Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Interesting that both Clinton and Obama, while refusing to censor MoveOn.org for the slanderous ad about Gen. Peatreus were quite willing to step up and be counted against Rush Limbaugh for a phony, media-generated, taken out of context slur. Yep, the Dems had no problem piling on Rush, but then, he doesn't donate money to them like MoveOn.org.

Draw your own conclusions.

[sailaway21]

CP,
I would strongly agree with your statement about the "believability" factor. I'm not concerned that the skill was learned through acting experience or wherever, it is desirable and most canidates do not have it. Other canidates, when asked the tough question, can be visibly seen to be parsing their words in a way so as to not offend anyone, and answer nothing. One starts to wonder on their reliability.

It's a little like listening to Bill Clinton, or a car salesman. You have to listen extremely carefully to their every sentence or they'll convey an impression without actually saying truthfull words you can take to the bank. When Fred says something, it's in plain English, and the statement conveys much more than just the words, much like Reagan. On the short list of things I really admire about Bush is that he says what he means and means what he says. Reagan had that, and while I may not have completely agreed with the ideas, I was left in doubt as to what they were.

I think that pols underestimate the public's ability to absorb bad news and try to use weasel words to get around the issues. You present the bad news right up front, along with the good news of how, with work, we're going to fix things. The last thing you want to do is present the solution as an easy decision to make. People are smarter than that, they know if it were easy it'd have already been done. Thompson has an innate ability to communicate where he thinks we should go and how we're going to get there. You half expect the audience to yell out, "let's start loading the wagon". Once American's understand an issue, knowing what's required, their natural inclination is to get busy, loading the wagon, as it were.

[sailaway21]

A mostly sensible view from an island somewhere off the continent of Yurrup. I'd only quibble with the assertion that conservatism may be washed up after a thirty year run. I see no signs of that, only Republicans who thought you didn't need to believa all that hooey about fiscal conservativeness and low taxes, anotherwords, Republicans who thought they could act like Democrats.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2641498.ece

[sailaway21]

Mindful of the donnybrook that erupted on these placid pages the last time Dame Clinton's name was mentioned, I offer the following link to those with a sense of humour, if not a short memory. Please place your seat-backs in a full upright position, extinguish all smoking materials, and swallow whatever beverage you are currently imbibing-in a moment it will be too late and I'm not buying you a new monitor or keypad. Otherwise, enjoy!

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12169

[sailaway21]

Another moron is heard from. What about the last thirty years is unclear, more government is not the answer. Remember all that money we pumped into oil-from-shale back in the Carter years? Thomas Friedman is a very intelligent man. I say that because you'll find no evidenc of it in the column below. My grandfather has a term for such men, "Smart in the classroom, dumb in the bathroom." In any event, here's the latest from the world revolves around New York perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/op...on&oref=slogin

[USCGRET1990]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Another moron is heard from. What about the last thirty years is unclear, more government is not the answer. Remember all that money we pumped into oil-from-shale back in the Carter years? Thomas Friedman is a very intelligent man. I say that because you'll find no evidenc of it in the column below. My grandfather has a term for such men, "Smart in the classroom, dumb in the bathroom." In any event, here's the latest from the world revolves around New York perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/op...on&oref=slogin

...yep...you're answering your own posts from 4 days ago...SW...I'm going to bed...how bout you..??!?!?

[sailaway21]

A perfectly lucid analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Republican field of canidates for president. As Chuck see's it, we're down to 4 1/2 men.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...M1YzgzMTBjNWY=

[camaraderie]

If we aren't careful we could end up with this!
hillbill.jpg

[Giulietta]

Mr. Camaraderie's lack of professional ethics has become so flagrant that it merits your complete attention. Before I get moving here, let me point out that I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Camaraderie. In view of that, it is not surprising that Camaraderie has vowed that in the immediate years ahead he'll give me reason to hide in a closet. This is hardly news; Camaraderie has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that for those of us who make our living trying to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity, it is important to consider that the next time Camaraderie decides to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his nerdy, clumsy practices, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? An ancient Greek once wrote something to the effect of, "I can't, for the life of me, see why he wants to instill a general ennui." Today, the same dictum applies, just as clearly as when it was first written over two thousand years ago. To be fair, Camaraderie ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

Camaraderie says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Camaraderie's time has run out. If it weren't for aberrant jabberers, he would have no friends. It's our responsibility to face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. That's the first step in trying to put the kibosh on his hatchet jobs, and it's the only way to embark on a new path towards change.

Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that if you think that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Camaraderie and the twisted, grumpy deadbeats in his peuplade, then think again. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. The disgraceful libertinism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of dirty drongos, nor of the sinister egotists who revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. It is the fault of Camaraderie. He has commented that his maneuvers are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. His goal is to make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to his histrionics. This is abject militarism! We must call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. We must justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Mr. Camaraderie and his pusillanimous strictures. And we must upbraid Camaraderie for being so irascible. Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.

[Giulietta]

Also, I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding Mr. Sailaway's double standards. And I stress the word "tentative," because the subject of what motivates Sailaway is tricky and complex. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Sailaway's self-serving indoctrination and is consequently believable. He has been deluding people into believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Don't let him delude you, too. I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of his hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.

Neopaganism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. But don't despair. Rather, take comfort in the knowledge that Sailaway says that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. I almost forgot: Double standards are always unimaginative. So let him call me uppity. I call him impetuous. Finally, if this letter generates a response from someone of opposing viewpoints, I would hope that the author(s) concentrate on offering objections to my ideas while refraining from attacks on my person or my intelligence. I've gotten enough of that already from Mr. Sailaway.