Jim,

How do you always show up when these conversations appear? <_<

Mike, on what do you base your comment that Dig is consumed by hatred? It sounds very much like a canned line you borrowed from somebody. It's a pretty lame-assed assertion - it would be very easy to build a credible arguement about any side of the political spectrum being haters. To listen to American conservatives wail about the discrimination of affirmative action, the oppression of income taxes and restrictive environmental laws, criticism of welfare programs, yada yada yada, you would think they hate America too.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know who started using that tactic - describing people who don't fart in tune with the RNC and the Bush Administration as haters? Was it one of the speechwriters who pull the strings and make Bush and Cheney talk, or some obnoxious moron like Ann Coulter? It has to have been by somebody promininent on the right. You are about the third or fourth bobble-head for Bush I've seen use that line, on me or on someone else - so I'm assuming it's right out of a playbook someplace.

i dont think its a stretch to say that dig is a little bitter and angry considering that he himself said more than once in this thread alone "i hate....." in addition to what seem to be some pretty consistent, bitter remarks combined with a flat out refusal to accept or consider opposing viewpoints. the tone when he talks about anything political is usually pretty consistent.

i personally dont have a problem with it. i dont think its a healthy behavior for an individual, but i think its healthy and necessary to the political system as a whole.

you are starting to do the same thing by abandoning discussion and retreating behind your comfortable party line where you know you can always fire back. who is "describing people who don't fart in tune with the RNC and the Bush Administration as haters" as you put it? Was Mike commenting on Dig's party affiliation? or his remarks about other peoples views?



Last edited by JR at Apr 30 2003, 12:18 AM

I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left. His "flat out refusal to accept or consider opposing viewpoints" does not make him unique either.

I think dig's description of the good democrats/bad republicans is sophmoroic and simplistic in the extreme. I don't find dig's arguements that one party is right and another wrong, evil, or immoral any more or less fundamentally flawed than the idea that liberals believe in a foreign ideaology, for example.

When a person makes the statement that there is no point in debating someone because "he is brainwashed", it is obvious that "abandoning discussion and retreating behind [a] comfortable party line" started before I jumped in.

The question about who first started using the hater line was sincere, BTW.

man I tried to read this whole thread, but I kept dozing off :nyanya:

and Colin called me a slacker for asking when the cliff notes version would be available :P


Wake me when it's over and it's done
To read all of this makes my brain numb

It's been said many times, many ways
You'll never change someone's dead set opinion (or if you prefer ideologies)

So :headwall:

Mental Health will drive 'ya mad

Race baiting is evil.

The Religious Right is evil.

Race baiters and the Religious Right control the Republican Party, therefore;

The Republican Party is evil.

Simple, sophomoric and true.

Dig,

I don't believe in evil. Maybe you can explain it to me

lets assume this is "true"

can you list things about the Democratic Party that are "evil"?

Dig, it's all about marketing and positioning and you know it.

A Democrat will point to McCarthyism but ignore Senator McCarran's Act of the same era.

A Democrat will point to a few examples of racism against African-Americans and turn that into
"The Republican Party is racist"

A Republican will point to a few examples of anti-semitism in the Democratic party and turn it into "The Democratic Part is anti-jewish"

A Republican will point to a white lie told by a Democratic president and turn it into "Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy devil".

Coca Cola, Gillette, and McDonald's tell you their good qualities but not their bad. They don't run any ads telling you about cutting yourself or cholesterol and fat.

It's marketing and everyone is doing it and the political parties are certainly no exception. The Republican Party is not an exception. The Democratic Party is not an exception.

It's all about story-telling. You can tell the story anyway you wish. You can say "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" or you can say "The budget was a comprise. The Republicans actually wanted to cut spending more but had to make a deal to get it passed".

You can say "Clinton balanced the budget" or you can say "the US debt increased nearly 2 trillion dollars under Clinton".

You can say "Reagan and Bush ended the Cold War" or you can say "The USSR would have collapsed anyway".

You can say "We won the war in Afghanistan" or you can say "We didn't win. Osama Bin Laden is still out there" or you can say "Thre are still Taliban out there and we'll never if they won't retake control".

Marketing a political party is very easy to do. Since there are three branches of government, one can blame or credit one of them in the story-telling and not the other. If there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, the president can be blamed for legislation gone awry as can the congress. Do we blame the GOP for the Patriot Act and ignore the 70% of the Democrats that voted for it too? Do we blame or credit the originator of a bill, the people that voted of it, or the president that signed it? Should we use the same criteria in all evaluations? It seems to me that in political debates the criteria is always changed to fit the circumstance and there is no neutral mark that is ever used. Hell, seems to me that the criteria is usually manufactured on the spot.

Are we interested in truth or are we interested in telling stories?

"I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left."

And, of course, that is exactly why you would defend him by totally ignoring his own statements...

It IS the current nature of the Left to not only hate; but to foment hate by any means that works, including outright lies. Dig is an America-hater. He can't change that because he cannot see it. He is a consummate kool-ade drinker.



Last edited by Torone at May 1 2003, 07:35 AM

why would you say something like that?

my impression is exactly the opposite, i think he is very patriotic.

why would you say something like that?

my impression is exactly the opposite, i think he is very patriotic.[/b][/quote]
You would...(where's that damned 'finger' smiley?)

There's a fundamental problem to begin with. Any situation is too complex to describe it completely. Any event that hits our radar screens as a 'political event' has a long chain of preceding causes and other related events that would take longer to describe than the actual event itself. So we abridge the story. We summarize. How we choose to summarize both in the discussions we have and in our own internal thought scheme is quite interesting. We all come from different places, have different interests, and have different goals. A huge influence on our story-telling.

I just want to know what happened. I try and discover what the chains of cause and effect are with as little bias as possible - as doomed to failure as that inevitably is. What are the sources of bias? How can we filter them out? This is why I've tried to get outside and abandon political parties. Of course, it's silly. One just ends up with new biases to contend with.

I think one's world-view is testable to an extent by the ability to make predictions about the world. Failed predictions should cause one to question either the original assumptions or the logic of what caused it. The philosophy of modern science [Karl Popper is good for anyone not familiar with him] is that one should make testable predictions from one's hypotheses. We are all often doing this. Each of these political discussions seem to have a lot of predictions. Why? I suppose everyone has their own reasons. Being right is fun, of course. For me, it's a science-thing. A test of one's world view. Am I right? Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, what didn't and I know and what can I learn from it?

Yeah, I think so too.

You would...(where's that damned 'finger' smiley?)[/b][/quote]
why would you say that?

how American is it to accuse everyone that does not agree with you of being an "american hater" or "communist" or "a traitor"

there is more to people, belief systems and political beliefs than "those who agree with Torone" and "Goddam Communists". when you start down that path... what makes you any different in your beliefs than Lenin?

Yeah, you gotta bring the witch-hunt to a non-American.

This is how you
get mileage out of it ,

:ph34r:

JR, you promised not to let my secret out.

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/colin.jpghttp://www.buildinganempire.com/images/lenin2.jpg

I know that you do not believe this because you are either Leftist or over-tolerant because of some deep-seated guilt; but when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.

Are Conservatives allowed to have an opinion and freedom of expression; or are those things reserved for the Leftist 'intellectual elite'?

Where has Dig said anything against capitalism though? He owns a business. He employs people. He works hard. Pretty capitalistic if you ask me.

I agree with JR and I see Dig as Patriotic because he acts it. He talks about Republicans "messing up the country" and he doesn't want to see that. Now, he overreacts for my personal tastes and I disagree with his assessment that the end is coming anytime soon but in the end, to each their own.

torone... lets start again.
i am on your side.

i made you a webpage.
please let me know what you think

my new webpage... the new me.

and Torone, if you want to put a banner there or trade traffic from that page, please let me know.

New partner site with Torone.

Airing our grievances and engaging in political debate are the very spirit of patriotism and the foundation of American life. Of course there will always be people who take things to the extreme, or stick to the party line of their choice; and then there are a whole bunch of people who fall somewhere in the middle. Since it's generally the extremists who are most vocal (and usually make statements and points worthy of argument), it seems like there are only two choices -- but that's not really the way things are. There are shades of gray and the result of debate is that we hopefully end up with some sort of compromise that puts us in that gray area. The people on either end of the spectrum probably end up unhappy with the result, but that end is likely to satisfy the most people (who're more middle of the road).

I disagree with, and even despise, much of the ideology ascribed to the Right; but I can't imagine calling anyone who DOES subscribe to that ideology "unpatriotic" or an "America-hater." I cannot fathom how those people who want to see America declared officially a Christian nation, or would squelch the right of free speech of those whose ideas are contrary to their own can possibly maintain that they're upholding the American way, but I'd never call them unpatriotic. Deluded, perhaps, but not unpatriotic.

US history holds many stories of people who have been imprisoned and even died for exercising their right to disagree with public policy, and I personally feel it is a denigration to their memories to move toward an America where a person has to feel threatened for daring to voice their opposition to the way things are, or they way they feel things are going.

Our country and our system aren't perfect, that's for sure. But I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We have the right, and I'd go so far as to say even the duty, to argue against those things we don't like and have them changed.

Very funny; but Hitler was YOUR guy. He believed in a totalitarian gov't where the state owned and controlled everything.

Very funny; but Hitler was YOUR guy. He believed in a totalitarian gov't where the state owned and controlled everything.[/b][/quote]
i did not know Hitler was "my guy". thanks for the history lesson on Nazi ideaology... and i was not aware that i was in favor of a totalitarian government where the state owned everything. that sucks.

now i dislike myself even more.

Torone, would you recommend this book?

http://64.95.118.51/images/opti/19/1...resized200.jpg

Dig - I think your logic is flawed

Race baiting is evil.

The Religious Right is evil.

Race baiters and the Religious Right control the Republican Party, therefore;

The Republican Party is evil.

Simple, sophomoric and true.


If we take that to be true .....

Whoremongering could be evil

Leaving a women to drown is evil

Protecting rapist is evil

Bootlegging was illegal and therefore could be evil

Having various affairs under your wife's nose is evil

Your son's doing the same is evil

Being involved with organized crime is evil

ALL THE ABOVE POINTS I JUST MADE AND MORE......
Are true of the Kennedy family ...
the American DEMOCRAT Royal family


Furthermore
Is Jessie Jackson a republican, he's a race baiter, what about Al Sharpton?


Taking into consideration my input
In the above case the logic you tried doesn't work



Last edited by Vick at May 1 2003, 06:33 PM

JR, you promised not to let my secret out.

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/colin.jpghttp://www.buildinganempire.com/images/lenin2.jpg[/b][/quote]
oh my!!!!
;-)))

Serge,

Could I pass for Russian?

Hey can you complete passes for the Ravens???

Hey can you complete passes for the Ravens???[/b][/quote]
Nevermore

Nevermore[/b][/quote]
in the bleak December ......


Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?

in the bleak December ......


Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?[/b][/quote]
And the music plays on, as the bride passes by
Caught by his spell and the mariner tells his tale.

The point I was trying to make is simply that most of the ideas Dig was presenting is no more radical than much of what Mike AI says - it just happens to come from the left instead of the right. No matter how much people want to deny it, it's every bit as mainstream as the latest pronouncements from the RNC.

Torone, please reassure me that you consider me an America-hater too. If I'm not coming across as an "America-hater" to the likes of you, I'm really not doing very well in expressing my opinions.

If you scrape the very thin coating of patriotism and love of country from the lunatic fringe of the right you will find more hate than you know what to do with. The America you and yours profess to love does not exist, and never existed. You can call anyone you want a communist, a socialist, a "kool-aid drinker", or fucking late for dinner, but it does very little to obscure the fact that what you sound like are "patriots" like Tim McVeigh

BTW - you are very proud of that "kool-aid drinker" line. Did you steal that from a right-wing radio preacher, make it up on your own, or did it come to you by secret microwave transmission?

The point I was trying to make is simply that most of the ideas Dig was presenting is no more radical than much of what Mike AI says
-------------

if you actually read my posts you'd see that I don't claim anything to be true that you can't verify on drudgereport.com, salon.com or by watching CNN. You attack me because you think it pleases the board regulars - you want to be seen as the 'oh he's not so bad' liberal.

In Revelation 3:15-16 it says "I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

nobody likes a fence-sitter. Not even God. :rokk:



Last edited by dig420 at May 3 2003, 07:03 PM

PD has been defending you, not attacking you. I don't think anyone would accuse PD of not speaking HIS mind that has read more than 2 words of his posts.



Last edited by Colin at May 3 2003, 07:35 PM

Dig,

Question for you.

Strom Thurman used to be a Democrat. Jesse Helms used to be a Democrat.

So does that mean the Democrats used to be evil too?

yep before the Dixie Democrats went Republican.


Simple and sophomoric.. with friends like pdoggy I don't need enemies.

I have an alternative theory. You don't read everything before you post. :blink:

Slow down just a bit here, Dig ... I'm not in the least campaigning to be the good liberal on Oprano - I have no interest in being a Clarence Thomas - and I certainly wasn't attacking the truth of anything you were saying. I wasn't defending it, either. That wasn't the point of my comments at all.

All I was trying to point out is that the attempts to depict you as some wild-eyed radical are pretty pathetic, even if it's a time-honored Oprano tradition. IMHO you are far less an extreme leftist than several regular posters around here are to the far, far fringes of the right.

Paranoia will destroy ya ...

And Colin re the Jesse Helms and Strom Thurman (silly) question - at one point in this country the political divides were far more regional than party. Aside from the fact that the Republican Party actively recruited them into the fold, part of the reason that Helms and Thurman picked up and left is that they found the Republican Party far more appreciative of their, um, "States Rights" idealology. :rolleyes:

Torone is quite fond of the using the fact that LBJ needed the aid of honorable men like Everet Dirksen and others from the Republican center and left as some kind of evidence that the Democrats are no better on Civil Rights than the Republicans. Unfortunately that line of reasoning requires you have absolutely no knowledge of either history or the state of the Republican Party today. A true conservative such as Dirksen would likely be considered as "soft" on too many of the buzz issues by contemporary standards, and would be pushed to the side like McCain; the likes of Charles Percy, the other Illinois Senator voting for the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights legislation wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being a contemporary Republican, and there are many others like him.

So - my answer to your question would be yes, the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party used to be evil. However, like Helms, Thurmon, and the other relics from that era, most of them haven't been Democrats since John Mictchell went all-out to steal the bubba vote from George Wallace, if not before.

PD,

I know WHY.

I was just curious as to whether this means evil vacillates from party to party depending on which party the South identifies with in Dig's view. Now I know the answer and that you think the same. What about New England Republicans? Are they evil by proxy then? I'm really interested in how all this good vs. evil stuff works. Is this kinda like the "axis of evil"?