Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 233
  1.    #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post

    No, I am not asserting anything. It is a well known fact and something to which he even admitted to.

    Regard Algore and big tobacco:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...t_fiction.html
    This is your proof? An article written by a known conservative writer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Saunders

    What possible "circumstance" could there be? He took money from big tobacco for at least six years after his sister's death from lung cancer. You don't see anything wrong with that? What could be the rationalization there?
    Well I never said that he was perfect so I have no idea why you're so bent on making whatever point you're trying to make. I asked for proof and you offered up a conservative journalist's article on how evil Al Gore is.

    Now if he did take money from big tobacco - and he probably did - and if he did do so for 6 years while publicly using his sister's death for political gain then I'd certainly have less respect for the man. But then again, I don't suppose he would have led our country into a convieniently timed optional war using cherry picked intelligence just before the mid-term elections for political gain. So I think I got my vote right back in 2000. Too bad you and 49% of the rest of the country did not.
  2.    #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by gatorray View Post
    Very entertaining thread this turned out to be. I consider myself a right-leaning moderate. I do not like to be called a moderate conservative, because with that title comes with baggage that I don't want. I am pro-choice (whatever that means to you), I don't want religion in the schools or government, I am on the fence about gun-control (we need stricter policies), I recycle as much as possible, I try to conserve energy as much as possible, I don't have the greenest lawn on the block b/c I don't water my lawn every day and use chemicals to make it greener, I don't......blah, blah, blah. Most "normal" people do what they can to improve their quality of life while helping others they see as needing help.

    With that said, who cares what they call me. I vote with my gut (actually, with my gut, I should get more than one vote....hehehe anyone? is this thing on? <car crash>), whether that is considered liberal or conservative or independent.
    Thanks gatorray. Congratulations on being someone capable of independent thought and taking "moderate" stances on divisive issues. Sadly though you're opinions tend to mirror mine so I'm afraid you're a "liberal". I'll let neo explain....as only he can because nobody else really understands him. But I'm sure he'll insert some right-wing blather and have a laugh for himself when he does.

    And you're right, I should not care what I am called. But I hate neocons trying to define "liberals" as pretty much anyone that doesn't agree with their radical right-wing ideology.
  3. gatorray's Avatar
    Posts
    12 Posts
    Global Posts
    13 Global Posts
    #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sadly though you're opinions tend to mirror mine so I'm afraid you're a "liberal". I'll let neo explain....as only he can because nobody else really understands him.
    Noooooooooooooooooo......not liberal. Not me. Nooooooooooooo.....I can't live with that. How do you tie a dang noose? Let's see, left over right, the rabbit through the hole....oh, he11...that's a double windsor.

    One of the things that drives me nuts is the use of same thinking journalists/editorials/etc.. as proof of something. That happens at both extremes (liberal and conservative). Just because [insert favorite talking head here] said so, doesn't make it fact.

    I actually had someone trying to convince me that while Fox is conservative (which I believe is very, very true), CNN speaks only the truth and has no bias whatsoever. Are you kidding me? There is bias everywhere you look. 24-hour news is for entertainment purposes only.

    I've said it before, I believe the majority of Americans are moderate, but they have to identify with someone, so they pick a side.
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    This is your proof? An article written by a known conservative writer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Saunders
    A conservative writer for an independent political website. But what did you expect? You expect a Gore supporter to write about Gore's hypocrisy? Also, feel free to cite any articles where Gore denies his relationship with big tobacco.

    Oh and by the way, here is another source:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A960958260

    OK everyone, I am taking bets now. Who wants to bet that Moddie is going to say that the NYTimes is a conservative webstie.

    Well I never said that he was perfect so I have no idea why you're so bent on making whatever point you're trying to make. I asked for proof and you offered up a conservative journalist's article on how evil Al Gore is.
    ...and the NYTimes article above.

    Now if he did take money from big tobacco - and he probably did - and if he did do so for 6 years while publicly using his sister's death for political gain then I'd certainly have less respect for the man. But then again, I don't suppose he would have led our country into a convieniently timed optional war using cherry picked intelligence just before the mid-term elections for political gain. So I think I got my vote right back in 2000. Too bad you and 49% of the rest of the country did not.
    How do you know you got your vote right back in 2000? I suppose you have perfect knowledge of how the man who invented the Internet would have been as president?

    "Optional war"....is that like "kind of getting an abortion"?
  5. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Are you actually going to pretend that Karl Rove and the GOP hasn't used social wedge issues as their primary method of "defining" a candidate? That is not liberal - thats called not living in a cave.

    So how does that fact make me a "liberal" again?
    Your remark was not fact, it is called an opinion. And opinions, whether it be yours or mine, carry bias. It is the nature of the beast.

    You have a liberal bias. Your remark proves that despite any protestations to the contrary you might make.
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    I’m certainly not the ideologue you seem to be so I will refrain from carrying someone else’s water.
    LOL!! Sure you aren't. Are you related to Modboy per chance?

    But one thing I do know is that we don’t have to speculate about your fuhrer and his record. His presidency has been a dismal failure. Wouldn’t you agree?
    I feel that a certain amount of time has to pass after a president has left office to properly gauge his legacy. Often, the resultant fruits (or pestilence) of a given president's policies do not utlimately manifest themselves after they have left office.

    The two obvious examples here, right off the bat, is LBJ and Ford. They were to presidents whose perception is significantly different today than when they were in office.

    Just put down your sword and bucket for a minute and think about it. Other than turning the Supreme Court to the right, what has he accomplished? I’ll wait for you to pull out the republican talking points. Remember to stay on script.....King George’s minions may be reading.
    Further proof that you are not particularly interested in meaningful dialogue and more interested in jejune name calling. You've already done this a couple of times in this thread alone. It seems to be the type of "conversation" you are most adept at.

    No wonder you and Modboy lather each other up on the forum. LOL!

    Is that what the liberal platform has reduced itself too - name calling? I mean, seriously, why do you even bother asking the question when you have already predisposed yourself to the usual prosaic partisan demagoguery?
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/02/2007 at 04:08 AM.
  7.    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    A conservative writer for an independent political website. But what did you expect? You expect a Gore supporter to write about Gore's hypocrisy? Also, feel free to cite any articles where Gore denies his relationship with big tobacco.

    Oh and by the way, here is another source:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A960958260
    Well at least the full context of the story seems to be in here. For those that aren't bothering to read it; Gore's sister died of lung cancer in 1984. Gore's family farm was a tobacco farm and his family continued to grow tobacco even after she died. Gore accepted $16k in campaign contributions between 1984 and 1990 before finally cutting them of all together. And during that time he was a staunch advocate of cigarette label warnings and the govenment program to control tobacco prices.

    Now my interpretation of this is that Gore had a tougher time, as did his family, weaning themselves off tobacco in general. They grew up with tobacco...which makes sense since he lived on a tobacco farm...and they kept growing tobacco for years after his sister died.

    Since it seems clear to me that the entire Gore family weaned themselves off of tobacco over that 6 year period that his campaign accepted $16k in campaign contributions it seems entirely possible that he did not cower in the night in some dark alley grabbing tobacco money and then strolling out to the podium in broad daylight to turn on the fake tears for the media about the evils of tobacco....but of course....that is what our newest necon whack job seems to want you to believe.

    OK everyone, I am taking bets now. Who wants to bet that Moddie is going to say that the NYTimes is a conservative webstie.
    Actually I want to thank you for pointing to an article that paints the full context of his trials and tribulations as his entire family - not just him - made the transformation from tobacco farmers to anti-tobacco activists.

    How do you know you got your vote right back in 2000?
    Only a neocon could stand before the backdrop of the worst President in our country's history and ask that question. I think my dog could have been a better President than George Bush. As such, I am confident Gore would have ran circles around the chimp-thats-limp from Texas.

    I suppose you have perfect knowledge of how the man who invented the Internet would have been as president?
    Nope. But I do know you are doling out the usual neocon lie that Gore claimed he invented the internet. He never said that. My god...are you running low on right-wing talking points already that you had to fall back on that lie?

    "Optional war"....is that like "kind of getting an abortion"?
    You go to war when there is a clear and present danger. We did not have a clear and present danger to justify the war in Iraq. It's sort of like combat. Every now and then you find yourself in a position as to whether you should kill the enemy or not. There are geneva convention rules about this sort of thing though so if you're able to see shades of grey you'll be OK and you'll make the right decision. If you're not, well then you might make the wrong decision and kill when you really didn't have the authority to do so. It happens and has happened for as long as man has been at war. To be honest, I don't know if my kills were all legal. I think they were...but in the fog of war you'll always end up questioning at least a few of them for the rest of your life. I'm thinking you wouldn't have done so well in combat neo...but I may have enjoyed watching you try.

    You don't "kind of get an abortion" which is what you're foaming at the mouth regarding my stance toward abortion. You should outlaw late term abortions, federal funding of abortions, encourage more adoptions, and allow states to make more decisions with respect to how abortions and when abortions are allowed. You could, for instance, have the feds establish a standard as to a period in time during gestation that the fetus is deemed "viable outside the womb without extraordinary medical measures sustain life" and allow abortions up till the point. The states could set forth certain restrictions of their own pre and post "viability". Of course neocons like you will lose your right-wing mind since everyone knows that life begins at the moment of conception...when the soul enters the fertilized egg and Jesus blesses the pregnancy with his special touch.

    Now to any true pro-choice activists my words above are scary beyond belief. They would think I am a moderate conservative. They certainly would not deem me a liberal based on my posting above.
  8.    #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Your remark was not fact, it is called an opinion. And opinions, whether it be yours or mine, carry bias. It is the nature of the beast.

    You have a liberal bias. Your remark proves that despite any protestations to the contrary you might make.
    Sadly my comments have little to do with the fact that the GOP (Karl Rove) tried to use gay marriage as a wedge issue and to drive more voters to the booths in 2004. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/40/wedge...-on-the-ballot

    It is a nicely written and objective piece and goes on to say that the "gay marriage" issue may not have worked as well as Karl likes to boast that it did....except for maybe Ohio where Karl may have won that state thanks to gay marriage being on the ballot.
  9.    #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by gatorray View Post
    Noooooooooooooooooo......not liberal. Not me. Nooooooooooooo.....
    Yes yes....so sorry for us both. Luckily we have neo here to tell us what we are though and he'll help us find our way.

    One of the things that drives me nuts is the use of same thinking journalists/editorials/etc.. as proof of something. That happens at both extremes (liberal and conservative). Just because [insert favorite talking head here] said so, doesn't make it fact.
    Who did that? Really? They posted an article from a known conservative writer as evidence that Gore is a *****? And just because she writes for an "independent" web site we're supposed to accept her article as truth? Cool. So that means that whatever lies Glenn Beck tells on the "liberal" CNN network should be believed too? Wow. What clairty neo has brought to us all.

    I actually had someone trying to convince me that while Fox is conservative (which I believe is very, very true), CNN speaks only the truth and has no bias whatsoever. Are you kidding me? There is bias everywhere you look. 24-hour news is for entertainment purposes only.
    The irony of CNN is that while they get lambasted as being "liberal" they have quite a few right-wing talk show hosts. Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, etc. I don't even know that I can count ONE "liberal" or even moderate for that matter on the Fox News network.

    I've said it before, I believe the majority of Americans are moderate, but they have to identify with someone, so they pick a side.
    I hope you're right. But we need to get people to stop believing the sound bytes and allowing others to define them as something they may not be. The right-wing likes to do that for lots of reasons: a) they enjoy us vs. them type arguments, b) they like to use peer-pressure to control their herd and its hard to do that if you have someone has moderate stances, c) they like to use the PT Barnum philosphy that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - so by breaking things into nice neat buckets of "liberals" vs. "the moral majority" and using social wedge issues they can get their masses foaming at the mouth and pull of few more suckers into their bucket along the way.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/02/2007 at 11:15 PM.
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Now my interpretation of this is that Gore had a tougher time, as did his family, weaning themselves off tobacco in general. They grew up with tobacco...which makes sense since he lived on a tobacco farm...and they kept growing tobacco for years after his sister died.
    A tough time? That is your rationalization?

    Al Gore Jr, his father, was a US senator. Senators do not have a "tough time". Senators are wealthy and Gore Jr. was quite wealthy.

    Gore, the son, was already holding office by 1976. In 1984, the year his sister died, he ran for the US Senate - an election he won. Gore was a senator until he became Vice President.

    Poor do not have the financial means (unfortunately) to run for office in this country. Gore was not poor. Far from it. He was born into a priviledged family.

    Gore has depended on his family's tobacco farm about as much as W has depended on his ranch in Texas, which is to say, those properties are not primary means of income.

    Your angle that the Gore's had to sell tobacco "because he had it tough" is the stuff of folly.

    Since it seems clear to me that the entire Gore family weaned themselves off of tobacco over that 6 year period that his campaign accepted $16k in campaign contributions it seems entirely possible that he did not cower in the night in some dark alley grabbing tobacco money and then strolling out to the podium in broad daylight to turn on the fake tears for the media about the evils of tobacco....
    It doesn't? So what is the explanation then? Oh - that's right, "Gore had a tough time."

    $16,000 is *a lot* of money. We aren't talking about a check from an old tobacco associate for a couple of hundred dollars that managed to slip in under the radar. This is a substantial amount of money, over a significant period of time, that Gore was pocketing while he was on his little crusade against big tobacco waged on the back of his sister's death.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a person with a modicum of personal integrity would direct his staff to stop taking contributions from tobacco interests immediately. Sadly, it took Gore 6 years to do that.

    Actually I want to thank you for pointing to an article that paints the full context of his trials and tribulations as his entire family - not just him - made the transformation from tobacco farmers to anti-tobacco activists.
    Millionaire Trials and Tribulations - next on Springer!! LMFAO!

    You know, when you say (type) things like this, I sometimes wonder if you even bother to read what you've actually typed.

    Only a neocon could stand before the backdrop of the worst President in our country's history and ask that question. I think my dog could have been a better President than George Bush. As such, I am confident Gore would have ran circles around the chimp-thats-limp from Texas.
    You might be right, perhaps Gore might have been better. He also could have been worse. Like I said, that is speculation - and I am not going to waste my time with speculation.

    Nope. But I do know you are doling out the usual neocon lie that Gore claimed he invented the internet. He never said that. My god...are you running low on right-wing talking points already that you had to fall back on that lie?
    You are right, he said, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". This, of course, is just as laughable.

    You go to war when there is a clear and present danger.
    I'd say there was a clear and present danger (which is still there, of course).

    We did not have a clear and present danger to justify the war in Iraq.
    There were strategic interests at play in addition to the destabilizing influence of Iraq on the rest of the Middle East region.

    It's sort of like combat. Every now and then you find yourself in a position as to whether you should kill the enemy or not.
    You went off on a tangent here, so I have no idea what you were trying to say.

    There are geneva convention rules about this sort of thing though so if you're able to see shades of grey you'll be OK and you'll make the right decision.
    The Geneva Convention lays out the procedures for treatment of non-combantants and prisoners of war. It has little to do with the killing of the enemy in combat.

    If you're not, well then you might make the wrong decision and kill when you really didn't have the authority to do so. It happens and has happened for as long as man has been at war. To be honest, I don't know if my kills were all legal. I think they were...but in the fog of war you'll always end up questioning at least a few of them for the rest of your life. I'm thinking you wouldn't have done so well in combat neo...but I may have enjoyed watching you try.
    LOL what in God's name are you talking about here?

    You don't "kind of get an abortion" which is what you're foaming at the mouth regarding my stance toward abortion. You should outlaw late term abortions..
    Wait! Are you sure? I mean, one of things Bush did in office was sign a ban on late term abortions. Oh the horror!! You actually support something Bush has done you mean?!

    ...and allow states to make more decisions with respect to how abortions and when abortions are allowed.
    You do realize, of course, that this language makes you pro-choice, right?

    <snipped Mod's drivel>

    Now to any true pro-choice activists my words above are scary beyond belief. They would think I am a moderate conservative. They certainly would not deem me a liberal based on my posting above.
    The radical pro-choicers would run from you like the plague. The vast majority of the conservative base would also reject your line of reasoning.

    However, moderate and centrist pro-choicers would agree with you. A small (make that very small) portion of moderate conservatives would agree with you as well.

    Your assertion that the conservative base would accept your position is utter bull.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/02/2007 at 10:29 AM.
  11. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sadly my comments have little to do with the fact that the GOP (Karl Rove) tried to use gay marriage as a wedge issue and to drive more voters to the booths in 2004. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/40/wedge...-on-the-ballot
    Of course, what you don't say about that article is that the states listed in the chart within that article:

    Mississippi
    Georgia
    Oklahoma
    Kentucky
    Arkansas
    North Dakota
    Montana
    Utah
    and Ohio.....

    ...are all, traditionally, red states.

    The two blue states on that particular list, those being Michigan and Oregon, are traditionally blue states. Bush lost those two states in 2000 and 2004.

    As a matter of fact, both Michigan and Oregon went blue in 1996, 1992. Heck, Oregon even went blue for Dukakis in 88. LOL!

    So much for the questionable premise of the article. If indeed gay marriage was a wedge issue, it certainly did not have an particular effect at the polls judging bythe end result of which state went blue or red.

    It is a nicely written and objective piece and goes on to say that the "gay marriage" issue may not have worked as well as Karl likes to boast that it did....except for maybe Ohio where Karl may have won that state thanks to gay marriage being on the ballot.
    By the way....

    You have also, conveniently, failed to mention the little graphic right at the end that ranks what issues voters feel are "very important". Same sex-marriage came in last on that chart, in 19th place.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/02/2007 at 10:36 AM.
  12.    #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    A tough time? That is your rationalization?

    Al Gore Jr, his father, was a US senator. Senators do not have a "tough time". Senators are wealthy and Gore Jr. was quite wealthy.

    Gore, the son, was already holding office by 1976. In 1984, the year his sister died, he ran for the US Senate - an election he won. Gore was a senator until he became Vice President.

    Poor do not have the financial means (unfortunately) to run for office in this country. Gore was not poor. Far from it. He was born into a priviledged family.

    Gore has depended on his family's tobacco farm about as much as W has depended on his ranch in Texas, which is to say, those properties are not primary means of income.

    Your angle that the Gore's had to sell tobacco "to make a buck" is the stuff of folly.
    Where did I say that he used it to make a buck? Boy you just make $hit up as you go along. They had a tobacco farm and were accustomed to being around tobacco long before his sister died.

    $16,000 is *a lot* of money. We aren't talking about a check from an old tobacco associate for a couple of hundred dollars that managed to slip in under the radar. This is a substantial amount of money, over a significant period of time, that Gore was pocketing while he was on his little crusade against big tobacco waged on the back of his sister's death.
    Nice spin job.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a person with a modicum of personal integrity would direct his staff to stop taking contributions from tobacco interests immediately. Sadly, it took Gore 6 years to do that.
    You're still spinning...but I don't really care either way. I've said he wasn't perfect...he is a politician. As I've often said on this forum, you need to pick the lesser of the evils. It is clear to me more now even more so than in 2000 that Bush is far more evil. Bush lied, people died.

    You might be right, perhaps Gore might have been better. He also could have been worse. Like I said, that is speculation - and I am not going to waste my time with speculation.
    Great. So we agree that your speculation as to Gore's intentions and how he weened himself of tobacco, its political contributions, and something his family had farmed for eyars. I'll stop speculating that Bush is the worst President in history and is far more evil having told for more lies....I'll let his record speak for itself on that.

    You are right, he said, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". This, of course, is just as laughable.
    No you're quoting out of context - like the good little necon whacko that you are - is what is laughable. His exact quote was, ""During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

    During me service in the United States Congress...meaning he did it as part of a member of congress. And by the way, he did lead several initiatives while in congress to do just that.

    Of course, necons like yourself like to omit that portion of his quote because it makes it sound so much better to lather up your base by claiming Gore said, "I invented the internet".


    I'd say there was a clear and present danger ...
    And your qualifications as compared to the litany of ex-generals, ex-military, all of our "real" allies (not the pretend ones that were part of the "coalition of the willing" and sent one soldier to qualify for that status)?

    There were strategic interests at play in addition to the destabilizing influence of Iraq on the rest of the Middle East region.
    Good little neocon...you're right...OIL! Very nicely done. Finally a modicum of truth from your manicured young Republican yuppy fingers.

    The Geneva Convention lays out the procedures for treatment of non-combantants and prisoners of war. It has little to do with the killing of the enemy in combat.
    Well junior...you're wrong. We were taught that after a fire fight to get on line and sweep through the carnage. If you found a wounded enemy soldier on the ground but felt he still could be a threat you could kill him. Once you walked by them though they were to be considered POWs and treated as such under the Geneva convention. Now of course when you have your own wounded to haul back to camp or a nearby LZ, dragging along a guy that may have just killed a few of your friends...well, lets just say you tend to make sure those sweeps don't result in too many wounded enemy soldiers...unless of course we wanted them for intel.

    Wait! Are you sure? I mean, one of things Bush did in office was sign a ban on late term abortions. Oh the horror!! You actually support something Bush has done you mean?!
    Naughty "liberal" that I am....


    The radical pro-choicers would run from you like the plague. The vast majority of the conservative base would also reject your line of reasoning.
    Right! Which puts me in the middle.

    However, moderate and centrist pro-choicers would agree with you. A small (make that very small) portion of the moderate conservatives would agree with you as well.
    Right again! I'm right in the middle. Very good neo.

    Your assertion that the conservative base would accept your position is utter bull.
    You see what you did there? You quoted me out of context again. You necons like to do that, don't you? I said "moderate conservative". Where did I assert that the "conservative base" would accept my position? Or did you just make that up so that you can squeeze in a another "utter bull" to end your rebuttal with unfounded neocon outrage?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/02/2007 at 10:44 AM.
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But we need to get people to stop believing the sound bytes and allowing others to define them as something they may not be. The right-wing likes to do that for lots of reasons: a) they enjoy us vs. them type arguments, b) they like to use peer-pressure to control their herd and its hard to do that if you have someone has moderate stances, c) they like to use the PT Barnum philosphy that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - so by breaking things into nice neat buckets of "liberals" vs. "the moral majority" and using social wedge issues they can get their masses foaming at the mouth and pull of few more suckers into their bucket along the way.
    Bush's Brain isn't as complex as some would want you to believe, be it Karl Rove or Lee Atwater, just as you just illustrated. Those are their seminal concepts, especially within their 'Southern Strategery'. Yet, complacent sheep is what their ilk wants until election season, where they employ their divisive, non-uniting tactics. One of the fundamantal differences I observe between Atwater and Rove is that Atwater was capable of showing some intellectual honesty, even if it was after the fact of employing such disgusting Unamerican tactics. Rove will never have the same capability.

    Atwater on the Southern Strategy:

    As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

    Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

    Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

    Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, '******, ******, ******.' By 1968 you can't say '******' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than '******, ******.'
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atw...thern_Strategy
  14.    #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    So much for the questionable premise of the article. If indeed gay marriage was a wedge issue, it certainly did not have an particular effect at the polls judging bythe end result of which state went blue or red.
    I know what it says and I told you as much. The use of gay marriage was not as effective as some thought it would be. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE GOP USED THE ISSUE AS A WEDGE ISSUE! Bush pandered to the anti-gay vote and promised he'd make a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages for crying out loud!
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Where did I say that he used it to make a buck? Boy you just make $hit up as you go along. They had a tobacco farm and were accustomed to being around tobacco long before his sister died.
    They were quite accustomed indeed, especially when the big tobacco checks kept rolling in.

    You're still spinning...but I don't really care either way.
    Yet you still voted for him.

    Bush lied, people died.
    I thought you weren't into soundbytes?

    Great. So we agree that your speculation as to Gore's intentions and how he weened himself of tobacco, its political contributions, and something his family had farmed for eyars. I'll stop speculating that Bush is the worst President in history and is far more evil having told for more lies....I'll let his record speak for itself on that.
    Unfortunately, for you, I didn't really have to speculate at all.

    - Gore got interest money from tobacco interests
    - Gore's sister dies from lung cancer
    - Gore continues to get money from tobacco interests for six years

    Where, exactly, is the speculation there?

    No you're quoting out of context - like the good little necon whacko that you are - is what is laughable. His exact quote was, ""During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
    Which, again, is laughable. How does "During my service in the United States Congress" diminish the comedic value of his absurd statement?

    During me service in the United States Congress...meaning he did it as part of a member of congress. And by the way, he did lead several initiatives while in congress to do just that.
    He might have led initiatives (as many others had as well , but please, he shouldn't have pretended everyone is as stupid he thought they were by saying "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

    Of course, necons like yourself like to omit that portion of his quote because it makes it sound so much better to lather up your base by claiming Gore said, "I invented the internet".
    If someone like Vincent Cerf (who really DID have something meaningful to do with the Internet as we know it today) would sound ridiculous making the statement, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", then imagine the thunderous laugh the Internet collectively had when Gore uttered his words. LMFAO!!

    And your qualifications as compared to the litany of ex-generals, ex-military, all of our "real" allies (not the pretend ones that were part of the "coalition of the willing" and sent one soldier to qualify for that status)?
    I suppose, then, Britain disqualifies herself as a "real ally" by sending troops to Iraq.

    Devaluing the contribution of nations much poorer than ours I see. How "liberal" of you.

    Good little neocon...you're right...OIL! Very nicely done. Finally a modicum of truth from your manicured young Republican yuppy fingers.
    Nice try, but no cigar. Oil wasn't one of them. Try again.

    Well junior...you're wrong.
    Quite false. I repeat, The Geneva Convention is primarily about non-combantants and prisoners of war.

    What you are talking about is the Geneva Protocol, which is a different document all together, and specifically deals with what is permissable in combat.

    We were taught that after a fire fight to get on line and sweep through the carnage. If you found a wounded enemy soldier on the ground but felt he still could be a threat you could kill him. Once you walked by them though they were to be considered POWs and treated as such under the Geneva convention. Now of course when you have your own wounded to haul back to camp or a nearby LZ, dragging along a guy that may have just killed a few of your friends...well, lets just say you tend to make sure those sweeps don't result in too many wounded enemy soldiers...unless of course we wanted them for intel.
    And your point is what again?

    Naughty "liberal" that I am....
    The word "confused" came to mind actually

    Right! Which puts me in the middle.
    No, that puts you just left of center, which is what I have been saying for, oh, a dozen posts now?

    You see what you did there? You quoted me out of context again. You necons...
    Reagan Republican

    ... like to do that, don't you? I said moedrate conservative. Where did I assert that the "conservative base" would accept my position? Or did you just make that up so that you can squeeze in a another "utter bull" to end your rebuttal with unfounded neocon outrage?
    You have expended quite a bit of energy trying to convince people that you are, somehow a centrist. Firstly, you are not a centrist. Secondly, centrists have the tendency to vote along the moderate liberal base than they do with moderate conservatives. A simple analysis of recent presidential elections would tell you that.

    I am not quite sure how else to put this. The fact that you want states to decide how to handle abortions puts your squarely at odds with 99.9% of the convervative base.

    The current example of this, of course, is John McCain, who is very much a moderate Republican and a pro-lifer. He is about as "left" you can get *within* the conservative base.

    You are to the left of him if you say states should decide what to do with abortions.

    Again, why you insist on running away from being called a moderate liberal when you are one is beyond me, but in the end, your violent reaction just betrays your proclivities even more.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I know what it says and I told you as much. The use of gay marriage was not as effective as some thought it would be. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE GOP USED THE ISSUE AS A WEDGE ISSUE! Bush pandered to the anti-gay vote and promised he'd make a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages for crying out loud!
    But, I mean, so what? Every election has wedge issues. It is part of the landscape. What is the point here?
  17.    #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Yet you still voted for him.
    Lesser of the evils.

    I thought you weren't into soundbytes?
    Tell that to the families that have lost loved ones. He and his cronies lied their way into this war and are still lying. Bush just recently lied about the disbandment of the Iraqi Army and claimed he knew nothing about the plan to do so. Luckily Paul Bremer made it quite clear that Bush knew well before they invaded that they would disband the army. As a result of this horrifically arrogant and stupid decision thousands of lives have been lost. Bush lied, people died. No sound bytes needed.

    Unfortunately, for you, I didn't really have to speculate at all.

    - Gore got interest money from tobacco interests
    - Gore's sister dies from lung cancer
    - Gore continues to get money from tobacco interests for six years

    Where, exactly, is the speculation there?
    -Gore's grew up in a state where tobacco farming was a staple.
    -Gore's family grew tobacco themselves
    -Gore's sister died and the family still grew tobacco
    -Gore received $2700 per year from tobacco lobbyist for 6 years after her death
    -Gore started to push for better labeling over these 6 years
    -Gore took a harder stance in 1990 and refused donations from tobacco

    You see by surrounding the story with context (something you clearly loathe) one can form a more informed opinion as to what happened. I think if he could rewind the clock he would have reacted much faster and shut off that money (which was nominal amounts compared to what the GOP has collected from the tobacco PACs lately). Incidently the GOP now receives 75% of all tobacco related contributions, up from 51% since 1990. In 1990, ALL Democrats took in $1,128,010 in tobacco money.

    Which, again, is laughable. How does "During my service in the United States Congress" diminish the comedic value of his absurd statement?
    Because for those of us that aren't necon's and knew he did in fact lead several iniatives in congress that helped the internet get off the ground I knew what he meant. He did not mean that he "invented the internet" but rather that he led the way towards its creation while in congress: which is exactly what he did.

    If someone like Vincent Cerf (who really DID have something meaningful to do with the Internet as we know it today) would sound ridiculous making the statement, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", then imagine the thunderous laugh the Internet collectively had when Gore uttered his words. LMFAO!!
    Well first if all I've met with Vint (as in Vinton...not Vince) on several occassions. I don't know his position on this but I could surmise that he'd acknowledge the contributions Gore made while in congress based on his persona. And then he'd remind us all that he was the "father of the internet". The last I dealt with him he moved to MCI in the mid-90s so I could be wrong....but at least I got his name right.

    I suppose, then, Britain disqualifies herself as a "real ally" by sending troops to Iraq.

    Devaluing the contribution of nations much poorer than ours I see. How "liberal" of you.
    Context, young neo, context. We went to war with substantially fewer allies then what we had when his old man went to war.

    Nice try, but no cigar. Oil wasn't one of them. Try again.
    Well only a neocon would know. Oil was part of it to be sure. But perhaps you can tell us how neocon's wanted to spread "freedrom and democracy" to the Iraqi people? Please enlighten us....oh and while you're doing so, please cite one sentence Bush uttered about "bringing freedeom to the Iraqi people" prior to the invasion.

    Quite false. I repeat, The Geneva Convention is primarily about non-combantants and prisoners of war.

    What you are talking about is the Geneva Protocol, which is a different document all together, and specifically deals with what is permissable in combat.
    Semantics in some ways, but I am certain once they were deemed POWs (as I said below), they were to be treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

    No, that puts you just left of center, which is what I have been saying for, oh, a dozen posts now?
    Right. I'm a moderate. Centrist. Thanks.

    Reagan Republican
    Oh c'mon neo...you know you're a neoconservative. Please stop denying the hate within you.

    You have expended quite a bit of energy trying to convince people that you are, somehow a centrist. Firstly, you are not a centrist. Secondly, centrists have the tendency to vote along the moderate liberal base than they do with moderate conservatives. A simple analysis of recent presidential elections would tell you that.
    Centrist. Moderate. Seems to me you're splitting hairs here to make whatever the he!! point you're trying to make. But the energy I've expended is simply because I don't accept your neocon definition of a liberal.

    I am not quite sure how else to put this. The fact that you want states to decide how to handle abortions puts your squarely at odds with 99.9% of the convervative base.
    That works out well because I'm not trying to align myself with the "conservative base" anyway...even though you insist on purporting that I am. I am a fiscal conservative...but realize the GOP has not been fiscally conservative in a very very long time.

    The current example of this, of course, is John McCain, who is very much a moderate Republican and a pro-lifer. He is about as "left" you can get *within* the conservative base.

    You are to the left of him if you say states should decide what to do with abortions.

    Again, why you insist on running away from being called a moderate liberal when you are one is beyond me, but in the end, your violent reaction just betrays your proclivities even more.
    You really need to find some new words that make you sound more intelligent than you probably are - I've already grown tired of "proclivities".

    I've also said that perhaps the fed could set the maximum time for which an abortion can legally occur and only discussed the idea that states may have some autonomy on setting the conditions in which abortions occur. It's an idea...one to discuss with someone more open to new ideas. And clearly neocons are the last people on earth capable of lateral thinking and new ideas so I'll take my ideas elsewhere. The problem is my ideas won't be accepted by the rabid and radical right, nor will they be accepted by the rabid and radical left....hmmm...lets see now...where does that leave me? Oh yes...of course...IN THE MIDDLE.

    Don't you have a young republiscum goose stepping rehearsal you need to be at soon? This is getting so so tiring arguing with what amounts to a brick wall.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/02/2007 at 12:39 PM.
  18.    #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by gatorray View Post
    Very entertaining thread this turned out to be. I consider myself a right-leaning moderate. I do not like to be called a moderate conservative, because with that title comes with baggage that I don't want. I am pro-choice (whatever that means to you), I don't want religion in the schools or government, I am on the fence about gun-control (we need stricter policies), I recycle as much as possible, I try to conserve energy as much as possible, I don't have the greenest lawn on the block b/c I don't water my lawn every day and use chemicals to make it greener, I don't......blah, blah, blah. Most "normal" people do what they can to improve their quality of life while helping others they see as needing help.

    With that said, who cares what they call me. I vote with my gut (actually, with my gut, I should get more than one vote....hehehe anyone? is this thing on? <car crash>), whether that is considered liberal or conservative or independent.
    So then neo, what is gatorray? Is he a liberal?
  19.    #179  
    For anyone interested there are some pretty cool sites that test your political leanings. I took one at http://www.okcupid.com/politics and ended being pegged as a centrist-libertarian - somewhere around the knot in Trump's necktie. Basically consistent with what I've said all along - I am an economic conservative and lean left socially. I like their chart and how they map things out...its a bit more complicated than just plopping people into either "conservative" or "liberal" buckets.

  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    ...You are right, he said, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". This, of course, is just as laughable.
    http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/specialwin.php


    The Webby Lifetime Achievement Award: Former Vice President Al Gore

    Setting the record straight on one of recent history's most persistent political myths, The Webby Awards will present Former Vice President Al Gore with The Webby Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of the pivotal role he has played in the development of the internet over the past three decades. Vint Cerf, widely credited as one of the "fathers of the internet," will present Vice President Gore with the award.


    Also -- the tobacco stuff: to focus on a modest inconsistency or flaw in a man who has lead an exemplative, visionary life, is something that the GOP destruction machine has refined as a particular skill.

    No one is perfect. Not even Mother Teresa (as we learned recently).

    We all do the best we can and deserve to be apreciated or condemned based on the total ledger.

    Gore has an extraordinary amount to be proud of.

    Can junior say the same ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions