Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Sarah will never be asked to rush.
Topic Started: Sep 6 2008, 02:00 PM (1,392 Views)
Tidbits

But, Sarah will be asked to Rush.

And millions will tune in for the delightful interview.

Next week perhaps.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

you know? I cant wait till the debates start so mccain and Palin can publicly comment on some of this trash. Just asking the opposition why would be good enough for me. If we cant be nice to each other in this country how can we be nice to anyone in the world.

I dont hear one negative comment about obama (maybe I am missing them) but yet we hear him saying that what they are saying about him is not fair. I just dont get it. But what it has done is get me working for McCain and Palin.
Edited by chatham, Sep 6 2008, 09:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Greg

And the thing I always find ironic-funny is how the letters to the editor in the local paper from the local big-mouth libs always seem to complain about how mean-spirited Republicans are.

I think it's just a tag line to the libs. Just another thing to say. Devoid of meaning, they just launch it along with all their other tripe, hoping something sticks. It's one of those things they believe because if it isn't true, they feel it should be. Yeah, those asshat Republicans and their 18th Century breeding habits, they're soooo mean-spirited.

It's kinda like the pot calling the porcelain black. (Can we use that saying anymore?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Joan,

As an undergraduate, I pledged a fraternity that at the national level advertised itself as devoted to young men of Italian heritage. I am not of Italian heritage, nor were many of my fraternity brothers. Our chapter of the national prided itself on being open to everyone, regardless of ethnicity or religious background. We were not favorites of the national.

I shall never forget the day the big wigs from the national came to visit us. I was then chapter president. While I was doing my best to persuade the old guard to give us desperately needed financial help, a brother one year behind me walked through our living room. That young man was Hawaiian and was wearing his bathing trunks. (Today he is a leading cardiologist in Honolulu.) I could tell immediately from the expressions of the big wigs that we’d never get a penny from them. That following summer, I stayed in Ithaca to supervise our bankruptcy. In that last year, I called more Jews my fraternity brothers than I did Italian-Americans. Our executive council of five included two boys of Arabic heritage.

So, Joan, you say you were shocked at your sorority’s refusal to rush “Sue.” You say you “argued and cried and stomped out…nothing mattered.” Did you quit the sorority? If not, why not? If you did quit, did you also end your friendships with the girls who had excluded Sue? I’m not trying to embarrass you. I am trying to point out how hazardous it is to question the integrity of posters on this board. I am trying to dissuade you and others from interpreting every other expression of “contrariness” from posters such as Duke 84 as either hateful or indicative of leftwing pathology. I suspect that few of the posters at Liestoppers would have the courage of Duke 84 to persist in posting here were the roles reversed, were they instead the very obvious minorities of one, were they so routinely and predictably set upon by the pack.

:biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
J. Elliott
Member Avatar

I must have missed all the fun with Duke84. IIRC, s/he also posted at TL back when that was my only home. I don't recall any trouble there.

There's always a pack mentality working on some level with any group worth joining, in my experience. The issue is whether people have the interest in pulling back on the reins when the situation clearly calls for it. If not, then that's just one more collection of folks about to become bitter with one another. Sadly, this doesn't happen nearly enough, even with smart people who are aware of it all.

We're quite often jerks.

Back to the thread -

I've been a lifelong Dem, but am edging ever closer to declaring as an Independent. The whiny, manipulative, weak group of pricks in my party seems to wrap it's fingers around our throats more and more. I'm just so frickin' tired of listening to Paul Begala types. What a bum.

I'm thinking, this week, that Palin was a good choice. She's got people fired up on her side, and has clearly walked the walk by deciding to carry Trig full term. I'm giving this single act a big thumbs up.

That 'my' side has so many pussies (yep, that what I'm calling 'em), ready and eager to make fun of such a choice and the baby too, is just plain depressing. The more these losers talk, the more they drive away votes.

If they keep up with it, between Hillary's deadenders and the smartasses who won't bother to cover up their contempt of middle America, they'll talk McCain right into office. And they don't care!

Who wants to vote for a candidate that is going to bring this bunch of twits with him into power? Who can trust a party that happily puts up with idiots?

Edited by J. Elliott, Sep 6 2008, 11:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Duke parent 2004
Sep 6 2008, 11:08 PM
Joan,

As an undergraduate, I pledged a fraternity that at the national level advertised itself as devoted to young men of Italian heritage. I am not of Italian heritage, nor were many of my fraternity brothers. Our chapter of the national prided itself on being open to everyone, regardless of ethnicity or religious background. We were not favorites of the national.

I shall never forget the day the big wigs from the national came to visit us. I was then chapter president. While I was doing my best to persuade the old guard to give us desperately needed financial help, a brother one year behind me walked through our living room. That young man was Hawaiian and was wearing his bathing trunks. (Today he is a leading cardiologist in Honolulu.) I could tell immediately from the expressions of the big wigs that we’d never get a penny from them. That following summer, I stayed in Ithaca to supervise our bankruptcy. In that last year, I called more Jews my fraternity brothers than I did Italian-Americans. Our executive council of five included two boys of Arabic heritage.

So, Joan, you say you were shocked at your sorority’s refusal to rush “Sue.” You say you “argued and cried and stomped out…nothing mattered.” Did you quit the sorority? If not, why not? If you did quit, did you also end your friendships with the girls who had excluded Sue? I’m not trying to embarrass you. I am trying to point out how hazardous it is to question the integrity of posters on this board. I am trying to dissuade you and others from interpreting every other expression of “contrariness” from posters such as Duke 84 as either hateful or indicative of leftwing pathology. I suspect that few of the posters at Liestoppers would have the courage of Duke 84 to persist in posting here were the roles reversed, were they instead the very obvious minorities of one, were they so routinely and predictably set upon by the pack.

:biggrin:
DukeParent2004, You don't embarrass me.,..though my answer will. No, I did not quit.,,though I will say my friendship with Sue stayed strong and my level of activity with the sorority diminished. In addition, I wonder if I didn't hurt my sister by sharing all that with her, and not quitting and THAT causes me shame to this day. I have no excuse for staying....I can't even remember why I did. That's as honest answer as I can give you . I am certainly no hero of the piece.

As to Duke84, I also admire his tenacity and that particular post was not directed at him...though the later one using his quotes assembled from another thread were. Your points about his courage and tenacity here are well taken. But IMO what we see happen here is a microcoism of the degradation of the "debate" we see on the national scene. It's why we vote like lemmings now..instead of weighing the merits.

Because somewhere it was decided that a quick slam, a smear, derision, were a lot easier and more effective that actually laying out an argument for your side. The emotional cheap shot replaced the hard intellectual work of presenting one's case. That invites an emotional reaction...and then disdain...and no one listens...and the cachophony is two discordant "Choirs" singing at each other.

Pretty ugly.

For example, the "Sarah Palin" media reaction. I am sure there is plenty of legitimate detail about her governance and her experience to cover or expose or present to the public. Instead the NYT has three articles on her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy and rumors about her Down's syndrome child. After this disgusting onslaught, few are willing to listen or believe anymore...regrettably...even if they "get the goods" on her.


You mention the "pack" mentality here. Yes, Duke 84 has shown courage in posting with almost total opposition. I tell him so myself. But here's a question about the discourse in general. Here we have one of our best educated, most intelligent, most capable posters. His prescence here in defense of the kids tells me something about him too...something that gives him a credibility and makes me willing to listen to him. But look at the posts:


******

"What would Sarah Palin do if she was asked to handle, isolate and sequence DNA from a blood sample flown across the ocean from an AIDS patient who reported to a health clinic in Africa and died before they could even fill the cooler? Wet herself? Get pregnant again?"

"I'm not sneering at her at all. I'm suggesting that Todd invest in a pack of condoms. Levi too. I'm sure they have them in Alaska."

"Yeah - but then can't you blame China and have a claim to some sort of foreign policy experience?"

"If you have a Down Syndrome baby at 44, it's time to shut down the factory, IMO."

*****

I came home late in the afternoon and read these comments coupled with McCain's POW experience being labeled a "schitick." Surely, our intelligent friend knows the response those posts will bring.

On a thread where we are discussing the Left wing press using her family and private matters to smear this woman instead of examining her record...we see our only "representative" of the Left doing the same.

Why not write the posts he's fully capable of, that might set us back on our heels, about why Obama is getting his vote, why the Left will bring us a better world, why my fears of suppression of debate are unfounded?

Why not?

Suppose someone reads here who is truly undecided...will one of those posts convince that poster to vote Obama because Todd Palin is too dumb to wear a condom?

Other than provoke a predictable response...what point is there in demeaning 5 years of torture in a POW camp as "schtick?" It takes guts to post against the "herd" here...but then, give us your intellectual best. Counter us, correct us...don't bait us with the very type of dismissive sneers that are the mainstay of the MSM (who ALL of us here have excoriated in our discussions of the LAX case!)

Most teachers are hardest on their most gifted students. Duke84 is among our most gifted posters. The Board is divided in two parts..so he may easily avoid if he does not wish to engage. But should he choose to post, then don't give us a sampling of all we found most odious in the Fly-by media. Come at us with all your intellect and gifts! Even if you convert NO ONE...if anyone is reading here, you do YOUR SIDE a much better service.

The Elite Left may lose this election simply because they can't seem to control their public snarkiness. Coupled with asking the Justice Department to intervene to stop a legitamite questions about Obama-Ayers...they seem unable to present Obama as anything but God-like and his opponents as anything less than the embodiment of disgusting ignorant Evil.

Most get it...that we are all imperfect.

Like that shallow sorority girl who let her sister down ... to her eternal regret all those years ago.

Though I agree your points about the herd mentality here have merit, and I agree we would do our side a service by toning down the snarkiness of our own posts...you cannot ignore the "quality" and tone of the posts we are given to respond to.



Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

.
Duke84 is in a difficult situation. I agree with most of DukeParent2004's characterization of him, however, following individual posters and correcting their spelling and essentially calling them dumb repeatedly cannot be something you want to promote DukeParent2004.

Having said that, maybe there's a lot I missed, because a search shows no reference to Duke84 in this thread until DukeParent2004's post.

I can not read every post and there may have been action that I missed that is the basis for DukeParent's defense, which I'm assuming is not preemptive.

Duke84, who's admittedly in a difficult position, does himself no favors by calling out specific posters for what he characterizes as their inability to spell, add, count, or remember things.

We need to give people room to have their opinions. If someone supports Obama, they should NOT be attacked or generally classified as "one of them." I've said it a thousand times, posters need to post their opinion and not focus on the opinion of other posters. We are mostly too "experienced" in years to be open to changing our political beliefs after reading a compelling post.

Maybe it's time to start enforcing the rules more often.

Do not single out Duke84 or other posters that don't share your world-view. This place will stay open for them to share their opinions and experiences too.

Duke84 needs to make it non-personal and state his opinion. No antagonizing posters that aren't on your Christmas card list. This is the second request.



Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

So how much shit am I expected to take here, Joan?

My point was that responsible birth control would have been a good idea in the cases of Bristol and Sarah Palin. But they don't believe in it, because Trojans aren't in the Bible, I guess. Their churches and policies preach abstinence and slash funds for teen moms. You obviously think differently. That's fine. By the way, how many times have your parents been insulted on this board? Because I'm up to three, and I'm sure I'm not finished with the "treatment".

I mean, dump on me all you want, Liestoppers Board - but leave my parents out of it. If they raised a boy that can "disgust" Jezebelle, they did a good job.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

That type of talk is wrong...your parents, my parents . all this personal stuff about you,Sarah Palin, anyone should be off limits. Take how YOU feel about those comments, and ask yourself why you direct similar stuff toward a family YOU don't know either.

My parents haven't been attacked but at one point , my eighteen month EVERY DAY volunteer effort ...writing main blog pieces that took considerable time was reduced to "bloviating" on this Board. Remember?

My point is...how many converts do we think making fun of Crystal's looks brought to the cause?

If you were some inarticulate dope, name-calling and snarkiness might be your only answer to frustration. But you are a match for any of us. I sfear you if you get on-topic. For the good of my Republican "interests"...I should encourage you to continue in yesterday's fashion. But you are better than that.

We're concerned about the thinness of Obama's resume, the Ayers connection, the 20 years in Wright's church, the similarity of thought and culture to that which is pervasive among the 88. I am concerned about the intolerance, the criminalization of opposing thought.

You are not...and, as one who has stood with us against this sham of a Frame...you have great credibility with me.

Let's let Duke 84 speak. Cut out our own snarkiness. Can you rebut these fears and ,make your case for Obama. No hate talk about Bush please. Again, I don't think most rational;e person marry a Blind Date just to spite the hated ex-husband.

By the way, Duke 84...I do admire your tenacity more than I can say. As I recall I ran away...you didn't.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Was she at one school long enough to rush and join a sorority?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

My Obama case:

US out of Iraq, where they shouldn't have been in the first place.

A leader other world leaders (and their countries) will respect and stand behind.

Someone who can work with a Congress of majority Dems.

No more ridiculous secrecy/executive privilege arguments, and the lawyers paid to back them up, like Yoo, Addison and Libby.

No more torture, or Gitmo - each of which disgraces this nation.

Attention to health care, education, and the needs of our aging populace.

Brakes on an increasingly large deficit - caused by tax cuts and a preemptive war.

Curiosity - been missing for some time, and I don't think 894/899 and the moose shooter are all that curious.

So, in short, that's my case. Considering that Bush won in 2000 vs. peace, prosperity, and incumbency, I'm really not sure my case will hold up.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Your comments are well taken Duke 84. There is really little chance of changing ones opinion about politics at this point in ones life. Maybe life experiences can do it, but that may be it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

joan foster
Sep 7 2008, 06:45 AM
That type of talk is wrong...your parents, my parents . all this personal stuff about you,Sarah Palin, anyone should be off limits. Take how YOU feel about those comments, and ask yourself why you direct similar stuff toward a family YOU don't know either.

My parents haven't been attacked but at one point , my eighteen month EVERY DAY volunteer effort ...writing main blog pieces that took considerable time was reduced to "bloviating" on this Board. Remember?

My point is...how many converts do we think making fun of Crystal's looks brought to the cause?

If you were some inarticulate dope, name-calling and snarkiness might be your only answer to frustration. But you are a match for any of us. I sfear you if you get on-topic. For the good of my Republican "interests"...I should encourage you to continue in yesterday's fashion. But you are better than that.

We're concerned about the thinness of Obama's resume, the Ayers connection, the 20 years in Wright's church, the similarity of thought and culture to that which is pervasive among the 88. I am concerned about the intolerance, the criminalization of opposing thought.

You are not...and, as one who has stood with us against this sham of a Frame...you have great credibility with me.

Let's let Duke 84 speak. Cut out our own snarkiness. Can you rebut these fears and ,make your case for Obama. No hate talk about Bush please. Again, I don't think most rational;e person marry a Blind Date just to spite the hated ex-husband.

By the way, Duke 84...I do admire your tenacity more than I can say. As I recall I ran away...you didn't.
Joan: I agree with ALMOST everything you say, but would like to add a wimpy correction. While personal attacks on other posters should be off-limits (I suspect we all can agree on this), personal attacks on public figures should be OK (within reason). For one thing, their personal lives are not irrelevant to their functioning as public figures (I am one of those troglodites who think that a man who stabs his wife in the back is likely to stab others in the back - his colleagues, his country, etc.).

Also, the sheer visceral pleasure of attacking some of our politicians is too great. For example, I find certain aspects of the Clintons' personal life irresistible - should I not be indulged? Others might find Sarah Palin an attractive target. Obviously, I am right and they are wrong :biggrin: - but they might disagree with this last statement.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Joan,

The larger point that I only hinted at in drawing on your story of “Sue” is this: Human beings, especially the ones worth knowing, are much more than superstructures on which to display political preferences or political philosophies. All of us are bundles of contradiction. None of us should assume a one-to-one correspondence between our professed beliefs and the actions we take (or fail to take) that purportedly express those beliefs. It is a mistake of the first order to judge anyone on his reluctance or inability to lay out a systematic argument for one candidate or other in a national election. The candidates and their parties are hardly consistent themselves, and no one should be ashamed for not wanting to construct (or reconstruct) a political weltanschauung that would withstand laboratory analysis.

After more than forty years of studying and thinking about politics, I have come to conclusions that would strike many posters here as most distressing. First among them is this: Politics is a second-rate activity. This is not to say that it is unimportant. It is to say that investing it and its practitioners with almost religious significance inevitably leads to disappointment and even mischief. It is not to say that a responsible adult should take a coin into the voting booth. It is to say that one can arrive at reasonable decisions without first needing to reconcile every incompatibility of one’s being with the pronunciamentoes of the candidates or their parties.

The second conclusion is what I call the “operative consequence” of the first, and it is this: Vote for the least disreputable of the candidates—or even better (if the option is available), write in the name of someone less likely to do damage than the officially endorsed candidates. Perhaps this way of doing business resembles Bill Anderson’s and that of other libertarians. Its clear advantage lies in its being truer to the skepticism that I think should be brought to bear in examining all candidates for public office—most of whom tend to be effusive adult versions of the busy bodies I remember with pain from my school days.

The third conclusion, which I’ve intimated in this note’s opening sentences and which I label the “literary consequence” of my first conclusion, is this: The persons I most enjoy meeting and occasionally befriending tend to be more like characters in a novel than the proponents of programs or the defenders of syllogisms. Some very good critics have pointed out how few great novels (Are there any?) turn on protagonists pushing political agendas. Somehow the V. I. Lenins and even the Winston Churchills of history prove less likely than the Anna Kareninas and the Rodion Raskolnikovs to capture the imagination and leave the reader with a deeper understanding of the ultimate inscrutability and variability of the human soul. Perhaps I’m a hopeless romantic in always looking for that “surprise,” that “contradiction” in another person that redeems him from the simple categorizations that often consign him prematurely to the enemy’s camp.

You have been first-rate in acknowledging your own lapses and disappointments in your own conduct. Allow me to draw on one of my own experiences that, I hope, will even the score, so to speak, and perhaps add something to the point I’m trying to make about how we might better judge others. Late on a Saturday afternoon the first term of my sophomore year in college, one of my fraternity brothers and I found ourselves walking a long bridge in one of the worst sections of Buffalo, New York. We had hitched almost two-hundred miles that day, my friend to visit his girlfriend and I to spend a few days with my older brother, then a junior at the University of Buffalo. My friend suddenly nudged me, clearly with anxiety in his manner, for approaching us on the same side on which we were walking were three “menacing” black youths of roughly our own age. In those my glory days I was extremely fit: at 160 lbs of body weight, I could bench-press 320 pounds; and at only 5’8” tall, I could get to the rim on a basketball court. Moreover, I enjoyed puffing myself out as a fellow to be reckoned with, and especially relished jumping into fraternity horseplay whenever I had a chance to hurl someone across the room. But on that bridge, and for the first time in my life, I understood that the “real” threat I was facing revealed in me a fear and a hesitation that almost reduced me to blubbering. Perhaps my Popeye arms saved us that day, as the black fellows walked past us without incident. Perhaps the bluster feigned by my very liberal friend (he eventually became the chief engineer on the space-station project) as the “adversaries” approached did the trick. No matter, for from that day I have hesitated to impute courage or the lack of it to anyone not actually put to the test. From that day, I have also noted that the virtues I most admire—courage (both physical and intellectual) and fortitude—are hardly the exclusive properties of one political party. Indeed, the most courageous persons I know typically eschew taking strong political positions. I do not think the less of them for their “dereliction.”

This post has already become too long. I’m confident you can apply it to some of the more particular concerns you raise about the current campaign and some of the posters here. I’ll not further presume on your patience and forbearance—at least not yet.

:biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Locomotive Breath

Self selective groups are always this way. Your post reminded me about conservatives trying to get onto a faculty at a university.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply