Quote from: jhkim;244459Even if Bristol had publicly spoken in support her mom at some point instead of just being in publicity photos, I don't think most of the comments on her would be justified.  I think there's a simpler rule about this: don't be a jerk.  Unfortunately, people have been total jerks about her -- and in general, we've seen that supporters of both parties can be total jerks.

I agree with this entirely, and apply it to Chelsea Clinton, too.  Even if she campaigned for her mother, that doesn't mean it's OK to be a jerk about her.

Quote from: John Morrow;244559Clinton was, in some ways, a moderate who supported welfare reform and NAFTA.  Clinton also benefited from a booming economy and a Republican Congress that believed in a balanced budget.  He also benefited from the "peace dividend" that was made possible by Ronald Reagan's deficit spending to grow the military.  Clinton certainly deserves some credit for it, though.  George W. Bush, on the other hand, has nobody but himself to blame since his own party controlled Congress and he refused to use his veto for years.

While I wasn't a fan when he was president, Clinton deserves a lot of credit for his run.  I think he could have accomplished a lot more if the Republicans hadn't torpedoed him with the Lewinsky thing, which was a new low for American politics.

While a lot of the credit clearly goes to Madeline Albright (and Obama made a wise choice in adding her to his team, and would be smart to put her back in place as SoS), I think the foreign policy shaped by Clinton was truly visionary and very much in the direction of the 21st century.  It's one of the reasons I think Clinton would be an inspired choice as Secretary General of the UN.  The man has a real gift for coalition and consensus building, and pragmatic understanding of the sort of 21st century tools that we can use in place of open warfare.

There's also the tremendous amount of work done by Al Gore, which is sadly mostly such hardcore geek stuff that the general public isn't able to appreciate how truly visionary Gore is.

Quote from: John Morrow;244563The dog picture was a few seconds on a late night show and he did take a lot of heat for it.  Not the same.  Are you honestly claiming that a quick clip on one show is the equivalent of what's been thrown at Sarah Palin's kids over the past few days?

No, your post gave the impression that Rush made his joke in a medium where few were likely to hear him, whereas these nameless Palin detractors were on the front page of a newspaper!  So I was eyerolling that implication.

I really haven't seen much thrown at her kids, mostly at her about her kids.  Which is a bit different.  I loved Conan's joke about how she's been a lifelong member of the NRA, which explains why she supports shotgun weddings.  :boomtish:  Care to cite some examples?  Like links to actual stories?  As opposed to jokes by late night talk show hosts or radio drive-time hosts, which is all I've been seeing.

QuoteOh, please.  Have you ever heard what college professors tell their students and seen what the liberal press prints?  Radio is not the only form of information in the universe but you like to harp on it because it's the one form of media where conservatives dominate.  No, no bias there.

Yes, I went to college.  My Modern History After the Industrial Revolution professor was an Iranian immigrant educated in England.  We spent one day (one day!) on Adam Smith and two weeks (two weeks!) on Karl Marx.  He called everyone in the class "comrade."  It was hilarious.  The woman who taught my Gender & Violence class was also a riot, but she was ultiamtely pretty cool.  I wrote a nine page paper savaging a film she showed us (Killing us Softly, about sexual imagery in music videos) for it's sloppy documentation, misrepresentations of popular musical preferences, and dodgy editing techniques.  She now uses that paper as a handout when she shows the film, as a "counter-point" or critical assesment.

I've also seen what the liberal press prints.  I've been reading stuff published by the entire political spectrum, from Anarchists to Zionists, from Freethinkers to Fascists, most of my life.  And a big part of why I skew liberal is because the hatred of the right is far more angry, irrational and psychotic.  It's far more likely to be directed at the weak (welfare queens, or to be expressed as part of glorification of violent power ("we must execute him to physically intimidate liberals")

Do some liberal distort facts?  Yes.  But why?  Why did RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) defend dodgy statistics that presented an unrealistic reality of rape in America for years after the statistics they were using were discredited?  Was it because they hate men?  Because they are, as Limbaugh labelled them "feminazis?", or is it because their zealousness to combat a real and horrible feature of our society get the best of them?  I think it was the last thing.  I think that they, like my Gender & Violence teacher, were so aware of the horror of sexual violence that they were willing to overlook the weaknesses of their statistics (they now use much more accurate statistics based on DOJ and FBI studies).

But over on the right, you have people like James Dobson, dedicating his life to crushing the hopes of gay Americans that they might be treated as full citizens, and not as a second class.  He peddles lies, bad science, and thinly veiled hatred in order to protect us from...from...gay people settling down and forming stable families.

What. The. Fuck?

Call me an idealist John, but I'm more tolerant of someone who does the wrong thing for the right reasons than people who do the wrong thing for selfish and hateful reasons.

QuoteBecause of Nixon, conservatives felt justified in tearing down Carter.

But John, Nixon was a BAD GUY.  He tried to subvert the democratic process!  That's a HIGH CRIME.  He kind of got what he deserved.

QuoteBecause of Carter, liberals tore into Reagan and Bush I.  Because of Reagan, conservatives tore into Clinton.  Because of Clinton, liberals tear into Bush.  And round and round we go, with two wrongs making a right and both sides claiming that their crap doesn't stink and it's all the other side's fault, just like you are doing here.

No, I'm saying that the media began a seriously slide into, frankly, stupidity about 15 years ago.  The news networks made it far worse, with the 24 hour news cycle playing a large role in the stupidification

I'm not really saying it's anyone's fault.  I'm just saying that the national exposure of Rush Limbaugh is where the erosion between news and partisan entertainment began.

The mainstream media -- which actually almost completely ignores the academic left, and most leftist organizations -- has been forced to pretend that both sides in the "debate" are valid, even though half of the debate is being run by monkeys like Coulter, Hannity, Savage and Limbaugh.  It has a net effect of dumbing down the discourse.

QuoteTry 1960s and 1970s, or are you again forgetting those bombs Ayers set and his now wife's admiration of the work of the Manson gang?  It pretty much went downhill in that regard after Kennedy starting with Johnson, which is why he didn't run for reelection.  But it wasn't conservatives attacking Johnson or rioting at the DNC convention in 1968.

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at," Bill Ayers.  That's not an Us vs. Them mentality, right?  Not cheap or nasty, right?  Not divisive and hateful, right?

No John, it is.  It's extremely divisive and hateful.  That's why most grown-up modern liberals reject that sort of language.  That's why you don't see it outside Punk Rawk (and when you hear me saying that sort of stuff, I'm being punk rock, because I iz old skool punk).  

But the point you seem to miss is that you're quoting revolutionaries, you're quoting people who wanted to bring the government into open conflict with them.  They wanted civil war, and fighting in the streets.  They were also, as you note, aiming their hatred at those in power, the Democrat establishment (because they were not in power!).  The Republicans use that sort of language while they themselves are in power.

QuoteA late January 2002 quote from Coulter's address to CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference).   "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."Her words were applauded by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, and Lynne Cheney (wife of Vice President Cheney), all of whom were in attendance.

So when conservatives us that sort of language, then they aren't trying to participate in a free society, they're trying to draw battle lines and provoke a fight.  That they do it from a position of cultural power makes them far more frightening than young, inept revolutionaries.  It makes them a fascist establishment.

Quote from: CavScout;244342Nonsense. If a parent was a strong advocate of not drinking and driving and their teen gets busted for DUI, how does that reflect that the parent supports drinking and driving?

Good to know Republicans agree that parenting isn't to blame for black teens who drop out of school, smoke crack, get pregnant, or join gangs.

Quote from: John Morrow;244563Oh, please.  Have you ever heard what college professors tell their students and seen what the liberal press prints?  Radio is not the only form of information in the universe but you like to harp on it because it's the one form of media where conservatives dominate.  No, no bias there.

That you believe there is a liberal press only shows how tangled conservative ideology is with your personal identity.

It's takes a healthy dose of self-delusion to imagine that Rupert Murdoch is liberal.

QuoteTry 1960s and 1970s, or are you again forgetting those bombs Ayers set and his now wife's admiration of the work of the Manson gang? It pretty much went downhill in that regard after Kennedy starting with Johnson, which is why he didn't run for reelection. But it wasn't conservatives attacking Johnson or rioting at the DNC convention in 1968.

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at," Bill Ayers.  That's not an Us vs. Them mentality, right?  Not cheap or nasty, right?  Not divisive and hateful, right?

Ayers did this, Ayers did that, Ayers was a bad person...  Give it a rest already.  Do you have even one other person?  Shall I post the list of Republican scandals again?

I don't know if this is a John Morrow flaw, or a general Republican/conservative flaw, but harping on one source or data point ad infinitum is not helpful.  The well is dry.  We get it, Ayers did some bad things.  Ultimately, he was pretty incompetent, though.  Had he been successful, not much would have changed, except more tragic deaths.  Had Nixon succeeded, democracy itself would have been undermined.

You tell me which is worse.

Quote from: StormBringer;244671That you believe there is a liberal press only shows how tangled conservative ideology is with your personal identity.

I've worked for a major New York City publisher.  So who exactly do you think works in the editorial departments of publishers and decides which books get purchased?  A bunch of Republicans with business degrees?

In fact, I was working at Random House when Andre Schiffrin was ejected from Pantheon, which no doubt looks like your worst nightmare come true.  The reason Schiffrin was ejected was that he refused to consider the profitability of his imprint but the game he was playing is used by plenty of editors.  They use a handful of suceessful mainstream titles, in the Pantehon case it was things like Matt Groening' Life in Hell books, to offset the losses of left-wing books that nobody was buying unless they were forced to by a college professor for a class.  

People like Rupert Murdoch don't scrutinize every editor of every publishing house that they own and so long as they don't show an extreme and insubordinate disregard for the bottom line like Schiffrin did (he refused to cut titles that wouldn't make money) and turn a decent profit with some best sellers, they can use their discretion in other cases to publish political books that appeal to their biases that will likely never turn a profit and that's exactly what they do.  It's like employees stealing pens from the supply cabinet.  As long as it doesn't get out of hand and cause big losses, it often gets overlooked.

Quote from: John Morrow;244678I've worked for a major New York City publisher.  So who exactly do you think works in the editorial departments of publishers and decides which books get purchased?  A bunch of Republicans with business degrees?

That explains why Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh can't get a break in the publishing business.  Vast left wing conspiracy.

Quote from: StormBringer;244671Ayers did this, Ayers did that, Ayers was a bad person...  Give it a rest already.  Do you have even one other person?  Shall I post the list of Republican scandals again?

So what exactly what "Recreate '68" trying to recreate?  Does your knowledge of history stop at 1981?  Do I really need to teach you about all of the things that left-wing radicals did in the 1960s and 1970s?

And I suppose you are going to list Iran-Contra as one of those Republican scandals.  Do you realize that national politicians in present-day Nicaragua have invited Oliver North to campaign for them in national elections because they felt Oliver North could help them win?  If Reagan, North, and the Contras were so horrible, why would that be?

Quote from: StormBringer;244671Had he been successful, not much would have changed, except more tragic deaths.

No.  Had he and his friends achieved real power of any sort and followed up on that quote, they would have been an American Khmer Rouge.

Quote from: StormBringer;244671Had Nixon succeeded, democracy itself would have been undermined.

You mean the Richard Nixon who opened up mainland China and worked out the withdrawal from Vietnam?  Go ahead, tell me your worse case scenario.

Quote from: StormBringer;244682That explains why Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh can't get a break in the publishing business.  Vast left wing conspiracy.

No.  That why Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and nearly ever other conservative author are published by only one or two imprints.  Because only a handful of editors will publish their books despite the fact that they frequently go on to be best sellers.  You really know nothing abou the publishing industry, do you?

Quote from: John Morrow;244683And I suppose you are going to list Iran-Contra as one of those Republican scandals.  Do you realize that national politicians in present-day Nicaragua have invited Oliver North to campaign for them in national elections because they felt Oliver North could help them win?  If Reagan, North, and the Contras were so horrible, why would that be?

One of the things that people overlook about Iran-Contra is that the investigation and charges made (and convictions found) may have been unconstitutional. Many made the suggestion at the time that the Administration take the battle to court.

IMO that likely was a losing deal given the strong leftward tilt of the Court at the time. Also Reagan himself it seems didn't approve of the actions taken.

Beyond that, while the whole thing benefited Nicaragua greatly- the effect in the Middle-East was less positive. At the time, and with Soviet expansion being the primary threat- this was likely considered an acceptable trade-off by those involved. Today with hindsight one could debate the matter.

Quote from: John Morrow;244683So what exactly what "Recreate '68" trying to recreate?  Does your knowledge of history stop at 1981?  Do I really need to teach you about all of the things that left-wing radicals did in the 1960s and 1970s?

Oh my gosh, do you mean the 'Recreate 68' that forms a central plank of Obama's campaign?  Is that what Biden meant when he got the entire DNC to chant that for the entire nomination process?

My God, John, they are planning a protest march.  Will no one think of the children??  Here are some quotes by the sleeper-cell commie leaders:   But the real legacy of the 68 turmoil was the idea that young people and students had the obligation to challenge authority, to questions assumptions...and could succeed.
–Blake Fleetwood, a participant in the Columbia University demonstrations, 1968


 There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
–Robert F. Kennedy, 1968
Shouldn't we be alerting the FBI or something?  I mean, they are planning to exactly mimic the violence of '68!

Oh, wait, it looks like the government didn't think they started any violence:

QuoteLet us be clear: the name is not "Recreate Chicago 68" or "Recreate the DNC 68." The idea that "Recreate 68" refers specifically to the events of late August 1968 in Chicago has been put out by those who wish to discredit an organization planning peaceful, nonviolent protests by associating it with what they would have us believe was a violent protest 40 years ago. Let us also be clear that those conducting this smear campaign are distorting history: what happened in Chicago in 1968 was not a violent protest,  but rather a "police riot," the term used by the Walker Commission, a  body appointed by the Nixon administration to investigate the events surrounding the Chicago convention.
 In the words of the commission, those events were characterized by "unrestrained and indiscriminate police violence on many occasions, particularly at night. That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in the areas where confrontations were occurring.  Newsmen and photographers were singled out for assault, and their equipment deliberately damaged. Fundamental police training was ignored; and officers, when on the scene, were often unable to control their men. As one police officer put it: `What happened didn't have anything to do with police work..'"

Wait, you may be saying, that is just propaganda from their page.  Walker Commission preface.  There is even a list here of the horrible atrocities committed by the liberals, including being beaten unconcious and arrested during non-violent marches and protests.  How can we let such animals roam among decent folk unrestrained?  The whole two years are clearly masterminded by the cunning Ayers.  His diabolical signature is all over the entire period.


Look, John, it's a bit more complicated than you would like to admit.  But let's not pretend that the conservative interpretation of what happened then or what Recreate '68 is concerned is the only way to look at it.

 

QuoteAnd I suppose you are going to list Iran-Contra as one of those Republican scandals.  Do you realize that national politicians in present-day Nicaragua have invited Oliver North to campaign for them in national elections because they felt Oliver North could help them win?  If Reagan, North, and the Contras were so horrible, why would that be?

Because they are conservative heroes, despite their criminal activities?

No, John, I am referring to this list

QuoteNo.  Had he and his friends achieved real power of any sort and followed up on that quote, they would have been an American Khmer Rouge.

Uh huh.  So, a small group that no one gave a shit about and had no real influence over much of anything and couldn't actually pull off the simple task of assembling a bomb are, in your mind, were only a few powerful friends away from...  What, exactly?  Capturing Washington DC?  Deporting and killing rural farmers?  Conducting guerriilla warfare for 13years until they get a say in the government?  Are you talking about the Weathermen or the Supermen, John?  I mean, the events you postulate could only happen in a bad Clancy rip off novel.  What you are essentially saying is that if everything went perfectly for the Weathermen group, they would have some kind of unlimited power to deport and kill at random.  Except, the Khmer Rogue operated in a largely lawless are in a small country.  So, in fact, there is no way possible for the Weathermen to have become anything like the Khmer Rogue.  But nice try on smear campaign.

I understand why you enjoy RPGs.  You have a vast imagination.

QuoteYou mean the Richard Nixon who opened up mainland China and worked out the withdrawal from Vietnam?  Go ahead, tell me your worse case scenario.

Let me see if I can put it in the terms you used above:
No, if Nixon had succeeded in getting real power of any sort, the Republicans would have become the American Nazis.

Quote from: John Morrow;244683Do you realize that national politicians in present-day Nicaragua have invited Oliver North to campaign for them in national elections because they felt Oliver North could help them win?  If Reagan, North, and the Contras were so horrible, why would that be?

Could you be more specific. Are you talking about José Rizo of the PLC ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;244550No, they were just on national television. :rolleyes:

Syndicated television. In some markets, at 2am. Its not like it was a prime-time event.