Question for jethro and THX: can you honestly say that the description "hate speech" does not apply to the writings of Ann Coulter? According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty. Do you think it would be a good idea for her to ratchet down the rhetoric a bit?
A favorite tactic of the Left is to pick out one rightist lunatic and proclaim that anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy thinks the same.
According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty.
I haven't read the book but I have heard her talk about it. It appears she accused specific democrats of certain acts that aided Communism. I think she has an arguable case that there were certain democrats that came close to treason.
Glad you had a good one, THX. It was me, m'Lady and the cats. I cooked my tail off all Thursday, and the house smelled wonderful. The new boycat will take care of any leftovers; turkey is KittyCrack to him. Because of the cats and the fact that we visit m'Lady's daughter and grandkids in Iowa every year, we don't do a tree, and generally don't go near the stores on That Weekend, but 'twas a good holiday.
Extremists of any sort don't like dissent, and I agree that political threads in general get fairly contentious, but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled. I think that you and I can disagree but get along; am I correct in my recollection that you wrote that jethro used to think you were a liberal?
I haven't read the book but I have heard her talk about it. It appears she accused specific democrats of certain acts that aided Communism. I think she has an arguable case that there were certain democrats that came close to treason.
This is the opening paragraph of Treason :
Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.
This is the same woman who once "cleverly quipped" (to hear her apologists characterize the statement), "My only problem with Tim McVeigh is that he didn't go to the New York Times building." I keep asking "Why does this crackpot keep getting invited onto television shows that claim to offer intelligent political analysis and discussion?"
jethro, there are so many distortions in the article you linked that I will only deal with the major premise:
State law specifies that the ballot must be certified in August; but the GOP National Convention isn't until September.
The GOP decided to hold its convention in New York in September so that it could wrap itself in the commemoration of 9/11, which will immediately follow the convention. There are a number of people who consider this a pretty crass exercise in political opportunism, myself among them. Illinois is one of over a dozen states that require ballots to be certified before September; this was not a secret. Oops!
So, a minor change in the law was required.
Translation: the GOP feels that laws are for other people. The RNC chose the date for the convention, and even though they might not have known about the deadlines before they made the announcement of their convention dates, they sure knew it within the next 48 hours. Instead of rescheduling to a time consistent with History And Tradition™, something that they use to argue for all sorts of things that have no other justification, they said "Oh. No biggie, we'll just have the laws changed."
Remember how Saddam Hussein got 100% of the votes in the October 2002 Iraqi "election?" The Democrats must have been poll watching in Baghdad that day; noting that no other candidates were allowed on the ballot, they came up with a winning strategy for 2004. If it works on the shores of the Tigris, why not on the shores of Lake Michigan?
I checked, and the author of that column is not Ann Coulter, but she'd be proud of him. Disagree with the Bush plan and you're the same as Saddam.
What a bunch of spoiled brats the Democrats are. Give them majority power and they will abuse it.
Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.
State law specifies that the ballot must be certified in August; but the GOP National Convention isn't until September. The GOP decided to hold its convention in New York in September so that it could wrap itself in the commemoration of 9/11, which will immediately follow the convention. There are a number of people who consider this a pretty crass exercise in political opportunism, myself among them. Illinois is one of over a dozen states that require ballots to be certified before September; this was not a secret. Oops!
A dozen-and-a-half states should change their election laws so the GOP can hold a photo-op? Your definition of "democracy" seems to mean "the GOP should get what it wants every time, even if the people have elected a Democratic majority."
No the two major parties should be on the ballot. PERIOD.
And if the GOP has a candidate selected in open convention and submits his or her name before the deadline is past, they will have that candidate on the ballot. If not, they won't; that's the law. If I recall, there was a deadline in Florida's election laws that the GOP insisted had to be enforced -- even though it was well before the Federal deadline -- or GW Bush would suffer "irreparable harm," and they got the Supreme Court to agree.
I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you.
How old are you? Fourteen? If that's what passes for a witty rejoinder in your circles, you need to get out more.
A dozen-and-a-half states should change their election laws so the GOP can hold a photo-op? Your definition of "democracy" seems to mean "the GOP should get what it wants every time, even if the people have elected a Democratic majority."
Your interpretation seems to mean that democrats can keep the republicans off the ballot simply because they are to cowardly to face them.
And if the GOP has a candidate selected in open convention and submits his or her name before the deadline is past, they will have that candidate on the ballot.
But of course democrats don't have to follow the rules, do they? Just look to New Jersey and Frank Lautenberg. Such arguments by democraps is hypocritical at best.
If not, they won't; that's the law. If I recall, there was a deadline in Florida's election laws that the GOP insisted had to be enforced -- even though it was well before the Federal deadline -- or GW Bush would suffer "irreparable harm," and they got the Supreme Court to agree.
And the Florida Supreme Court dominated by democraps violated the US constitution and federal law by changing the rules. Another example of democrap hypocritical cant.
Your interpretation seems to mean that democrats can keep the republicans off the ballot simply because they are to [ sic ] cowardly to face them. Â Â
jethro -- the Democrats did not force the GOP to hold their convention in September; in fact, I'm sure that the Democrats would be happier if the GOP convention was earlier. The GOP chose to do this strictly for political advantage, and wants the rules changed to their benefit. Guess what? In a democracy, you don't get to play by Calvinball rules.
Just look to New Jersey and Frank Lautenberg.
The GOP said the rules said one thing, the Democrats said the rules could be interpreted another way. The courts agreed with the Democrats. And before you start with the "judges making laws" crap, remember Bush v. Gore.
democraps
How old are you? Twelve?
It is a euphemismfor I don't give a damn what you think.
jethro, when you are in a debate you really shouldn't use words that you do not know the meaning of. It makes you look silly at best.
jethro -- the Democrats did not force the GOP to hold their convention in September;
The election laws don't matter. Just ask Frank Lauthenberg.
Just look to New Jersey and Frank Lautenberg.
The GOP said the rules said one thing, the Democrats said the rules could be interpreted another way. The courts agreed with the Democrats. And before you start with the "judges making laws" crap, remember Bush v. Gore.
The democrap New Jersey Court ignored what the law said. We have been over Bush v. Gore. I know you will keep believing the lies, democraps are funny that way. So we might as well drop that now.
It is a euphemism for I don't give a damn what you think.
jethro, when you are in a debate you really shouldn't use words that you do not know the meaning of. It makes you look silly at best.
So pray tell mr. know it all what does euphemism mean? It is obvious you don't have a clue, dip.
"I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" is a euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think" ?
Main Entry: eu·phe·mismPronunciation: 'yü-f&-"mi-z&m  Function: noun  Etymology: Greek euphEmismos, from euphEmos auspicious, sounding good, from eu- + phEmE speech, from phanai to speak -- more at BAN  Date: circa 1681: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted
so let's review...
if "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you"is, as bodine is claiming, a euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think",that would mean that bodine thinks that "I don't give a damn what you think" is an agreeable, inoffensive expression that he has substituted with "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you",which he thinks is an unpleasent, offensive way [euphemistic] of saying "I don't give a damn what you think".
A favorite tactic of the Right is to pick out one leftist lunatic and proclaim that anyone to the left of Trent Lott thinks the same.
Really? Fold and I discussed the "hate Bush" bit a while back. See post #483
but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled.
Try going there, make a respectful dissenting view and see if your account gets canceled. Now try that at Democratic Underground. Try it at this sitewhere she invites you to "Bring it on." Disagree respectfully with her "Bushes Accomplishments" list. Check out this sitefor some ideas or link her to the site. I guarantee that you will get a nasty e-mail and not be able to get back onto her site.
remember Bush v. Gore
We have been over that many times. Why can't you accept the fact that some of the liberal judges sided with Bush?
an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive
Please explain why you think "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" should be considered inoffensive. I might add that expecting no contradiction when posting strong opinions to a public forum is a bit naive.
We have been over Bush v. Gore. I know you will keep believing the lies, democraps are funny that way. So we might as well drop that now.
No, I won't drop it, Mr. Poopyhead. Neener neener neener. Can't you stand up for what you believe in without calling people names? And yo' mama wears combat boots.
An election law deadline is "crucial" in Florida but a "minor technicality" in Illinois; the only difference is which side of the question the GOP is on in either state. The obvious conclusion is that the GOP will argue whatever it needs to to gain an advantage.
Whenever a court rules against your side, they're partisan and "ignoring what the law said." The New Jersey ruling was, IMO, far less of a stretch than the "equal protection" argument of Bush v. Gore.
Why can't you accept the fact that some of the liberal judges sided with Bush?
Are you saying that anyone who doesn't vote with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all the time is a "liberal"? The liberals sided with Gore, and two of the three centrist "swing votes" went to Bush. Mrs. Justice O'Connor has expressed a wish to retire under a Republican President so that she wouldn't be replaced by a liberal, and on election night was heard to express significant dismay at the possibility that Gore would carry Florida, based on exit-poll predictions. Kennedy is a bit to the right of center, certainly not a classic liberal at all.
Pieter, I don't have time to respond to your post fully, but wanted to respond to this.
...but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled.
I've never read, nor posted at the Free Republic, but I have posted in TAPA & BHoRC political threads. I was banned from TAPA, and had my posts deleted from BHoRC.
I wasn't being a major instigator or anything, I was just stating my opinion, which just happend to be contrary to the herd.
If I stayed in the non-political threads of BHoRC, I found the people and the humor to be enjoyable. But once I moved to the political threads, it was a different story...
Ironically the TAPA's header claims "STILL A Place For The Free Flow Of Information", and "The Star Chamber" seems to brag about how they will squash dissenting views.
Don't you find that a little hypocritical? I know I do.
I'm not trying to be an ass, although I'm pretty sure most over there would see it that way.
Hell, I can almost see their point. I'll admit that Foxnews leans to the Right. But in my mind, their actions are no better than the actions of those they so despise.
To sum it up, I don't find most Liberals around here to be nearly as tolerant or diverse as they think they are.
As Kurt Vonnegut always says: "I thank you for your attention".
Yes, there's a fair amount of groupthink, and little tolerance of conservative opinion on BHoRC and a number of other boards, but I don't see the viciousness that I see in Freeperland; it could be my agreement with their basic positions, though I don't really think so. I also don't see anywhere near the level of vitriol from Michael Moore and Al Franken that I do from Limbaugh, Coulter and Michael Savage.
On Salon's TableTalk, I have a few posters in my twit filter, and all of them would describe themselves as liberal. They're there because they seldom post anything of substance, and indulge in continuous namecalling. Back during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, I got heat from some of my liberal friends because I pronounced his last name correctly; I disagreed with him and believed his policies were at best wrongheaded at best, but as one whose name has been mispronounced many a time, I do everyone the courtesy of trying to get theirs right.
I do see more of that sort of thing from the Right; I could be looking harder, but I don't think so. Witness jethro's use several times today of "democrap party"; oooh, how clever. Maybe next week it'll be "demon-cats."
Your style of posting, from what I've seen, is usually to write a brief line or two, then disappear for a bit. This, coupled with your avatar, seems a bit cold, and hit-and-run is a classic troller technique. When you open up, however, you're a likeable guy, and I don't think you're into winning an argument at any cost, like Ms. Coulter is. The last time (that I know of) that she was on Chris Matthews's show, he ended her segment with "Facts mean nothing to you, Ann," follwed by a heartfelt "Jesus!" as they went to commercial.
So, the hell with BHoRC's Star Chamber for the moment; let's kick a few things around here, and maybe we can learn something from each other.
So 7 of the justices are "right winged" while only 2 are bastions of truth and fairness?
Huh? How did you get that impression from what I wrote?
Three justices are conservative activists -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Three are moderately liberal -- Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg. Three are in the middle -- Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter. By "in the middle," I don't mean politically dead center, I mean in the middle of the current Court's ideological makeup. I'd place all three to the right of center, to you they're "liberals."
So let's try to figure out where "center" is, if you're interested.
I also don't see anywhere near the level of vitriol from Michael Moore and Al Franken that I do from Limbaugh, Coulter and Michael Savage.
I'd lump all the above in the same group, just on different sides of the aisle.
but I don't see the viciousness that I see in Freeperland
Like I said, I don't go to Freeperland, so I'm ignorant. I can say, I've seen viciousness at BHoRC. I think Luv2Fly would say the same.
That being said, I can be vicious myself at times, so I don't hold it personally against anyone, although I will hold their politics against them. :-)
What's TAPA?
TAPA:
Your style of posting, from what I've seen, is usually to write a brief line or two, then disappear for a bit.
This is true.
I don't usually have much time to write long posts, so I usually like to cut to the chase so to speak. I'm sure it counts against me because I'm not very articulate, but that's usually the best I can do.
This, coupled with your avatar, seems a bit cold, and hit-and-run is a classic troller technique.
Why do I catch so much shit for my avatar? It's meant to be a joke, but people take it too seriously.
When you open up, however, you're a likeable guy, and I don't think you're into winning an argument at any cost, like Ms. Coulter is.
I find that to be the case with most everyone in these threads. It's easy to dislike politics, it's harder to dislike people.
So, the hell with BHoRC's Star Chamber for the moment; let's kick a few things around here, and maybe we can learn something from each other.
I said to hell with BHoRC a long time ago. Which is probably too bad because I'd like Liberals to know that not all Conservatives are part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". :-)
crabs wrote: if "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" is, as bodine is claiming, a euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think", that would mean that bodine thinks that "I don't give a damn what you think" is an agreeable, inoffensive expression that he has substituted with "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you", which he thinks is an unpleasent, offensive way [euphemistic] of saying "I don't give a damn what you think".
You got it backwards. "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" is the euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think." Are you really that dumb?
fold: Then there's Bill Clinton, who didn't know a sex act when he saw one, nor one that he didn't like, but carried his Bible to Church, every Sunday.
my question: How do you know this, fold?
folds resposne: Because I watched the network-news programs, and he was seen by millions, each Sunday, going to Church and...He carried his Bible. OK Now?
My question wasn't about the bible or church. I believe I highlighted the part "who didn't know a sex act when he saw one, nor one that he didn't like."the question was how do you know Clinton likes all sex acts?
An election law deadline is "crucial" in Florida but a "minor technicality" in Illinois; the only difference is which side of the question the GOP is on in either state. The obvious conclusion is that the GOP will argue whatever it needs to to gain an advantage.
I am sorry that you can't see the factual difference between the two. It is simple, simpleton, the change of the rule in Illinois is being requested BEFORE the election. The change in the rule in Florida was AFTER the election and was done not by the legislature but by the Court which did not have the authority to do so.
Whenever a court rules against your side, they're partisan and "ignoring what the law said." The New Jersey ruling was, IMO, far less of a stretch than the "equal protection" argument of Bush v. Gore. You are too caught up in partisanship to see any truth.
Nothing I have discovered has discouraged me from concluding that Hillary Clinton and her sometimes brilliant, sometimes useful-dupe husband are less than dedicated Marxists. Her mentor was Saul D. Alinsky, long-time Communist Party, U.S.A. member, and author of the Hard-Left’s playbook, “Rules for Radicals – A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.”
the site states: Welcome to Bare-Knuckles Politics, a forum for the discussion of political matters from a liberal Democratic point of view. Republican lies, Greener whimpering, and other matters not consistent with the purpose of this forum will not be tolerated.
What kind of discussion can go on if they all agree? The only thing I can think of is strategy sessions to determine how best to promote their dogma.
I am not here to win friends or influence people. I don't think posts here can have any significant impact on people's opinions one way or the other. as for friends, well if you have any you just risk getting stabbed in the back!!!!!!!
How did you get that impression from what I wrote?
You tried to call them centrist, then you went on to say that O'Connor "express significant dismay at the possibility that Gore would carry Florida", etc.
In the same post that you asked me the above question, you went on to say that "Three justices are conservative activists...Three are moderately liberal...Three are in the middle". Again trying to make the court look like it swings to the right. You appear to be saying "those nasty conservative judges" and "those nice non-political liberal judges". I know, I am exagerating what you actually said, but that is how it comes across.
Kennedy and O'Connor I see as questionable as to exactly what to call them, but Souter has voted with Ginsburg 90% of the time, so that hardly makes him a centrist.
Question for jethro and THX: can you honestly say that the description "hate speech" does not apply to the writings of Ann Coulter? According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty. Do you think it would be a good idea for her to ratchet down the rhetoric a bit?
A favorite tactic of the Left is to pick out one rightist lunatic and proclaim that anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy thinks the same.
Well, it's what's called a "target-rich environment,"
I won't dispute that from the standpoint of a Liberal Democrat.
I just don't think it helps them any to focus on slamming Bush. I'd rather hear how they would do things differenlty.
THX. How was your holiday?
It was great
Thanksgiving was great! Lots of good food, and lots of leftovers.
We got our Christmas tree up and all the other misc. decorating done.
Me and the wife made a big dent in our Christmas shopping.
It was a productive long weekend.
How about yours?
I see far more diversity of opinion and nuance on the liberal side of the aisle than on the other, and far more tolerance for that diversity.
You ever read the political threads in BHoRC? It's pretty ugly at times.
Or over at TAPA? Shit, over there they act like Nazi's. No dissenting views allowed!
Question for jethro and THX: can you honestly say that the description "hate speech" does not apply to the writings of Ann Coulter?
Hard for me to comment because I don't read Ann Coulter. Never have.
According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty.
That's just asinine. My Dad is a Democrat! :-)
Do you think it would be a good idea for her to ratchet down the rhetoric a bit?
Yeah.
It's why I can't stand listening to Rush, or when he was in the Twin Cities, Jason Lewis.
According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty.
I haven't read the book but I have heard her talk about it. It appears she accused specific democrats of certain acts that aided Communism. I think she has an arguable case that there were certain democrats that came close to treason.
What is it about democracy that Democrats don't like?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Bryant20031202.shtml
Glad you had a good one, THX. It was me, m'Lady and the cats. I cooked my tail off all Thursday, and the house smelled wonderful. The new boycat will take care of any leftovers; turkey is KittyCrack to him. Because of the cats and the fact that we visit m'Lady's daughter and grandkids in Iowa every year, we don't do a tree, and generally don't go near the stores on That Weekend, but 'twas a good holiday.
Extremists of any sort don't like dissent, and I agree that political threads in general get fairly contentious, but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled. I think that you and I can disagree but get along; am I correct in my recollection that you wrote that jethro used to think you were a liberal?
This is the opening paragraph of Treason :
This is the same woman who once "cleverly quipped" (to hear her apologists characterize the statement), "My only problem with Tim McVeigh is that he didn't go to the New York Times building." I keep asking "Why does this crackpot keep getting invited onto television shows that claim to offer intelligent political analysis and discussion?"
jethro, there are so many distortions in the article you linked that I will only deal with the major premise:
The GOP decided to hold its convention in New York in September so that it could wrap itself in the commemoration of 9/11, which will immediately follow the convention. There are a number of people who consider this a pretty crass exercise in political opportunism, myself among them. Illinois is one of over a dozen states that require ballots to be certified before September; this was not a secret. Oops!
Translation: the GOP feels that laws are for other people. The RNC chose the date for the convention, and even though they might not have known about the deadlines before they made the announcement of their convention dates, they sure knew it within the next 48 hours. Instead of rescheduling to a time consistent with History And Tradition™, something that they use to argue for all sorts of things that have no other justification, they said "Oh. No biggie, we'll just have the laws changed."
I checked, and the author of that column is not Ann Coulter, but she'd be proud of him. Disagree with the Bush plan and you're the same as Saddam.
Pure projection, if you ask me.
but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled.
Dissenters get canceled at BHoRC, too.
Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.
Sounds mostly true.
State law specifies that the ballot must be certified in August; but the GOP National Convention isn't until September.
The GOP decided to hold its convention in New York in September so that it could wrap itself in the commemoration of 9/11, which will immediately follow the convention. There are a number of people who consider this a pretty crass exercise in political opportunism, myself among them. Illinois is one of over a dozen states that require ballots to be certified before September; this was not a secret. Oops!
Still it is antidemocratic.
Translation: the GOP feels that laws are for other people. No the two major parties should be on the ballot. PERIOD.
What a bunch of spoiled brats the Democrats are. Give them majority power and they will abuse it.
Pure projection, if you ask me.
I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you. But it is simply true. In fact, they are worse than brats.
A dozen-and-a-half states should change their election laws so the GOP can hold a photo-op? Your definition of "democracy" seems to mean "the GOP should get what it wants every time, even if the people have elected a Democratic majority."
And if the GOP has a candidate selected in open convention and submits his or her name before the deadline is past, they will have that candidate on the ballot. If not, they won't; that's the law. If I recall, there was a deadline in Florida's election laws that the GOP insisted had to be enforced -- even though it was well before the Federal deadline -- or GW Bush would suffer "irreparable harm," and they got the Supreme Court to agree.
How old are you? Fourteen? If that's what passes for a witty rejoinder in your circles, you need to get out more.
A dozen-and-a-half states should change their election laws so the GOP can hold a photo-op? Your definition of "democracy" seems to mean "the GOP should get what it wants every time, even if the people have elected a Democratic majority."
Your interpretation seems to mean that democrats can keep the republicans off the ballot simply because they are to cowardly to face them.
And if the GOP has a candidate selected in open convention and submits his or her name before the deadline is past, they will have that candidate on the ballot.
But of course democrats don't have to follow the rules, do they? Just look to New Jersey and Frank Lautenberg. Such arguments by democraps is hypocritical at best.
If not, they won't; that's the law. If I recall, there was a deadline in Florida's election laws that the GOP insisted had to be enforced -- even though it was well before the Federal deadline -- or GW Bush would suffer "irreparable harm," and they got the Supreme Court to agree.
And the Florida Supreme Court dominated by democraps violated the US constitution and federal law by changing the rules. Another example of democrap hypocritical cant.
I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you.
How old are you? Fourteen? If that's what passes for a witty rejoinder in your circles, you need to get out more.
It is a euphemism for I don't give a damn what you think.
jethro -- the Democrats did not force the GOP to hold their convention in September; in fact, I'm sure that the Democrats would be happier if the GOP convention was earlier. The GOP chose to do this strictly for political advantage, and wants the rules changed to their benefit. Guess what? In a democracy, you don't get to play by Calvinball rules.
The GOP said the rules said one thing, the Democrats said the rules could be interpreted another way. The courts agreed with the Democrats. And before you start with the "judges making laws" crap, remember Bush v. Gore.
How old are you? Twelve?
jethro, when you are in a debate you really shouldn't use words that you do not know the meaning of. It makes you look silly at best.
jethro -- the Democrats did not force the GOP to hold their convention in September;
The election laws don't matter. Just ask Frank Lauthenberg.
Just look to New Jersey and Frank Lautenberg.
The GOP said the rules said one thing, the Democrats said the rules could be interpreted another way. The courts agreed with the Democrats. And before you start with the "judges making laws" crap, remember Bush v. Gore.
The democrap New Jersey Court ignored what the law said. We have been over Bush v. Gore. I know you will keep believing the lies, democraps are funny that way. So we might as well drop that now.
It is a euphemism for I don't give a damn what you think.
jethro, when you are in a debate you really shouldn't use words that you do not know the meaning of. It makes you look silly at best.
So pray tell mr. know it all what does euphemism mean? It is obvious you don't have a clue, dip.
C'mon you two, don't start with the personal crap again.
"I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" is a euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think" ?
Main Entry: eu·phe·mismPronunciation: 'yü-f&-"mi-z&m
 Function: noun
 Etymology: Greek euphEmismos, from euphEmos auspicious, sounding good, from eu- + phEmE speech, from phanai to speak -- more at BAN
 Date: circa 1681: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted
so let's review...
if "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you"is, as bodine is claiming, a euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think",that would mean that bodine thinks that "I don't give a damn what you think" is an agreeable, inoffensive expression that he has substituted with "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you",which he thinks is an unpleasent, offensive way [euphemistic] of saying "I don't give a damn what you think".
welcome to the mind of bodine...such as it is.
A favorite tactic of the Right is to pick out one leftist lunatic and proclaim that anyone to the left of Trent Lott thinks the same.
Really? Fold and I discussed the "hate Bush" bit a while back. See post #483
but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled.
Try going there, make a respectful dissenting view and see if your account gets canceled. Now try that at Democratic Underground. Try it at this sitewhere she invites you to "Bring it on." Disagree respectfully with her "Bushes Accomplishments" list. Check out this sitefor some ideas or link her to the site. I guarantee that you will get a nasty e-mail and not be able to get back onto her site.
remember Bush v. Gore
We have been over that many times. Why can't you accept the fact that some of the liberal judges sided with Bush?
Please explain why you think "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" should be considered inoffensive. I might add that expecting no contradiction when posting strong opinions to a public forum is a bit naive.
No, I won't drop it, Mr. Poopyhead. Neener neener neener. Can't you stand up for what you believe in without calling people names? And yo' mama wears combat boots.
An election law deadline is "crucial" in Florida but a "minor technicality" in Illinois; the only difference is which side of the question the GOP is on in either state. The obvious conclusion is that the GOP will argue whatever it needs to to gain an advantage.
Whenever a court rules against your side, they're partisan and "ignoring what the law said." The New Jersey ruling was, IMO, far less of a stretch than the "equal protection" argument of Bush v. Gore.
Are you saying that anyone who doesn't vote with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all the time is a "liberal"? The liberals sided with Gore, and two of the three centrist "swing votes" went to Bush. Mrs. Justice O'Connor has expressed a wish to retire under a Republican President so that she wouldn't be replaced by a liberal, and on election night was heard to express significant dismay at the possibility that Gore would carry Florida, based on exit-poll predictions. Kennedy is a bit to the right of center, certainly not a classic liberal at all.
That's why I can't accept your statement.
Pieter, I don't have time to respond to your post fully, but wanted to respond to this.
...but I think I'd prefer BHoRC to Free Republic, where dissenters get their accounts canceled.
I've never read, nor posted at the Free Republic, but I have posted in TAPA & BHoRC political threads. I was banned from TAPA, and had my posts deleted from BHoRC.
I wasn't being a major instigator or anything, I was just stating my opinion, which just happend to be contrary to the herd.
If I stayed in the non-political threads of BHoRC, I found the people and the humor to be enjoyable. But once I moved to the political threads, it was a different story...
Ironically the TAPA's header claims "STILL A Place For The Free Flow Of Information", and "The Star Chamber" seems to brag about how they will squash dissenting views.
Don't you find that a little hypocritical? I know I do.
I'm not trying to be an ass, although I'm pretty sure most over there would see it that way.
Hell, I can almost see their point. I'll admit that Foxnews leans to the Right. But in my mind, their actions are no better than the actions of those they so despise.
To sum it up, I don't find most Liberals around here to be nearly as tolerant or diverse as they think they are.
As Kurt Vonnegut always says: "I thank you for your attention".
Yes, there's a fair amount of groupthink, and little tolerance of conservative opinion on BHoRC and a number of other boards, but I don't see the viciousness that I see in Freeperland; it could be my agreement with their basic positions, though I don't really think so. I also don't see anywhere near the level of vitriol from Michael Moore and Al Franken that I do from Limbaugh, Coulter and Michael Savage.
On Salon's TableTalk, I have a few posters in my twit filter, and all of them would describe themselves as liberal. They're there because they seldom post anything of substance, and indulge in continuous namecalling. Back during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, I got heat from some of my liberal friends because I pronounced his last name correctly; I disagreed with him and believed his policies were at best wrongheaded at best, but as one whose name has been mispronounced many a time, I do everyone the courtesy of trying to get theirs right.
I do see more of that sort of thing from the Right; I could be looking harder, but I don't think so. Witness jethro's use several times today of "democrap party"; oooh, how clever. Maybe next week it'll be "demon-cats."
Your style of posting, from what I've seen, is usually to write a brief line or two, then disappear for a bit. This, coupled with your avatar, seems a bit cold, and hit-and-run is a classic troller technique. When you open up, however, you're a likeable guy, and I don't think you're into winning an argument at any cost, like Ms. Coulter is. The last time (that I know of) that she was on Chris Matthews's show, he ended her segment with "Facts mean nothing to you, Ann," follwed by a heartfelt "Jesus!" as they went to commercial.
So, the hell with BHoRC's Star Chamber for the moment; let's kick a few things around here, and maybe we can learn something from each other.
<edit> What's TAPA?
So 7 of the justices are "right winged" while only 2 are bastions of truth and fairness?
Huh? How did you get that impression from what I wrote?
Three justices are conservative activists -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Three are moderately liberal -- Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg. Three are in the middle -- Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter. By "in the middle," I don't mean politically dead center, I mean in the middle of the current Court's ideological makeup. I'd place all three to the right of center, to you they're "liberals."
So let's try to figure out where "center" is, if you're interested.
I also don't see anywhere near the level of vitriol from Michael Moore and Al Franken that I do from Limbaugh, Coulter and Michael Savage.
I'd lump all the above in the same group, just on different sides of the aisle.
but I don't see the viciousness that I see in Freeperland
Like I said, I don't go to Freeperland, so I'm ignorant. I can say, I've seen viciousness at BHoRC. I think Luv2Fly would say the same.
That being said, I can be vicious myself at times, so I don't hold it personally against anyone, although I will hold their politics against them. :-)
What's TAPA?
TAPA:
Your style of posting, from what I've seen, is usually to write a brief line or two, then disappear for a bit.
This is true.
I don't usually have much time to write long posts, so I usually like to cut to the chase so to speak. I'm sure it counts against me because I'm not very articulate, but that's usually the best I can do.
This, coupled with your avatar, seems a bit cold, and hit-and-run is a classic troller technique.
Why do I catch so much shit for my avatar? It's meant to be a joke, but people take it too seriously.
When you open up, however, you're a likeable guy, and I don't think you're into winning an argument at any cost, like Ms. Coulter is.
I find that to be the case with most everyone in these threads. It's easy to dislike politics, it's harder to dislike people.
So, the hell with BHoRC's Star Chamber for the moment; let's kick a few things around here, and maybe we can learn something from each other.
I said to hell with BHoRC a long time ago. Which is probably too bad because I'd like Liberals to know that not all Conservatives are part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". :-)
crabs wrote: if "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" is, as bodine is claiming, a euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think", that would mean that bodine thinks that "I don't give a damn what you think" is an agreeable, inoffensive expression that he has substituted with "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you", which he thinks is an unpleasent, offensive way [euphemistic] of saying "I don't give a damn what you think".
You got it backwards. "I didn't ask you. And I wouldn't ask you" is the euphemism for "I don't give a damn what you think." Are you really that dumb?
fold: Then there's Bill Clinton, who didn't know a sex act when he saw one, nor one that he didn't like, but carried his Bible to Church, every Sunday.
my question: How do you know this, fold?
folds resposne: Because I watched the network-news programs, and he was seen by millions, each Sunday, going to Church and...He carried his Bible. OK Now?
My question wasn't about the bible or church. I believe I highlighted the part "who didn't know a sex act when he saw one,
nor one that he didn't like." the question was how do you know Clinton likes all sex acts?
Can't you stand up for what you believe in without calling people names?
No dip, and that is a euphemism for shithead, I enjoy labeling things as I see them. Why don't you toughen up?
An election law deadline is "crucial" in Florida but a "minor technicality" in Illinois; the only difference is which side of the question the GOP is on in either state. The obvious conclusion is that the GOP will argue whatever it needs to to gain an advantage.
I am sorry that you can't see the factual difference between the two. It is simple, simpleton, the change of the rule in Illinois is being requested BEFORE the election. The change in the rule in Florida was AFTER the election and was done not by the legislature but by the Court which did not have the authority to do so.
Whenever a court rules against your side, they're partisan and "ignoring what the law said." The New Jersey ruling was, IMO, far less of a stretch than the "equal protection" argument of Bush v. Gore. You are too caught up in partisanship to see any truth.
I also don't see anywhere near the level of vitriol from Michael Moore and Al Franken that I do from Limbaugh, Coulter and Michael Savage.
You are a blind fool.
Witness jethro's use several times today of "democrap party"; oooh, how clever.
Maybe it was just a typo? At least you are to smart to fall for that. At least that is something. But, to me, democraps is accurate and descriptive.
Nothing I have discovered has discouraged me from concluding that Hillary Clinton and her sometimes brilliant, sometimes useful-dupe husband are less than dedicated Marxists. Her mentor was Saul D. Alinsky, long-time Communist Party, U.S.A. member, and author of the Hard-Left’s playbook, “Rules for Radicals – A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/garyaldrich/ga20031203.shtml
I was banned from those boards also JT. I made one comment on the military vote and Al Gore.
That's all it took.
Here's another site that hates anything to the right of socialism:
Bare Knuckles
http://www.bareknuckles.org/bkp/index.php?sid=be834e69c4d95f852df13b0ce915fcf4
the site states: Welcome to Bare-Knuckles Politics, a forum for the discussion of political matters from a liberal Democratic point of view. Republican lies, Greener whimpering, and other matters not consistent with the purpose of this forum will not be tolerated.
What kind of discussion can go on if they all agree? The only thing I can think of is strategy sessions to determine how best to promote their dogma.
I was banned from those boards also JT. I made one comment on the military vote and Al Gore.
Well, I'm sure you deserved it. :-)
Here's another site that hates anything to the right of socialism:
I don't get it. Who wants to sit around and discuss issues only with people who agree with you?
You guys read this insanity?
http://www.bareknuckles.org/bkp/viewtopic.php?t=2
His very own playland where he gets to play dictator.
yes I did...but since it made no sense either way, I figured why bother fixing it.
As near as I can tell, Bare Knuckles is nothing more than a circle jerk.
Jethro, I highly recommend this book.
I am not here to win friends or influence people. I don't think posts here can have any significant impact on people's opinions one way or the other. as for friends, well if you have any you just risk getting stabbed in the back!!!!!!!
if you are risking getting stabbed in the back by them, they aren't friends.
correct, crabs. you can't trust anyone!!!!!!
Remember JT, Dennis went off to preach to the choir.
He gave up trying to convert us :)
That too.
not unless you have actual friends
How did you get that impression from what I wrote?
You tried to call them centrist, then you went on to say that O'Connor "express significant dismay at the possibility that Gore would carry Florida", etc.
In the same post that you asked me the above question, you went on to say that "Three justices are conservative activists...Three are moderately liberal...Three are in the middle". Again trying to make the court look like it swings to the right. You appear to be saying "those nasty conservative judges" and "those nice non-political liberal judges". I know, I am exagerating what you actually said, but that is how it comes across.
Kennedy and O'Connor I see as questionable as to exactly what to call them, but Souter has voted with Ginsburg 90% of the time, so that hardly makes him a centrist.