Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?

Well, you've got to win over the Saudis if you want to be president.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

SSDD -- speak out against the Cult of Bush and get called a traitor for your trouble.

Nothing new.

What trouble are you talkin' 'bout?

I'm proud to be called a warmongering "chicken-hawk," a homophobic "shill and a toad" woman-hating, stealin' the kiddies school lunches and wishin' old folks eat dog food, racist bigot by you liberals all the time. Heck, Saari just called me one the other day. I think it's great! Is being called a "traitor" somehow worse than all that?

p.s. How else are liberal Democrats supposed to "get their message out," if they get mad everytime somebody quotes 'em, eh?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I'm proud to be called a warmongering "chicken-hawk," a homophobic "shill and a toad" woman-hating, stealin' the kiddies school lunches and wishin' old folks eat dog food, racist bigot by you liberals all the time. Heck, Saari just called me one the other day. I think it's great!

Well, isn't that special.

Is being called a "traitor" somehow worse than all that?

The difference is that Gore isn't a traitor, and he would dispute being called one. You're more interested in whining about how abused you are when you act like a jerk and get called on it. Then you try to turn it around on people by pretending like you enjoy it. How sweet is that? You've got it made. Nobody can get through to you. You've got all the bases covered.

p.s. How else are liberal Democrats supposed to "get their message out," if they get mad everytime somebody quotes 'em, eh?

Got a link to Gore's whole speech? I Googled and mostly found links to a pile of Bushbot whinging, but not the actual text of the speech.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?

Uh, more Abu Ghraib photos released, DA.
Proceed with caution.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/183059/640

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I'm proud to be called a warmongering "chicken-hawk," a homophobic "shill and a toad" woman-hating, stealin' the kiddies school lunches and wishin' old folks eat dog food, racist bigot by you liberals all the time. Heck, Saari just called me one the other day. I think it's great!

The difference is that Gore isn't a traitor, and he would dispute being called one.

Oh, yeah, and add torturer of Arabs to that list. 8)

Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?

Uh, more Abu Ghraib photos released, DA.
Proceed with caution.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/183059/640

Check it out, DA.
Not 8) .

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?

It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no idea which Democrats he's talking about. This is a tired argument with no purpose behind it.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no idea which Democrats he's talking about. This is a tired argument with no purpose behind it.

He lives in San Francisco. His mayor is Gavin Newsom. When I was in San Francisco last year they had big billboards with photos of recently-married lesbian couples [one dressed as the 'groom' the other as the 'bride,' ironically].

But he is exposed to a whole different Democratic universe than you may be in Wisconsin or I am even here in New York. Their state party is much more caught up in those wedge social issues than yours or mine might be.

For example, even here in gay New York, gay marriage is not the hot button issue of the day.

The guy with momentum is our next governor, Elliot Spitzer, who's basically a "good government" "by-the-book", "pragmatic leadership" type. The Dems in my district have consistently won over the past 6 years on an anti-corruption platform. My senators are cheesy populists that coast to enormous victories over a divided New York GOP - Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

So his idea of what the Dems are like might be a little different from what our concept of the party is like.

The trouble with Anthony's subtextual suggestion that Democrats would run better by pandering to the lesser angels of the white working class (which is to say their fear and loathing of gays, abortion, etc) is that 1) these voters would not be in play for Democrats unless they were to not only embrace a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (costing them potentially many thousands of gay and lesbian votes, and gays make up more than 5% of the Democratic base) but also embrace restrictions on abortion (and this would cost Democrats the votes of many, many single women who make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic base) 2) there is a broad if largely unstated consensus in the country that social issues should ultimately be left to the states, and that is likely to be one of the outcomes of this crisis period and 3) every credible anaylsis of the 2004 election postmortem suggests quite strongly that the persuadable voters (who might have voted for Kerry but didn't [most of these people were educated, white collar suburbanites]) swung to Bush on the basis of national security and foreign policy rather than social issues.

Here's one for Kifflie Scott, from deep in the Wisconsin backwoods, a 30-year old pin that reads:

• "Proud to be an American liberal."

He fashioned it as a regular accessory during last year's election, but something odd happened: Numerous peopled sneered at him, and those who didn't would only whisper that they liked it.

I'd sneer because I hate unbridled partisanship, for the record.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Here's one for Kifflie Scott, from deep in the Wisconsin backwoods, a 30-year old pin that reads:

• "Proud to be an American liberal."

He fashioned it as a regular accessory during last year's election, but something odd happened: Numerous peopled sneered at him, and those who didn't would only whisper that they liked it.

And I thought middle aged white conservative men were the persecuted minority.

Originally Posted by Linus

The trouble with Anthony's subtextual suggestion that Democrats would run better by pandering to the lesser angels of the white working class (which is to say their fear and loathing of gays, abortion, etc) is that 1) these voters would not be in play for Democrats unless they were to not only embrace a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (costing them potentially many thousands of gay and lesbian votes, and gays make up more than 5% of the Democratic base) but also embrace restrictions on abortion (and this would cost Democrats the votes of many, many single women who make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic base) 2) there is a broad if largely unstated consensus in the country that social issues should ultimately be left to the states, and that is likely to be one of the outcomes of this crisis period and 3) every credible anaylsis of the 2004 election postmortem suggests quite strongly that the persuadable voters (who might have voted for Kerry but didn't [most of these people were educated, white collar suburbanites]) swung to Bush on the basis of national security and foreign policy rather than social issues.

My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

I wonder if Brokeback Mountain is playing in Tehran?

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Here's one for Kifflie Scott, from deep in the Wisconsin backwoods, a 30-year old pin that reads:

• "Proud to be an American liberal."

He fashioned it as a regular accessory during last year's election, but something odd happened: Numerous peopled sneered at him, and those who didn't would only whisper that they liked it.

I still have my Feingold and Kerry bumper stickers in place. ;-)

I noticed that Mr. Bruch didn't appear to have anything negative to say about the good doctor from Vermont, so Mr. Ramsey made it up for him. This pretend wedge between rank-and-file liberals and Dr. Dean seems to be a common arguing tool for Bushbots.

Too bad it's not real. The true divide is between ordinary Democrats and the establishment DINOs.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

We also loathe torture, murder, racism, economic slavery, and the deliberate destruction of people's lives in the name of "saving face." It isn't wimpy to demand that Americans behave decently toward other people. Your characterization of today's liberals is plain wrong. Knock it off.

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

NO, NO, NO.

You don't get it. Your strategy aggravates the problem. If Americans are behaving like thugs, they should be called on it. "Patriotism" is a shallow concept. Simple human decency goes deeper. Liberals need to maintain the moral high ground here. We need to rise above our fear and have the courage to do the right thing, even if we're dealing with thugs on the other side. DO NOT LOWER OURSELVES TO THEIR LEVEL.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

I wonder if Brokeback Mountain is playing in Tehran?

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

Unfortunately, a belief that America has no right to defend itself under any circumstances whatsoever, which dates back to Vietnam, appears to trump all other considerations, including the ones mentioned above, which would otherwise be @!&* good ones.

I think it would be safe to say that Anthony likes thuggery, and is probably, by liberal definition, himself a thug.

Me, too. 8)

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Unfortunately, a belief that America has no right to defend itself under any circumstances whatsoever, which dates back to Vietnam, appears to trump all other considerations, including the ones mentioned above, which would otherwise be @!&* good ones.

Oh, I'm so glad to see you haven't changed a bit, Titus.

Seems to me that if anyone's stuck in the seventies, it isn't me. :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

We do want to win this war. We have got more Iraq War vets running for office in our party than the Republicans do in theirs. We are angry that the guy who killed 3,000 of our relatives and friends and co-workers in one day is still sitting pretty in Pakistan.

Why can't you get this - wanting to defeat them doesn't mean that we have to support every decision the Idiot-in-Chief is told to make. We though going to Iraq was a bad idea. That it was a distraction cooked up by some people in Washington that had been obsessed with the idea of invading for a long time before 9/11. We still think it was a bad idea, but it happened, and we support our efforts there and we are looking for a good way to define victory so we can bring our troops home.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you so stuck in the events that happened 35 years ago? Boys that were born the day McGovern lost are now men Anthony. They have children, wives, lives, careers, bald spots, and they don't know/care about this stuff. Life marches on.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think it would be safe to say that Anthony likes thuggery, and is probably, by liberal definition, himself a thug.

I haven't come to that conclusion about Anthony. I'm asking him to re-think his position.

Me, too. 8)

There's more evidence in your particular case. Like this gem from a few years back.

Still feel that way, Marc? Want to gun down anyone who disagrees with you? How would Jesus view that?

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

No they couldn't. You are arguing that the Democrats try to outmaneuver the Republicans on the right. National defense is a euphenism for making war. Think about it. The Department of Defense did not defend the nation on September 11. They did not because defending the nation isn't the purpose for the Depeartment of Defense. A new Department of Defense had to be established, to which they gave another name to because DOD was taken. The DOD is really the War Department. Their job is to wage overseas wars. Some Americans think the US waged too many overseas wars in the past and don't want the US to wage more of them. Other Americans don't think the US waged enough overseas wars in the past and wants more wars in the future.

The GOP represents this latter group and the Democrats the former. If the Democrats want to up the rhetoric on what level of force to use in the WOT and the GOP percieves this to be a winning issue, they will rise to the occassion and ALWAYS come out more bellicose. They will always be more willing to cut social programs that benefit Democratic constituencies and spend more on weapons programs which benefit GOP constituencies. They will always be willing to advocate more extreme force than the Democrats.

The only way the Dems could outflank the Reps would be if they first advocated a maximally bellicose strategy for the WOT that cannot be trumped by the other side. We could, after all, simply nuke all the population centers in the Islamic world right now and do to the Muslims in this country what Hitler did to the Jews. Do you want the Dems to suggest this?

If not, then the GOP will always "be tougher" (i.e. more bellicose) than the Dems. And they will always play better to the pro-war folks.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think it would be safe to say that Anthony likes thuggery, and is probably, by liberal definition, himself a thug.

I haven't come to that conclusion about Anthony. I'm asking him to re-think his position.

Me, too. 8)

There's more evidence in your particular case. Like this gem from a few years back.

Still feel that way, Marc? Want to gun down anyone who disagrees with you? How would Jesus view that?

Be very careful Ms. Scott. As we have seen most GOP "tough guys" are usually in their pyjamas at keyboard. But, once in a while they will take up a very minor gauge shotgun of Italian make (with metro-sexual engravings of little birds, bunnies and flora on the receiver) and put "one in the hat" of someone downrange.

Mr. Saari:

Please refer to your signature line, courtesy of Mr. Samuel Johnson. Could there be a more proper response? :wink: