Re: Re: Politics...

[Guest guest]

adamsCLAYADAMS@... wrote:

> He did join the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam, you

> can't deny that.

I never did. There is a BIG difference between that and desertion. It

is perfectly legal to do what Bush did.

> The people in charge there knew he had political

> clout, and didn't pursue the matter when he didn't show up for

> training sessions. So he was never technically charged with

> desertion.

And thus there was no crime; innocent until proven guilty.

> > I called him fat (which he is)... to which you and Jane objected.

> > I exaggerated, by saying that he weighed 2,000 pounds,

>

> (which was hyperbole)

Again... much less hyperbolic than the garbage spouted by en.

> Okay, he's fat, but that doesn't make him wrong.

The fact that he's wrong makes him wrong. And he is.

> > He called Bush a deserter, which is different-- because Bush is

> > not. It is not a matter of public record, because it is false.

>

> Only technically. He wasn't at his post when he was supposed to be.

That is not desertion. You know that as well as I do. The attempt for

people like to call him a deserter is no more accurate than if I

called you a terrorist. It is just not so (as far as I know about you

being a terrorist). It is another case of lying to suit his

political agenda.

> > Rush Limbaugh is not fat anymore, and whether you agree with him or

> > not, he is no idiot.

>

> I haven't actually seen him lately, if not, then he's just a fathead.

> ;-)

That too was hyperbole. If you're going to call me on it, it would make

sense not to do it yourself. Or is the problem that I used it against a

leftist? Is it only okay to be hyperbolic about people that are right? <g>

> Mea culpa, if I've offended anyone. Just getting caught up in the

> rhetoric, blasting en, then Limbaugh, then . I only meant

> disrepect to Limbaugh.

Of course. It's bad if Rush does it; it is not bad if anyone else does

it. It is not okay for me to call fat, but it is okay if you call

him fat, and a fathead, just as it is okay for en to call him a

big, fat idiot. Not okay for me to disrespect , but it is okay for

you to state specifically than you only mean to disrespect Limbaugh--

who himself respects people with opposing viewpoints much more than

en or . But I guess that does not matter, because he's

conservative.

Now I am getting it. Insulting conservatives good, insulting liberals

bad... and the facts don't matter. Got it.

> > In other words, if you like en's personality, Rush should be

> > no problem for you. He is much more respectful than en.

>

> en used to be a writer for Saturday Night Live. He's a funny

> guy who has turned to political satire for a living, much like

> Limbaugh. If you want to be famous, then you've got to be " out

> there " .

So this is an excuse for en's " out there " hateful speech, but it's

not for Rush, who has never stooped as low as en does on a regular

basis? Rush is more famous than en ever will be... and a lot of

people find Rush's political satire funny (and not en's), so you

can't go claiming that en's words are okay where Limbaugh's are not

because en is just being funny. The fact is that both en and

Limbaugh are political commentators and satirists, and while Limbaugh is

boastful and arrogant, he is also much more respectful than en,

whose satire is fairly dripping with hatred that is hard not to see.

Rush does not stoop to laugh at the personal demons of his political

opponents. That is a huge distinction. If you find it appropriate to

bash Rush, but not en, who has revelled in Rush's personal

problems, then your " ok to insult conservatives, but not liberals " bias

comes out again.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> I'll have to skip the rest. We won't agree on politics, because it's

> all based on opinion, and the way people see things is based on their

> perspective.

Some is based on opinion, but the points I raised, about how it seems OK

for you for some ad hominems (those against conservatives), but not

others (those against liberals) stand true, whatever your perspective.

It is notable that you chose to respond to the rest of the stuff in this

thread, line by line, but not that. Gotcha!

I happened across this site just a few hours ago:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/index.htm

It neatly sums up the problems with 's

fictional-movie-posing-as-a-documentary. He would get thrown out of PBS

forever with a " documentary " of that level of intellectual dishonesty.

Also have a look at the site linked on the top of that page, which

happens to be about Al en. Though you have equated Limbaugh and

en as satirists, en is not even in Limbaugh's league... not in

terms of reporting accuracy (you may disagree with him on his

interpretations of things, but his facts are right on the money, and so

are his predictions), not in terms of stature, not in terms of

intellect, and certainly not in terms of civility. Limbaugh is pompous

and arrogant. en is arrogant, mean, dishonest, and vitriolic.

(And, btw, I wrote my previous post in this thread before I saw either

of the sites I mention here.)

You remarked that you had not heard Limbaugh's show, which is his

primary vehicle for his commentary and satire... and yet you choose to

call him names like 'fathead' in the midst of ad hominem attacks (the

same thing you complained about me doing to ), state that it was

your intent to disrespect him, and not excuse him for behavior that is

far less offensive than en's... I have to wonder if your only

source of information on Limbaugh was en himself.

> Clay, whose vote cancels yours ;-)

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that I will vote for Bush. I might end

up going Libertarian this year, in which case my vote will be merely

symbolic.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> I half expected you

> to object to my bald statement: Businessmen and Republicans are

> anti-union. I could argue with myself on that one, because it was

> Clinton who signed the NAFTA agreement. It just shows that the

> Democrat/Republican thing is a illusion that we were taught to

> believe in. All of this is really just " sound and fury, signifying

> nothing " .

I don't know why I would object to that statement.

> I did look at that, a couple of them. It seems he did paint the

> thing about the plaque on a B-52 bomber in a way very different from

> the truth of the matter. And I remembered the Charlton Heston

> interview, and can see how that was biased. I have to say that I

> hadn't really considered the morality of " baiting " before, it seems

> like such a small thing compared to really evil things I have known

> or heard of.

The whole thing was put together to look like a documentary, but it is

just loaded with fiction. And a fictional movie is fine; I like a

number of those. But people think this is real; it is presented as if

it is real. And it is pretty obvious that meant it to be that way.

> No, I've heard Rush a few times, I meant that I had never heard

> en's show. Right? I said that I've heard he had a radio show

> now, but hadn't heard it yet, was glad there was a commentator on the

> left.

I did not hear that he had a show.

> I didn't complain, I said, " Sure he's fat, what's that got to do with

> anything? " And I wasn't " attacking " Rush, it's just that calling him

> fathead amused me. <g> (He can't have lost that much weight from his

> head and face, can he? He still looks the same, from the neck up?)

You can see pictures of him on his site. He looks normal from the neck

up to me.

> > Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that I will vote for Bush. I might

> > end up going Libertarian this year, in which case my vote will be

> > merely symbolic.

>

> And again, I wish somebody would explain to me what the Libertarian

> Party stands for. Are they for legalization? (I meant to agree with

> you about that on an earlier knot in this thread.)

Now, as I recently explained, I am not with the Libertarians on

everything. That is why I call myself a libertarian with a small 'L'.

Libertarians proper (those that adhere to the platform of the

Libertarian Party) are in favor of personal liberty, every which way.

They are pro-gun and pro-choice. They would tend to agree with the ACLU

on matters of the First Amendment. They are big on all of the Bill of

Rights. They want low taxes, and support very little government

spending. In short, it is the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, one

that is paid lip service by a lot of people, but is in fact out of favor

in the police-state version of the US.

The Libertarians are in favor of legalizing drugs, yes. They are in

favor of deregulation, too, and of privatizing just about everything.

That is where I part company with the Libertarian party... I am in favor

of some social spending, and they are not. They want road maintenance,

fire protection, etc., to be handled privately, not through taxation.

They want NO social spending. That was the way it was in 1787, and in

fact the federal government is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from

enacting any social spending... but there is no Constitutional issue (as

far as the Federal Constitution is concerned) with the states having

social spending, funding of roads, et cetera. The Libertarians want all

of this to be handled privately. I see why they think that way; the

power to tax is the power to destroy, and more spending necessitates

more taxes. However, I can also see where doing these things privately

can be a problem, and a lot of people would end up being thrown away

because of the near total valuation of people as workers. As such, I

cannot support the Libertarian model entirely.

> Clay, for legalization, and against deregulation

I am in favor of nearly all kinds of deregulation. Few things can mess

something up as much as government involvement. Deregulation would not

be as bumpy as it can be if excessive regulations had not been passed in

the first place. There has to be some level of control, though, as

corporations on their own will not act according to an egalitarian ethos.

[Guest guest]

Politics is such a dangerous subject. My parents can't talk politics with

my inlaws in the room and vice versa. I lean toward Leiberman because

when he was 'just' a representative in my state...he spoke out against

those naughty rap lyrics, yeah I believe in free speech and all that and

I get into some rap. But i don't think dissing women and calling 'em b

words and such and the like for entertainment is what our forefathers

quite had in mind when they gave us free speech but anyhoo...

when we couldn't get ssi there was a terrible lapse when my husband lost

hand function and had to stop his work. Of course now there is a law: All

people who get ALS get on ssi immediately with no mumbo jumbo (thats not

the way the law's worded) but back then he had to wait and even though

his disease is terminal he got denied the first time like everyone else

does, he wasn't diabled 'enough' and there was a lapse where we subsisted

on no income.

Leiberman was who we chose to write to. It was like picking a

representative out of a hat, but his office responded. His office made

the guys at SSI jump into action. Leiberman's office called our house

twice. We have a letter from him. Back when the anthrax was going on, I

was afraid to open it. But I have it, I opened it, and I'm still here. We

got SSI quickly after he stepped in and threatened them.He even wrote my

husband's doctor. The signature isn't one of those stamped ones and he

didn't have an agenda, he was a representative, and wasn't running for

anything yet.

The fact that he's Jewish and wears a yamaka (spelled wrong?) scares some

folks, as he's been known to take a holiday here in the state now and

again. But he seems real, but a little conservative for some.

He isn't rich though and cannot get his message out.

As for draftdodgers, my son, who is aspie himself has said he'd take off

to Canada if he was called, although with his dx he may be excused. I may

have dodged it myself, I'm a coward, I admit it.

I don't care for the Yalie Kerry. I can't say why. I don't like anyone's

eyes.They all have that smooth way they talk with those hand motions.

None seem real.

That's all.

Kim

________________________________________________________________

The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!