So while we're talking about the TBP , I  browse over there and try to make a post and see the dreaded (cheered?):

  Database Error screen.

Anyone else seeing that?

Did they fall down and go boom again?


- Ed C.

Quote from: BrantaiI think George Will and William Buckley have a certain amount of credibility.

I was expecting George Will and possibly David Gergen because neither is really "right-wing" (any more than Cokie Roberts or Sam Donaldson is really "left-wing", which is why This Week used to have some credibility before the partisan man-boy took over and started inviting loons like Katrina vanden Heuvel to the table) and William Buckley is largely retired.  Anyone else?

Quote from: BrantaiBecause the man doesn't have a single goddamn opinion of his own.  Being conservative is one thing, being an unrepentant parrot is another.

Unrepentant parrot of who or what?

Quote from: BrantaiAnd in the case of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", I'd refrain from scoffing if it was coined by someone who didn't have the bizarro-world version of it.

Please note that the longer quote that I added isn't from Krauthammer.

What's so strange about his (the short) version and the article I provided a link to?

Quote from: KoltarThis past Saturday at lunch, a friend told me she is kind of shocked that perople thiunk of me as right-wing.

When standing on the Pacific Coast of San Francisco, even Oakland, California seems to be out East.  

Quote from: KoltarTold me that friends of hers that know both of us sometuimes thought I was a democrat  or they couldn't peg how I vote or lean.

And the truth is that there is a spectrum of nuanced ideas and beliefs on both the right and left that rarely gets noticed by the other side.  How many on the left actually read National Review or American Spectator and how many on the right actually read The New Republic or The Nation to learn what the other side really says instead of simply uncritically accepting the caricatures of those ideas that come from the partisans on their own side?  It's much easier to just sit in an echo chamber of like-minded people who agree with you and laugh at caricatures of those who don't.

Quote from: WerekoalaHow did you form your opinion of Krauthammer that he has no opinions of his own? Is that your own unique opinion, not shared by anyone else whom you might be parrotting? Or do you have facts to back up that opinion? Are people not allowed to have an opinion if there's a chance it  might be shared by someone else?

You're not going to agree with me that Krauthammer shills for the administration at every opportunity, but I'm not really sure why.  Read more than three of his articles and it's plain as day.

Quote from: WerekoalaAs to BDS - do you deny that there are people out there who are so unhinged by the mere thought of Bush that it sends them into paroxysims of anger? I direct your attention to Tangency for prime examples of people fitting that definition. Therefore, his "bizarro-world" version of it is completly on the mark, in the "bizarro-world" inhabited by people suffering from BDS.

Oh, no I'm certainly not denying it.  And I think we have a miscommunication here - I'm using bizarro-world in the superman sense, sort of an indirect way of saying that Krauthammer has the exact reverse of BDS so it's a bit ridiculous for him to point out the existence BDS.

Quote from: John MorrowWilliam Buckley is largely retired.  Anyone else?

Not off the top of my head, but it's easier to notice the ones that aren't, you know?  And just because Buckley's retired doesn't mean he isn't quotable.

Quote from: John MorrowUnrepentant parrot of who or what?

Whoever happens to be leading the GOP at the moment.

Quote from: BrantaiYou're not going to agree with me that Krauthammer shills for the administration at every opportunity, but I'm not really sure why.  Read more than three of his articles and it's plain as day.

I do read Krauthammer, pretty much every chance I get. Most of the time, he does side with the Administration. Could it be because he agrees with them, or is anyone who agrees with them just a shill?

I ask because its important to know - how do you differentiate between being a shill with no opinions of his own, and just disagreeing with YOU?

In short, is your issue with Krauthammer an issue with him, or the Administration you disagree with?

When you can dismiss anyone who's opinion you don't agree with by calling them a shill or a puppet, you can't have a discussion. Now we're back to what started this thread originally - Tangency's echo chamber of bland, repetitive "Bush is t3h debbil!" "I can haz hugz?" "Keetoom!" crap.

Quote from: BrantaiYou're not going to agree with me that Krauthammer shills for the administration at every opportunity, but I'm not really sure why.  Read more than three of his articles and it's plain as day.

I think that's generally true, but that could simply mean that his own opinions agree with those of the administration (and for a variety of reasons, I think that's likely).  I don't think he's as bad as Tony Blankley, who does actually sound like a shill on The McLaughlin Group.

Quote from: BrantaiOh, no I'm certainly not denying it.  And I think we have a miscommunication here - I'm using bizarro-world in the superman sense, sort of an indirect way of saying that Krauthammer has the exact reverse of BDS so it's a bit ridiculous for him to point out the existence BDS.

The right-wing equivalent was Clinton Derangement Syndrome and I don't remember Krauthammer suffering from it.

Quote from: BrantaiNot off the top of my head, but it's easier to notice the ones that aren't, you know?  And just because Buckley's retired doesn't mean he isn't quotable.

It does mean that it's hard to find quotes from him about current events.

Quote from: BrantaiWhoever happens to be leading the GOP at the moment.

Was Krauthammer a shill for Bush, Sr.?  For Dole in 1996?

Quote from: WerekoalaI do read Krauthammer, pretty much every chance I get. Most of the time, he does side with the Administration. Could it be because he agrees with them, or is anyone who agrees with them just a shill?

I ask because its important to know - how do you differentiate between being a shill with no opinions of his own, and just disagreeing with YOU?

In short, is your issue with Krauthammer an issue with him, or the Administration you disagree with?

When you can dismiss anyone who's opinion you don't agree with by calling them a shill or a puppet, you can't have a discussion. Now we're back to what started this thread originally - Tangency's echo chamber of bland, repetitive "Bush is t3h debbil!" "I can haz hugz?" "Keetoom!" crap.

I understand what you're saying here, and I know you won't be satisfied that I'm going to pull a Potter Stewart but I know it when I see it.  I'm just going to have to ask you to take that in as good a faith as you can.
And for the record, I'm with you on the state of Tangency.

Who is this John Morrow guy ? and where has he been hiding?


- Ed C.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that's generally true, but that could simply mean that his own opinions agree with those of the administration (and for a variety of reasons, I think that's likely).  I don't think he's as bad as Tony Blankley, who does actually sound like a shill on The McLaughlin Group.

Okay, that's fair.

Quote from: John MorrowThe right-wing equivalent was Clinton Derangement Syndrome and I don't remember Krauthammer suffering from it.

I couldn't comment on that, except to further clarify that while CDS may be the equivalent, the opposite would be Bush Love-In Syndrome, where the mere existence of our Glorious Leader serves to push the country forward into a bold new age, and all who question him should move to Iran or something.  I mean, I have seen it and it's as real as the other two.  Perhaps we'd be better served to come up with some sort of term for this category of affliction that can be applied no matter whom the object of unswerving hatred/love is.  Sure, it wouldn't serve to get under the skin of the Other Side (whoever that may be) quite as well but since intense, irrational emotions towards particular political figures seem to be universal it would be more useful in the long run.

Quote from: John MorrowIt does mean that it's hard to find quotes from him about current events.

Okay, yes, that is true.

Quote from: John MorrowWas Krauthammer a shill for Bush, Sr.?  For Dole in 1996?

I was 10 in 1996.  But even if he wasn't then, it doesn't mean he isn't now.

Quote from: BrantaiI understand what you're saying here, and I know you won't be satisfied that I'm going to pull a Potter Stewart but I know it when I see it.  I'm just going to have to ask you to take that in as good a faith as you can.
And for the record, I'm with you on the state of Tangency.

That's fair enough. Most people are the same, in my experience. But there are those with whom "agreement with those they despise = shill/puppet/dupe" - in every case, and they infest TBP. And for the record, its not always political in nature, it can be about anything.

There are very few people in human history that it can be said EVERY idea they had or action they took was indisputably wrong/evil/harmful to keetooms an' chilluns, and claiming it is so, in spite of any evidence presented to the contrary, is a sign of (Name) Derangement Syndrome.

How about *DS for short?

Quote from: Werekoalahere are very few people in human history that it can be said EVERY idea they had or action they took was indisputably wrong/evil/harmful to keetooms an' chilluns.

I'm not even sure if there's any at all that can be said about, to be honest.

Quote from: WerekoalaHow about *DS for short?

That or PDS (the "P" is for "Political!") could work.

Quote from: BrantaiI couldn't comment on that, except to further clarify that while CDS may be the equivalent, the opposite would be Bush Love-In Syndrome, where the mere existence of our Glorious Leader serves to push the country forward into a bold new age, and all who question him should move to Iran or something.

Oh, there was the Clinton equivalent of that, too, even with some female columnists volunteering to get down on kneepads to service their Glorous Leader so long as he'd protect abortion rights for them.  While the there is both a love and hate side to this sort of partisanship, it's the hate site where the derangement really shows itself.  So let's compare apples and apples here.

To put this another way, I've rolled my eyes at the things that Tony Blankley says on The McLaughlin Group to support Bush just as I've rolled my eyes at the things Eleanor Clift said to support Clinton, but none of that was as nutty as the conspiracy theory lunacy that the far-left and far-right believe about their enemies.  Shilling isn't derangement in the same way that blaming everything and anything on one's enemies is.

Quote from: BrantaiI was 10 in 1996.  But even if he wasn't then, it doesn't mean he isn't now.

You said, "Whoever happens to be leading the GOP at the moment."  If you are going to make that sort of blanket statement, I expect you to look beyond the most recent head of the GOP for a pattern of behavior fitting this accusation.

Quote from: BrantaiThat or PDS (the "P" is for "Political!") could work.

I would focus more on opposition.  This goes beyond simple partisanship.  Perhaps something like "Enemy Derangement Syndrome".

Quote from: John MorrowYou said, "Whoever happens to be leading the GOP at the moment."  If you are going to make that sort of blanket statement, I expect you to look beyond the most recent head of the GOP for a pattern of behavior fitting this accusation.

But if I'd said "Bush" you'd have written me off as a sufferer of BDS, no?  It's what I assumed, anyway.
Edit: To expand on this, within my era of political awareness, the neoconservative faction has been the party leadership for the GOP.  Prior to that I really had no political awareness to speak of, being young and stupid.  If you have a resource where I can read his articles from that long ago, I'm willing to check it out and re-evaluate my opinion on this matter.  If not, I'm not sure my knowledge of his stances can reasonably be expected to extend that far back.

Quote from: John MorrowI would focus more on opposition.  This goes beyond simple partisanship.  Perhaps something like "Enemy Derangement Syndrome".

I like that!  EDS could be mistaken for something having to do with erectile dysfunction, however, which could be good or bad (I suppose) depending on how you look at it.