I was thinking that it was not so much the economy, as the economic infrastructure of our cities. I love how blind and holy-than-thou people get after they've had some success. It's a bad argument. It follows no logic, it ignores the facts, it's insulting to people who consider themselves Democrats. It's just another sad ploy to break apart America. Divide and conquer in its truest form. The Democrats are off only by a little. For all of George's faults, he's comes off as a nice, moral guy, and he has a bunch of pit vipers making sure that everyone sees him that way. The Democrats just need to find someone with strong leadership qualities, the way Clinton was.
"Jerry, Jerry" (Seriously, though, former hostage Terry Anderson is nationally known, admittedly not for a political career. He recently was defeated in a race for the Ohio State Senate that would be described as contentious. And no, I'm not suggesting him as a vice-presidential candidate.)
Like that will ever happen. Don't forget that Attacking Minded has admitted on this very forum to being an AI application written by the Bush Administration, using technology obtained through their secret deal with the flesh-eating aliens of Vexon III. Just use the search feature - it's there for all to see. He also said he likes eating baby kittens. And disco.
In that post he asks if I'm a "landed white male" and in subsequent posts he refers to "folks like you". People who speak that way are bigots. Mel is a bigot. The fact that you see nothing wrong with accusing someone (falsely) of being a "landed white male" and talking about "folks like you" means you are either ignorant or a bigot. Then again maybe you both ignorant and a bigot.
Try again sugar. He ASKS if you are a landed white male, he doesn't "accuse" you. And in is subsequent posts, is he referring to white folks? or other ethnic folks? does the word "folks" imply bigotry? i must have missed that day in school.... you're gonna have to do better than that. sorry. (and yes, everyone, i realize this is a losing battle, but it is kind of fun. )
I'm so tired of people accusing me of being white. I'm very offended. I think Mel owes us some reparations.
Let's be clear; only two mindsets are allowed from this reasoning. (1) We understand all we need to understand about what's going on out there in the world regarding threats like what we've been told AQ is, BECAUSE we've been told already, and we should believe what we're told. (2) We don't need to understand or come to any fullness of knowledge about anything; we've got the biggest stick, all we need do is use it, and you can call the ass-whipping whatever you want. Number (2) is also known as the Chris Rock defense. Person #1: Hey man, what's Al Qaeda? AM: Aww, man I don't know that sh!t! Keeping it REAL...You think you're smart huh? Tell me this: can you kick BUSH'S ass? That's all I want to know. Can you? Well what the Fvck good is all that KNOWIN' then, if you can't kick ass? x (the admittedly easily found and exploited comedic frames of this issue that would allow me to go on and freaking on, for days, casting this thinking in its appropriate light, were I to choose to do so) - (my weariness not only at your discredited thnking, but at your person as it is projected by you online)... To me, those are the only reasons why you would rail against a thread, a process, and effort or any other endeavour centered upon trying to know more; either you think that what you've been told is perfectly and completely accurate (and, worse, you MUST therefore think that, given the track record of government and the mass media, that they have a trsutworthy HISTORY of telling you the whole truth and nothing but, which is even more pathetic), or you think that really, completely understanding what it is that's going on, or the efforts in that direction, are a waste of time because knowing changes nothing, in your frame of what "something" IS. Either way, how...crippling a life led like that must be. How...debilitating. I honestly feel nothing but pity for you, and for those like you, who LOVE to NOT know. You go keep it real now.
And oh yeah, I was also going to say that you'll probably have to KEEP waiting. When a person LOVES to NOT know, they can't answer a question like that. Well, they can't answer it with anything other than a tangential attempt at a personal attack that amongtheir friends must somehow signify effective debate. Of course, among the humans, it's recognised for what it is. LOVING to NOT know, in that Thrasymachus sort of way.
Didn't Kerry outpoll Bush on the question of who would be more effective in the war on terrorism? Yes. Yes, he did.
OK, so trying to understand your enemy is soft? Do NFL coaches and scouts study video of next week's opponent? Do they try to get inside the head and plans of their rivals? Or do they base their analysis on highlight reels from Sportscenter? Do coaches tell newspapers that "the cowboys hate our freedom to run the ball?" Was it Sun Tzu who said "know your enemy", or was he just some stupid Chicom? Or hey, we could do it your way and blindly lash out without knowing what will hurt most. It's worked so well so far.
I told you; it's either the "Fox News told us what the situation is, there's no FURTHER understanding needed," or it's the Chris Rock thing, where idiots LOVE to NOT KNOW, and love to distill everything down to "might MAKES right, so what do I need to UNDERSTAND, about anything?" When I occasionally delve into that place where I sometimes think that BushCorp are honest, hardworking folks just caught up in a bad situation, the above the BEST I can do in terms of characterising their post 9/11 behaviour. That is to say, when I give tem every moral and traditional benefit of the doubt I can MUSTER, I still am left with looking at the reality of what they've done in the post 9/11 era, and seeing it, AT BEST, as blindly lashing out, hoping that, being so powerful, that all it will take is to connect one time to end this fight. Most of the time though, I remember who these folks are, and the characterisations of their behaviour since that fateful day is best seen, best predicted, in their behaviour BEFORE 9/11.
Asking people if they fit your stereotypes is a sure sign of bigotry. If not then let's have some fun: Just because you're a woman doesn’t mean you have to be stupid or did you just get of the plantation yesterday?
Problem is, the Democratic bigwigs are listening to them: http://www.nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm What From, Marshall and the other DLC speakers were doing last week was not just ruminating out loud about the need to shy away from certain demonized liberal icons. They were, instead, announcing their willingness to embrace the other side's tactic—I hate to lean on this overused word, but it is a McCarthyite tactic—of branding certain individuals as traitors and anti-Americans. What they were doing was sending up a trial balloon, to see if anyone noticed this chilling affirmative shift in strategy and tactics. Well, I noticed. I also noticed that unless something is done about it, this unelected bund of corporate pawns is once again going to end up writing the party platform and arranging things to make sure that no antiwar candidate is allowed to compete for votes in the primaries. It will push one of its own—probably Harold Ickes, or Brazile—in next year's election for the chairman of the Democratic Party. And when that person wins, the tens of millions of Democrats who opposed the war will have to get used to people like Will Marshall referring to them as "we" in front of roomfuls of reporters—Marshall, who this year wrote, in Blueprint, an article entitled "Stay and Win in Iraq" that offered the following view of the progress of the war: "Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor." Also, this is as good a place as any to post this: http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-11-17/news.html That's not a position gap; that's an ideological gash. And it's not going to heal, because, unlike you expedient professional truth-manipulators, I'm not prepared to meet the enemies of freedom halfway just because you lost the election. Your speechwriters might see the Bush administration's failings as nothing more than convenient fodder for your campaign blather, but the GOP junta's sins don't go away just because decrying them no longer serves your ambitions. Last week they were the imperialist pigs who misled us into war and you were the savior. Now we're the goddamn Getalong Gang?! Screw that. Fight back or shut up.
There's no doubt that the Dem leadership as manifested by the DLC and others like them are looking at the success of Rove - as well as the success of New Labour in the UK taking the economic and crime packages right out from under the feet of the Tories by becoming more right-wing on those issues - and trying to become him without losing their soul, or, more accurately, their base. GNN provides a different take on the success or failure of "Rove-mimic": ...Shoob: The winner of the election was the one successful in portraying themselves as the party that achieved the moral high ground. The Democrats could’ve done this very easily if they’d claimed from the start that the war was immoral and illegal – that people had been lied to – that it was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Scheff: But they didn’t. The Democratic leadership all supported the war – Kerry, Clinton, Feinstein, Biden, Lieberman – they all voted for it. Shoob: The Democrats think victory is in the middle. They think that if some Americans support the war, the party has to lean to the right. Victory, I think we’ve discovered, is not in the middle.