Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
incubus

Looks like the Democrats' have another winner.

Recommended Posts

I'm with you, Josh and Bug. Anybody who actually thinks Clinton was dishorable and a criminal and GWBush is neither must be deliberately ignoring the obvious or they are a complete idiot. Check out GW's history of insider trading and manipulating real estate deals in Texas and look at all the connections between his admin and the oil companies and enron and the contractors for rebuilding Iraq. None of that has seen any organized investigation like Whitewater, where the investigations went on for years and years and very little of the allegations turned out to be accurate - or at least nobody could find enough evidence to bring any indictments. I'm not saying that Clinton wasn't a crook, but can anybody really say that Clinton was a crook and GW Bush is not? C'mon.

 

Also, anybody who cites the Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh as an information resource must also be ignoring the obvious - that these guys' mission is to make up lies and amplify unfounded rumor and otherwise spread misinformation that is damaging to the evil liberals. You may like their arguments or think they raise provocative issues, but to cite them as a primary source of believeable information shows only that you don't really want accurate information about liberals or liberal policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattp said:

These guys' mission is to make up lies and amplify unfounded rumor and otherwise spread misinformation that is damaging to the evil liberals. You may like their arguments or think they raise provocative issues, but to cite them as a primary source of believeable information shows only that you don't really want accurate information about liberals or liberal policies.

Democrats never lie.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunt said:

[Democrats never lie.

 

I didn't make that assertion, but I am not aware of a "liberal" website or talkshow host that purports to disseminate "news" and is even remotely equivalent to the Drudge Report or Rush Limbaugh in its link with mainstream media and its propensity to lie, distort, and publish unfounded rumours. There may be one - can you point me to it? I promise I won't cut and paste their lines onto this bulletin board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like clever quips, too, nonanon, but I don't think one can compare a visit to the vice president's residence with a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. If that guy had a regular radio show where he told his listener's: "listen up, folks, this is the REAL news of what is happening in Washington - and particularly if it was heard on hundreds of popular radio stations nationwide - I'd say he might be that liberal equivalent that I asked Gunt about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The absence of any desire to distort information for one' s own end and the inability to market such distortions effectively are two very different things. The inability to do the latter effectively while being equally complicit in the former is not a hallmark of moral superiority IMO. The bottom line is that anyone person or group that stands to gain from distorting information to suit their own purposes will do so. The only thing which keeps this tendency in check is the constant strife between competing interest groups attempting to discredit the other's claims. By means of this process the the group with the most compelling arguments and the convincing evidence will prevail in the court of public opinion, but this process can take far too long to satisfy active partisans in the debate.

 

As far as the debate about Bush vs. Clinton is concerned, it seems to me some of our esteemed posters are conflating legal terms with moral ones. Clinton lied before a grand jury and committed perjury, which is an act that is specifically forbidden by a law. Making the case for war based upon the best available intelligence, which was consistent with that issued by any nation with an intelligence service worthy of the name and consistent with the stated viewpoint of none other than your esteemed protagonist Bill Clinton constitute a moral crime in your eyes. Fair enough, but let's not confuse our private definitions of criminality with the law. Further, lets not pretend that Democrats would have been any less vehement in their denunciation of a sitting Republican president who was caught in the same act. Yes, lying about an affair with an intern his far from a heinous crime, but the same is true of pilfering documents form an appartment owned by the opposition party, but in this case at least the Republicans tended their own house.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay, I largely agree with what you just wrote - but in focussing on Clinton's perjury, I think you miss the main issues here. I don't think anybody who labels Clinton a crook pins their argument on the fact that he lied about having sex with his intern, and although GW's lies about why we went to war probably constitute his single greatest immoral act, I don't think I or anyone else asserted that they constituted a crime under criminal law.

 

I say GW is a crook because it appears pretty clear that he engaged in insider trading, fraud, bid-fixing, etc. etc. etc. Of course, I'd have to admit that he has not been indicted -- just as nobody connected with Clinton was ever indicted for Whitewater. In my own opinion, though, it is pretty clear that Bush did those things and they have not been investigated, whereas Clinton was heavily investigated and it appears pretty clear the Whitewater scandal was mostly trumped up. Just as you may think it is morally superior to be able to distort the truth successfully as opposed to not being able to do so (I guess that is what you said), you might say that Bush is a better criminal if he commits serious crimes and gets away with them, whereas Clinton committed the pettiest of crimes possible and did not get away with it.

Edited by mattp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt's analogy in a nutshell:

 

Clinton - guilty of misdemeanors

Bush - guilty of felonys

 

Why isn't this surprising coming from a liberal democrat? rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually if there were a political party that engaged in less distortion of the truth than the other I this fictional party would be the most moral, but no such party exists. As far as morality is concerned, what I was actually trying to say is that Left generates as many self-serving distortions as the Right, but as of late has failed to market them effectively. If they knew how to do so they would, but for whatever reason they do not. This does not make them any more moral than the Right, just less effective at selling in their message in the mass media. I think this is largely a result of the fact that one can sense in most Leftists a palpable disdain for and innability to connect with large sectors of the population which used to be amongst their most loyal supporters, such as blue collar workers, Southerners, etc, sectors of the population which also happen to be the most avid supporters of Rush et al. Democrats such as Clinton that actually make an effort to pitch their message to these folks tend to do be pretty popular and enjoy pretty good results at the ballot box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JayB said:

Actually if there were a political party that engaged in less distortion of the truth than the other I this fictional party would be the most moral, but no such party exists. As far as morality is concerned, what I was actually trying to say is that Left generates as many self-serving distortions as the Right, but as of late has failed to market them effectively. If they knew how to do so they would, but for whatever reason they do not. This does not make them any more moral than the Right, just less effective at selling in their message in the mass media. I think this is largely a result of the fact that one can sense in most Leftists a palpable disdain for and innability to connect with large sectors of the population which used to be amongst their most loyal supporters, such as blue collar workers, Southerners, etc, sectors of the population which also happen to be the most avid supporters of Rush et al. Democrats such as Clinton that actually make an effort to pitch their message to these folks tend to do be pretty popular and enjoy pretty good results at the ballot box.

Tingggg. JayB gets a bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JayB,

 

Your attempts at moderation and finding common ground will get you nowhere with those on the hard left, or even with most liberals for that matter. With the possible exception of "Off White", I have yet to see anyone here on the left side of the fence demonstrate any ability whatsoever to admit the shortcomings of the current democrat(ic) party. Oh sure, once you point out some glaring hypocricy they'll quietly grumble some grudging admission, but then they'll imediately go right back into their anti-Bush/anti conservative tirades.

 

I'm no longer interested in publicly admitting the (yes, obvious) shorcomings of the current administration, as those on the other side of this unending debate never censure their own.

 

Just look at where Bush's attempts backscratching with Teddy Kennedy got him! ...Stabbed in the back with partisan lies, that's where. Sadly, this is a type of war, and I'm not going to give an inch...and then another, and repeatedly compromise just to see my beliefs slip away under some "progressive" incrementalism.

 

Does the current administration have big problems? You bet. But I'm through admitting to them publicly while those on the left remain so focused on regaining power, that they won't admit to their own past mistakes, and give up the quasi-socialist ideals that have taken over the soul of the Democratic party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some humor in an otherwise sterile political thread...

 

The Treasury Department has announced the production of new currency bills to assist the wealthy to stimulate the anemic economy. The newfound cash resulting from instituted tax cuts to the wealthy will be redistributed to the stock market where companies are expected to see record profits due to a jobless economic recovery.

 

We're heading into an unprecendented era of prosperity, another Great Gatsby era! Hang on to your hats, folks!

 

bushbill1.jpg

 

wave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairweather,

 

You are painting with a pretty broad brush if you think all Dems are happy with the current state of the party.

 

A few random comments:

 

One of the reasons, I believe, that Whitewater was not fully investigated, is that if it had been, Bush 1 would have been implicated as well. During the North/Bush drugs for guns era, an airstrip in Arkansas was used as a staging area for operations. Whitewater money laundering is a short step from there, and everyone would have gotten in trouble.

 

Clinton did veto a few things, and did well by the environment. HOWEVER, two vital pieces of legislation got signed by him that have done nothing but harm. NAFTA and the Telecom Act of 1996 have both had far-reaching and negative implications for the middle- and lower-classes of this country. Shame on him.

 

Health care.

 

Bush the junior won the 2000 election by a margin of five to four. There were so many things wrong with the election in Florida that one can't find a place to begin. HOWEVER, it was ultimately Gore's race to lose. He was veep to an extremely popular president and had some valuable assets of his own to bring to leadership. He ran such a horrible campaign it's a wonder anyone voted for him. He didn't speak to younger voters, and rather than let Shrub's idiocy speak for itself, Gore managed to come across as arrogant and condescending. He couldn't figure out whether to ally himself or distance himself from President Clinton, and when the going got rough, he didn't call in the most brilliant campaign strategist the party has, James Carville. If Gore had done just a *little* bit better, there is no way that this hinky Florida thing would have been a deciding factor.

 

In the wake of losing the Presidential election of 2000, the Democratic Party shows no visible signs of leadership. Right now our presidential frontrunners are Howard Dean, who has civil liberties problems, and Wes Clarke, who is not really a Democrat. Not supporting the war on Iraq does not qualify you to run for President as a Democrat.

 

 

I'm a pretty old-school liberal type. The party is a real disappointment to me these days.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairweather.

You didn't read my post. F on reading comprehension.

Here, let me spellit out for you, from a liberal;

Ted Kennedy is the worst scourge to hit polotics. He was never as smart as his brothers and only got by because of his last name and continual pork barrelling in Mass. Without him, the Democrats would have a chance of forming a true moderate left. Clinton was the only Dem to get around him in a long time and he has a long list of faults. Funny how you never mention his sale of our best computer technology to China.

Bush is near the bottom of the barrel of his side too. No need to beat a dead horse.

POINT; our political system is in trouble. We rely on TV for our news (according to a few polls conducted over the last few years), and make decisions about world event based on sound bites. This is not a party problem. It is everyone being lazy. We all know how bad TV is as a source of credible information. Yet that is where our political decisions are made. That is our problem.

As long as we have a balance of power in this country we will be OK. Right now, mass media has too much power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marylou said:

Fairweather,

 

You are painting with a pretty broad brush if you think all Dems are happy with the current state of the party.

 

A few random comments:

 

One of the reasons, I believe, that Whitewater was not fully investigated, is that if it had been, Bush 1 would have been implicated as well. During the North/Bush drugs for guns era, an airstrip in Arkansas was used as a staging area for operations. Whitewater money laundering is a short step from there, and everyone would have gotten in trouble.

 

Clinton did veto a few things, and did well by the environment. HOWEVER, two vital pieces of legislation got signed by him that have done nothing but harm. NAFTA and the Telecom Act of 1996 have both had far-reaching and negative implications for the middle- and lower-classes of this country. Shame on him.

 

Health care.

 

Bush the junior won the 2000 election by a margin of five to four. There were so many things wrong with the election in Florida that one can't find a place to begin. HOWEVER, it was ultimately Gore's race to lose. He was veep to an extremely popular president and had some valuable assets of his own to bring to leadership. He ran such a horrible campaign it's a wonder anyone voted for him. He didn't speak to younger voters, and rather than let Shrub's idiocy speak for itself, Gore managed to come across as arrogant and condescending. He couldn't figure out whether to ally himself or distance himself from President Clinton, and when the going got rough, he didn't call in the most brilliant campaign strategist the party has, James Carville. If Gore had done just a *little* bit better, there is no way that this hinky Florida thing would have been a deciding factor.

 

In the wake of losing the Presidential election of 2000, the Democratic Party shows no visible signs of leadership. Right now our presidential frontrunners are Howard Dean, who has civil liberties problems, and Wes Clarke, who is not really a Democrat. Not supporting the war on Iraq does not qualify you to run for President as a Democrat.

 

 

I'm a pretty old-school liberal type. The party is a real disappointment to me these days.

 

 

 

 

Marylou,

 

What do you think of Joe Libermann? He is the only one of the Dem hopefuls that I find even remotely deserving of consideration. My guess is that you're a Dick Gephart fan. (??) At least he's not trying to appeal to the left wing LCD like Graham, Dean, Kerry, Sharpton, Braun. As it now stands I could not vote for any candidate that supports single-payer govt controlled health care. That pretty much eliminates all of them except Libermann(?).

 

Also, IMO The reasons GW won in 2000 are simple: a)Ralph Nader. b) Gore lost his home state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is scientific evidence that we liberals have been right all along.

1768bush-med.jpg

wave.gifFairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess if you're in a losing battle you dems. and libs. need something to laugh about. It's okay to crack wise at George's expense. He'll be laughing for the next 4 year term. wave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fairweather said:

With the possible exception of "Off White", I have yet to see anyone here on the left side of the fence demonstrate any ability whatsoever to admit the shortcomings of the current democrat(ic) party.

 

Fairweather, again you mis-state yourself. Look at just about any political thread where the shortcomings of the democratic party was even tangentially mentioned and you'll see that most of us evil liberals are quite clear about how the democrats suck or about how liberal dogma is just that. Hell, just scroll up four or five posts and you'll see where I pointed out the obvious weakness in that liberal quip that alanon thought was so clever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm… you completely missed my point, Matt.

I wasn’t addressing your post on the dearth of liberal talk radio at all. I was pointing out that even conservatives have questions about the current administration's idea of “honor and dignity.”

[...]

As a columnist, Kelly was a caustic conservative who was merciless in his criticism of Bill Clinton and Al Gore and was generally supportive of President Bush, especially on foreign policy. In 1997, New Republic owner Martin Peretz, a close friend of Gore, fired Kelly as the magazine's editor over his continuing attacks on the Clinton administration.

[...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27396-2003Apr4&notFound=true

 

I'm actually hoping the Dems do have a winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a similar note would be the consistent criticism of Paul Krugman (former economics prof, first Bust economist, and now editorial writer). He was methodically critisizing the Clinton admin for the shell games they were playing with the budget, and ignoring the basic, modest changes that would be needed to insure Social Security and Medicare.

 

Now - he's spelling out the diaster of the Bush budget and how we've got a very big pit to climb out of. It's not a tax cut, it's a substantial tax increase for our kids. And the right-wingers are all over this guy calling him a communist, etc. Didn't hear a peep from them when he was calling Clinton on the budget. There's nothing conservative about the Bushies budget - it's irresponsible.

 

While JayB makes a good point about getting out a message. The right-wingers are good at it because the have access to more money. Do you think those wealthy doaners that got the big tax cut are giving money to Noam Choamsky's orgization or Rush Limbaugh's? It the usual media play in this country - money and corporate governance talk. Hell - you can't even get a National Do Not Call List in place because it infringes on Corporate free speech. Lame-o.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nonanon - I guess I did miss your point. I didn't recognize him as a conservative columnist. I didn't really think you were pointing him out as an example of a liberal counterpart to Rush Limbaugh, though. I thought you just liked the quip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trask said:

Well, I guess if you're in a losing battle you dems. and libs. need something to laugh about. It's okay to crack wise at George's expense. He'll be laughing for the next 4 year term. wave.gif

 

We are all losing whether we have a Dem, Lib, or Rep in office. I have seen it spelled out a couple times in here, they are all politician's who are only worried about taking care of the people that fills their pockets. So long as we allow that to continue we won't have a government that works for the people, but one that works for the corporations. It is such a shame, that that's how things work in this country and many others for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×