THE LIBERAL THREAD #3- No Debate Please

[eclectics]

It isn't so much negative as stupid. The 2 candiates the ad is directed towards have never met Wright, but did endorse Obama. Hey, we all know what that means.

How stupid can these people get? Evidently, pretty damned stupid.

Should that even be in the form of a question?

 

[Fitswimmer]

but remember, Liberals "feel" and Conservatives "think"

Shameless theft alert: You can't make this stuff up.....

 

[Mugg Mann]

but remember, Liberals "feel" and Conservatives "think"

Shameless theft alert: You can't make this stuff up.....

Or, when you're caught, try to change the past and pretend it never happened. And if that doesn't work, try to yell foul and continue to bury your head in the sand. The Bush administration has never believed or engaged in accountability, so it's no surprise that the 29% doesn't either.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Did you guys see that McCain's taking the Bush Administration to task for their response to Katrina?

Senator John McCain took direct aim at the Bush administration on Thursday as he stood in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, the area hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and declared the handling of the disaster “terrible and disgraceful” and pledged that it would never happen again.

Senator John McCain on Thursday toured the neighborhood in New Orleans that was hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. McCain ticked off a long list of mistakes by the current administration, saying there were “unqualified people in charge, there was a total misreading of the dimensions of the disaster, there was a failure of communications.”

The pointed critique was one of his harshest assessments yet of the Bush presidency and came as he has been moving to corral restive elements of the Republican Party — and the Bush donor network — behind his candidacy.

Asked at a news conference outside St. David’s Catholic Church if he traced the failure of leadership straight to the top, Mr. McCain, who has said he wants to campaign with President Bush, said emphatically, “Yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?hp

I can understand his attempt to reach out to moderates, but doesn't this guy actually need his base to get elected? After years of defending the President's actions, I wonder what the 29%ers think of ol' Maverick's opinion?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I saw that yesterday and I was wondering how it would play with the faithful. McCain has a tough road, he has a moderate voting record, but he desperately needs the conservative base.

 

[KikiFan]

Yeah but attacking the Bush administration on Katrina is a pretty safe bet. Pretty much everyone agrees it was mishandled.

It's not like he's attacking Bush on anything really controversial ... like Iraq.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Yeah but attacking the Bush administration on Katrina is a pretty safe bet. Pretty much everyone agrees it was mishandled.

It's not like he's attacking Bush on anything really controversial ... like Iraq.

According the Cons I've heard from, the Bush Administration did all they could, but were faced with those pesky liberals Nagin and Blanco, who should bear the brunt of criticism. I hardly think McCain's inclusion on the front page of the NYTimes criticizing a "sitting President", as the right likes to chastise us for, will do anything to bolster his support amongst the Republican base, much less get them to open up their wallets.

 

[chobie]

Can we bring the "feeling vs. thinking" argument over here? The cons started on their thread but have indicated they no longer wish to pursue in that vein, as is their prerogative with a no debate thread; however, I would like to continue that argument.

First of all, I think that is a completely specious argument to begin with because as humans we are emotional critters. Everything we do is based on emotions, that is how we survive.

Second, feeling that the government should not help people and people should help themselves, is still...wait for it... a feeling. The cons used fear in the last election to get votes and fear is ... you guessed it Fitz, an emotion.


Much ado was made by the cons about Michelle Obama saying she had not been proud of this country until now, and pride is an emotion.

Cons love to attack liberals for not being patriotic and patriotic means "love and devotion for one's nation."

 

[Fitswimmer]

Can we bring the "feeling vs. thinking" argument over here? The cons started on their thread but have indicated they no longer wish to pursue in that vein, as is their prerogative with a no debate thread; however, I would like to continue that argument.

First of all, I think that is a completely specious argument to begin with because as humans we are emotional critters. Everything we do is based on emotions, that is how we survive.

Second, feeling that the government should not help people and people should help themselves, is still...wait for it... a feeling. The cons used fear in the last election to get votes and fear is ... you guessed it Fitz, an emotion.


Much ado was made by the cons about Michelle Obama saying she had not been proud of this country until now, and pride is an emotion.

Cons love to attack liberals for not being patriotic and patriotic means "love and devotion for one's nation."

I was having a jolly time over there with that discussion, but I left when asked. Don't want to make any enemies these days....

I think emotion is a consistent part of all decision making. However, I do not believe that it is the primary factor in all decision making. As I said over there, I start off with the assumption that everybody uses the same process of coming to a conclusion that I do. We all do our research, bring our experience and background to the facts, and we come up with our conclusion based on our experience and the facts presented. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I assume that while emotion is a part of the experience everyone brings, I wouldn't accuse anyone of making choices completely on feelings.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Can we bring the "feeling vs. thinking" argument over here? The cons started on their thread but have indicated they no longer wish to pursue in that vein, as is their prerogative with a no debate thread; however, I would like to continue that argument.

First of all, I think that is a completely specious argument to begin with because as humans we are emotional critters. Everything we do is based on emotions, that is how we survive.

Second, feeling that the government should not help people and people should help themselves, is still...wait for it... a feeling. The cons used fear in the last election to get votes and fear is ... you guessed it Fitz, an emotion.


Much ado was made by the cons about Michelle Obama saying she had not been proud of this country until now, and pride is an emotion.

Cons love to attack liberals for not being patriotic and patriotic means "love and devotion for one's nation."

The "feeling vs. thinking" argument is discussed ad nauseum on the Rush Limbaugh program. It's one of his favorite topics. Whenever one of the Cons here bring it up, I know what el Rushbo's been talking about that day. It's great for the Dittoheads and their elitist attitudes about their imagined intellectual superiority over compassion, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all for entertainment value only. It simply cannot be proven.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The "feeling vs. thinking" argument is discussed ad nauseum on the Rush Limbaugh program. It's one of his favorite topics. Whenever one of the Cons here bring it up, I know what el Rushbo's been talking about that day. It's great for the Dittoheads and their elitist attitudes about their imagined intellectual superiority over compassion, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all for entertainment value only. It simply cannot be proven.

AH...so that's where it came from-that's also why it can't be defended.

 

[dcentity2000]

I dunno if this has been asked before but...

If your candidate - Clinton OR Obama - didn't win the nomination, would you still vote Democrat at the next election, or would you abstain/vote Republican?



Rich::

 

[Fizzgig]

According the Cons I've heard from, the Bush Administration did all they could, but were faced with those pesky liberals Nagin and Blanco, who should bear the brunt of criticism. I hardly think McCain's inclusion on the front page of the NYTimes criticizing a "sitting President", as the right likes to chastise us for, will do anything to bolster his support amongst the Republican base, much less get them to open up their wallets.

I love to point out to people that blind that Bush's schedule is public knowledge, and when notified by LA's governor that she needed help, he chose instead... to go to bed.

Here's a gem from Rush Limbaugh: http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=90593

DENVER (AP) - Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, saying that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if super delegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.


Limbaugh's comments on his syndicated show Wednesday prompted Mayor John Hickenlooper to say: "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."

Limbaugh made his comment Wednesday to the tune of the holiday song, "White Christmas," and said riots during the convention would ensure Democrats don't get elected.

Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the protest group Re-create 68, mimicked a comment by state Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, by saying: "We don't need another 5,000 illiterate Limbaugh listeners coming to Colorado."

(Copyright Associated Press, All Rights Reserved)

 

[chobie]

I dunno if this has been asked before but...

If your candidate - Clinton OR Obama - didn't win the nomination, would you still vote Democrat at the next election, or would you abstain/vote Republican?



Rich::

I am, but its a touchy subject right now. The bad blood between the sides might not go away unless its a combined ticket.

 

[crcormier]

I dunno if this has been asked before but...

If your candidate - Clinton OR Obama - didn't win the nomination, would you still vote Democrat at the next election, or would you abstain/vote Republican?



Rich::

Would still vote democratic.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Would still vote democratic.

I think we all probably would...no?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I think we all probably would...no?

I've felt that way all along-which is why I have both signs in my sig.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I've felt that way all along-which is why I have both signs in my sig.

Right now, we're in the heat of the contest, so a lot of people are talking with some seriously frayed nerves. I know from the discussions we've had here over the years that those Dems who are saying they wouldn't vote for the other candidate now, will. Call it a hunch, but in the end, I just don't see guys like DISUNC or wvrevy sitting this election out, much less voting Republican.

 

[chobie]

I think we all probably would...no?

That's not what a lot of people are saying, but I angered many by arguing on the Hillary thread about it.

 

[wvrevy]

Right now, we're in the heat of the contest, so a lot of people are talking with some seriously frayed nerves. I know from the discussions we've had here over the years that those Dems who are saying they wouldn't vote for the other candidate now, will. Call it a hunch, but in the end, I just don't see guys like DISUNC or wvrevy sitting this election out, much less voting Republican.

Would never vote for McCain against either of these candidates. However...I'm still up in the air as to whether I'd mark that box next to Hillary's name. Would just feel too much like I was endorsing the way she would have to have gotten the nomination.