Crooks argument. which seems essentially to be that liberals are incapable of introspection.
Well, I could make an equally bullshit argument that, on the evidence of the current GOP, self-described conservatives are incapable of rational thought, or even require a species of high-functioning psychosis to rationalise their utter failure to live up to their own professed beliefs. But that would be a waste of everyone's time and effort, wouldn't it?
D'you think these guys have even heard of Locke, Bentham, Mill etc?
No. Then again, I wonder if they do anything other than name-check Reagan. You don't have to like the guy, but he actually seemed to have a grip on some conservative concepts about the nature and limits of government. Not so sure the same could be said about McCain, Palin or the rest of the alleged leadership of the GOP. Talking the talk just isn't the same as walking the walk.
-
[sigh] OK Sage, for some reason I feel like banging my head against a brick wall (maybe because it's Friday), so I'll engage with your 'argument'.
You say address 'the point' and not 'the man'. So I read the post you quoted.
Like Giovanni, I thoight the first couple of paragraphs were fairly sound. And then the straw men started flying so thick and fast I thought I was being asked to stuff a mattress.
Here's just one:
Those seem to be the only weapons in the liberal armory. If a liberal female columnist is snarky, that shows she’s clever and merits a Pulitzer. If a female Republican conservative is sarcastic, that’s being mean spirited. And so forth
Which 'liberal female columnist', exactly? Did she win a pulitzer? Was it for being snarky?
Which female republican conservative, exactly? Where's her sarcasm? Where's the 'mean-spirited' criticism?
The poster may actually have a point. Or on the other hand, he may just be coming up with the usual dogwhistle bullshit which pushes the relevant buttons of the audience - 'They' are liberal and elitist with their pulitzer prizes. 'They' have double standards. 'They' don't understand our heartland values. 'They' sneer at us. 'We' don't like them.
Until I have name and references to articles, I call bullshit. I can run my own critical analysis and decide if stuff passes the sarcasm threshold, thanks very much.
And for what it's worth, I actually agree with you. To horribly paramangle PT Barnum, a sucker registers to vote every minute. I don't think a politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
As interesting as all the small things like 'facts' and 'logical argument' are in relation to McCain and Palin, it looks like the republicans worked out a long time ago that tweaking the buttons of voters is far, far more effective. and if that doesn't work, shouting really, really loudly is also good.
-
So you reiterate that Bush & McCain are firmly establishment. Gee whiz. Nobody has addressed Crooks argument. which seems essentially to be that liberals are incapable of introspection.
And you failed to address the notion that you'd just posted a link to someone elses' thoughts without any indication that you had either read or understood it
As an aside, McCain seems to be increasingly clueless as he too says that Russia is next door to Alaska, thus giving that woman FP credentials.
-
You say address 'the point' and not 'the man'. So I read the post you quoted.
Sage is referring to the FT blog by Clive Crook, not the comment he posted in full, allegedly to wind me up in some bizarre manner (it failed) which I don't think quite says the things he thinks it does. Hence my questioning as to whether he'd taken the time to read it. He has a history of linking but not reading what he's linking to.
-
Perhaps the problem is that, as a gay man, Craig sees Sarah Palin’s commitment to raising children and christianity as a threat to his lifestyle?
Oh I LOVE this kind of thing. Makes me laugh so hard. And I say that based on an estimation that you have a similar reaction to patently absurd smears Craig.
-
God god...apart from mouthing the cliches, it seems she doesn't have the faintest idea....
-
Which 'liberal female columnist', exactly? Did she win a pulitzer? Was it for being snarky?
Which female republican conservative, exactly? Where's her sarcasm? Where's the 'mean-spirited' criticism?
Well, I guess we're all supposed to be media junkies who would automatically recognise Pulitzer-winning New York Times columnist Maurren Dowd and Ann Coulter in there.
I think that Dowd is tiresomely "snarky", and Coulter is "mean-spirited" (as well as habitually dishonest), and both of them are shit> They certainly wouldn't get space on any op-ed page I had editorial control over. But that's beside the point.
And would it tiresomely factual to note that in the two years after Dowd's Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, the award went to two writers for that well-known left-wing rag The Wall Street Journal: Paul A. Gigot (who is now the WSJ's op-ed editor), and Dorothy Rabinowitz (who is not stranger to the acidic bon mot, but has it over both Dowd and Coulter in being genuinely witty)?
-
and both of them are shit>
sigh... "and both of them are shit writers who think "attitude" is a substitute for style, wit and presenting a thought-through argument."
-
I am ambivalent to whoever wins.
My point is that up until two weeks ago Obama was waltzing in. He was doing it by sticking to the issues - economy, health, war and not indulging in personal politics. He was living the message that this would be a changed Presidency. The economy is not very good and people have an apetite for change. He was going to win. And he might still win, but not for the above reasons because the race has altered.
An "I stand with Stoopid" phenomenon has altered this into a normal dirty Presidential race and "change" is not in evidence. The Republicans nominated Palin and that caused the leftist punditry who stand with Obama some surprise. They could have stuck on message, done a little research to portray dismay at Palin's attitude to the economy, healthcare and war. But that would have been a continuation of the smart and intelligent issues politics Obama employs. Instead these erstwhile supporters of Obama told America that Palin was pregnant before she got married, flew 7 hours after her waters had broken, should be at home looking after her kids, has a husband having an incestuous affair with a daughter and was covering up her daughters pregnancy - all of which was either triviality or fabrication. How completely non-brain-engaged is that sh*t?
Obama needs the pundits for the good motivation they can provide to the Dem base, but their utter incompetent stoopidity in smearing Palin has shot his message of change to pieces amoung the wider electorate. It has provided ammunition to the rightist punditry to smear back making "lipstick on a pig" look credible compared to the "Trig as Bristol's baby" rumour of last week. And it has been the making of Sarah Palin, a nobody politician is the talk of America having been gifted a profile on which to build a platform.
-
Well, I guess we're all supposed to be media junkies who would automatically recognise Pulitzer-winning New York Times columnist Maurren Dowd and Ann Coulter in there.
Nah, the female conservative republican is Palin, surely. Though the rest of your post holds, I reckon.
-
Simon,
Absolutely...the Rovian philosophy centres around an overriding assumption the voter is neither discerning or smart.
That is a good description, I like it. The Rovian philosophy practiced by Salon, Huffington Post, Daily Kos is to low ball in rumours and innuendo to smear a candidate relying upon the voter being neither discerning or smart.
All that remains now is to see who plays Rovian politics the best - Karl Rove or the Dem pundits who decided this is where they needed to take the race.
-
All that remains now is to see who plays Rovian politics the best - Karl Rove or the Dem pundits who decided this is where they needed to take the race.
Yes, Angus, it's really 'Rovian" to actually compare Palin's record against her statements. And calling bullshit on an outright deceptive claim that Obama was calling Palin a pig -- outrageous!
To be honest, Angus, I'd find it amusing to see the patrician contempt for the dirty American voter's intelligence on display around here. Except it's also coming under a thick crust of hypocrisy from your corner.
-
NYT has excerpts from the Palin interview with ABC.
In Gov. Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated interview with ABC News, she said she “didn’t blink” when Senator John McCain asked her to be his running mate.
Charles Gibson, the interviewer, asked her if she didn’t hesitate and question whether she was experienced enough.
“I didn’t hesitate, no,” she said.
He asked if that didn’t that take some hubris.
“I answered him yes,” Ms. Palin said, “because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”
So no problems with self-doubt then.
-
That is a good description, I like it. The Rovian philosophy practiced by Salon, Huffington Post, Daily Kos is to low ball in rumours and innuendo to smear a candidate relying upon the voter being neither discerning or smart.
Ah Angus....you miss the point somewhat.
I'm on record as saying that I was rather appalled by the way the the conversation sank at Kos but there is a mountain of difference between the linked, annotated and referenced commentary at Salon, and parts of Huffington and the unreferenced and /or dishonest touting of slogans as facts at the RNC and beyond. Even you seem unable to reference the points you make here beyond touting such as facts. You say..she was vetted and we are supposed to accept such. There is a voluminous amount of evidence, non-partisan, that says otherwise.
But that is neither here nor there.
I'm talking at a candidate level. At the RNC both Palin, and the other guy resorted to simplistic and repeated sloganing, often factually at odds to available evidence, fear based, and intentionally kept at a rabble rousing base level.
On the campaign trail McCain has today repeated the Alaska is close to Russia meme..a drift of logic so extreme that you can only repeat it if you assume the audience is stupid.
The Bridge to Nowhere thing is repeated every day. That, Angus is rovian...you repeat a lie over and over and over again, assuming that your audience
Maybe you can point me in the direction of a campaign ad endorsed by Obama that twists the truth as dishonestly as the sex ed one yesterday? Or a show me a link where McCain defends Obama against his alleged lack of patriotism or Islamic ties? I can show you a few where Obama praises McCain's service record.
It's a moral gulf Angus..
-
The Bridge to Nowhere thing is repeated every day.
-
<quote>Well, I guess we're all supposed to be media junkies...</ quote>
If the original article was published in the FT (or online equivalent), I guess that's actually a reasonably fair call (although it's still not entirely clear to me where the stuff sage quoted came from). Most FT readers would recognise those references, I would guess.
However, I would consider myself fairly media-savvy, and I didn't.
-
Islamic ties?
Oh, you mean Obama's father's religion? Well, if McCain wants to go there (and I don't), someone who conveniently "came out" as a Baptist while campaigning in heavily-Baptist South Carolina last year -- despite his father being a life-long Episcopalian --, should back the fuck off on that line of attack.
Maybe you can point me in the direction of a campaign ad endorsed by Obama that twists the truth as dishonestly as the sex ed one yesterday?
Now Angus might like to hold his nose (the source is the New York Times after all) and read all of this:
The original controversy dates to 2003, when a bill to modify the teaching of sex education in Illinois was introduced in the Legislature. The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association.
Mr. Obama voted for the bill in committee, where it passed, but it never came to a full and final vote. The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.
In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.
“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”
Gee, so would it be OK, Angus, to run an attack ad saying something along the lines of "John McCain would rather take a cheap shot at me, than support attempts to teach our children to defend themselves against perverts. Remember, McCain-Palin: Putting Paedophiles First." Or would that also be a cheap shot?
-
And calling bullshit on an outright deceptive claim that Obama was calling Palin a pig -- outrageous!
TV1 (I think it was) news late last night, had what I think was an overseas feed on this, which was very entertaining. After showing the Obama quote in context, they then showed McCain saying exactly the same thing about Obama's policy.
It was almost Jon Stewart-like.
-
interviews with celebrities??? to question Palins qualifications to hold office?
Oh give me a fucking break
Heh. Actually I thought he provided a pretty good analysis of the situation.
At least he's giving political interviews. At least as many as the VP candidate.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.