onegoodmove

"The Ivy League is very sad, what with their inbred legacy students and low affirmative action standards."

Learning:

“It’s good when you want to rely on information that’s unique to a time and place,”

"The times, they are a-changin'"How's that for a colloqialism? Droog moy,

Idioms aint' just for drooling idiots anymore...than they ever were, nadSATs.

I've been waiting to post this for some time now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHCL6-GqyRk

Obama looks good in pigtails.

The cult of Obama is a most intolerant group.

Riiiiighhht.

So the folks like Charles that spend hours sitting up at night writing 5,000 word diatribes spewing insults at Obama and his supporters and you looking for and posting daily attack links for months now are "tolerant". and the folks that spend 3 minutes to type a GFY are "intolerant Cultists".

Perhaps the first step to unity is the golden rule. In other words don't insult people in your request to end the insults.

With that.

Peace Brother.

Lets go get McCain

Although I am ambivalent about both democratic candidates and don't take offense when either is directly or indirectly attacked, mocked etc. I can't stand assholes that gloat.

Maybe that's how Obama supporters intend to encourage Clinton supporters to vote for him come November. I bet rubbing it in their face will work really well.

Now lets all sit down and have some strawberry ice cream damn it!

I, for one, didn´t say a single disparaging thing about Clinton. I have said all along that there is little difference between the two democratic candidates and that either one would be a huge improvement over the current White House resident. I think that a lot of the churlish comments here began when what´s-his-face starting his long-winded essays that almost always ended with his questioning the intelligence or mental health of anyone who supported Obama.

I have a question: Was anyone really offended by the things that Reverend Wright said? Should anyone really give a crap what Obama´s preacher has to say about anything? It just seemed like swift-boating to me. So perhaps we are finally about to pick Obama as the candidate. Let´s get back to letting people know how unhappy we are with the job the Republicans have been doing, not harping on this ridiculous “dirt” they found on Obama. The neo-con con job has been an almost complete failure and we have done nothing but backslide for the past 7 years.

"Text Entered is Wrong"? Nice error. Nothing works. Let's try this.

I've been a long time occasional reader, but this posting forced me to respond. I see the bitterness all coming from her side. It's having an effect on me. If you see bitterness coming from me or other Obama supporters it's likely because of Clinton's very republican like negativity strategy, and determination to win by any cost, even by changing the rules midway. Clinton supports have long polled that they would not unite behind Obama if she did not lose. This makes us bitter. I do not understand what's going on over there, what's being said, that's forcing such divisions in the party. In my observation, her negativity far preceded any coming from Obama supporters. You get what you give as they say. I know many who have less and less trust in her because of recent activity. This negativity is just feeding off itself and it has to stop.

I see no plausible way Hillary can win the nomination with a united party.

I caught bit on the evening news in which they showed the percentage of voters (obama/clinton) who said they wouldn't vote for the other going steadily up on both sides for the last 4 or 5 primaries.

Going into this election it's basically unfathomable to me that McCain could possibly get elected after the last president. But.....I said the same thing 4 years ago.

Quite frankly, all of us dems need to get on the same page and put this one away. If we don't get over our bickering, and fast, we might as well pack up our shit and go home. We don't have to get all warm and fuzzy but call a truce and get on with the election.

Unlike many others here, I am, and I remain, a Clinton supporter. And frankly, I've received more abuse from fellow Clinton supporters (on other boards, not this one) than I have from Obama supporters. Because I explain my reasons for supporting Clinton, I find that Obama supporters are generally quite tolerant of my views, even when we disagree.

Norm, if you are the recipient of obnoxiousness from any source, you should take swift and direct action. But your experience of Obama supporters' intolerance of different viewpoints as being greater than Clinton supporters' intolerance of differences doesn't match my experience.

It seems to me, having been on the receiving end of some very nasty and personal attacks that those of you who support Senator Obama are participating in exactly the destructive behavior you claim to abhor.... The cult of Obama is a most intolerant group.

Okay, first of all, this act of stereotyping and generalizing does nobody any good; it only harms. Or does one Ugly American implicate the rest of the nation, too?

I agree with RedSeven: "Perhaps the first step to unity is the golden rule. In other words don't insult people in your request to end the insults."

However, I think it's fair to point out that any Obama supporters who do condone or engage in nasty personal attacks are missing the whole significance of his campaign and candidacy. This election is nothing less than a referendum on the ethical template of the nation. We have, right now, a golden opportunity to begin a long overdue, wholesale reform of the socio-politico-economic landscape. "In your face!", "My candidate, right or wrong," and other forms of divisive dittoheadedness have no value here.

If you're not going to be part of the solution, please be part of the precipitate.

The bottom line is I'm going to save you from yourselves. Any comments that include the kind of mean spirited Clinton bashing I've seen recently will be deleted and if you persist you will be banned.

This disturbs me on many levels. I don't think it's wise at all. Things might be prettier on the surface, but you will encourage festering. The best way to treat an infection and prevent an abscess is to open the wound and disinfect it, not cover it up & pretend it isn't there.

The cult of Obama is a most intolerant group.

I don't think you understand the damage you're doing.

The bottom line is I'm going to save you from yourselves.

Any way we can possibly reword your introduction to not be so offensive to obama supporters, or fence sitters?

..having been on the receiving end of some very nasty and personal attacks that those of you who support Senator Obama are participating in exactly the destructive behavior you claim to abhor.

I'm sorry, I was drunk at the time... :)

Mamosas all around, and I agree with red, Lets get McBush.

Norm, might I suggest that, when you issue one of these dire warnings, you append the sentence, "And that goes for Hillary's supporters, too." It will communicate that you are at least as interested in civil discourse as you are interested in defending yourself or your preferred candidate. It will also show support to Obama supporters who have not been vitriolic and want to be assured of your even-handedness.

This election is nothing less than a referendum on the ethical template of the nation. We have, right now, a golden opportunity to begin a long overdue, wholesale reform of the socio-politico-economic landscape. "In your face!", "My candidate, right or wrong," and other forms of divisive dittoheadedness have no value here.

YES! This has been the #1 issue for me, everything else has been gravy.

Norm, are you deleting post right and left? Maybe I don't visit/refresh my page enough, but most of the 15 or so people that regularly comment are respectful, if not opinionated. They may trash an idea, but the rarely trash you or "Clinton supporters".

When you post things like this I feel like there are hundreds of posts that are taken down that go something like "F-U man and death to all the Clintionistas!".

I would hope that you have always been moderating your blog as you suggest you will. But the sudden need for such a disclaimer makes me wonder who you're referring to? Most of the usual suspects seem to get the distinction between groups, people, and ideas.

Mamosas all around

HELL YEA!!!!

On to important stuff. How can Hillary use her influence to help beat McCain?

I'm thinking that she can be the face of the rabid anti-bush democrats. Bad Cop to Obama's Good Cop.

This election is nothing less than a referendum on the ethical template of the nation. We have, right now, a golden opportunity to begin a long overdue, wholesale reform of the socio-politico-economic landscape. "In your face!", "My candidate, right or wrong," and other forms of divisive dittoheadedness have no value here.

You mean like instead of telling Zaph that his post is tasteless, counter productive and not welcome you just ignore it and jump all over norm for not wording his warning to your liking? Maybe insinuating that Norm is on the take from the Clintons is part of this new template?

I don't think I like your idea of reform.

One major question for you certain Clinton supporters that are so anti-Obama, what would it take to support Obama over McCain? IN the heat of the moment I've said I'd not support clinton (sigh, nukes), I don't think i ever meant it. If you are one of the people who said they wouldn't support Obama, why? What would it take?

...jump all over norm for not wording his warning to your liking? Maybe insinuating that Norm is on the take from the Clintons is part of this new template?

I don't think anyone is insinuating that. It's just quite offensive to Obama supporters to say "stop being intolerant you mindless cultists!"

You mean like instead of telling Zaph that his post is tasteless, counter productive and not welcome you just ignore it and jump all over norm for not wording his warning to your liking? Maybe insinuating that Norm is on the take from the Clintons is part of this new template?

OMG! I don't usually click on the links of most comments. Way to call that one out Dar. Zaph's post is mean and insulting to all of the readers here.

What would it take?

WARNING THE FOLLOWING IS A JOKE:

Probably a miracle but I'm sure he could conjure one of those up easily being the messiah and all.

Concerning the cult comment, point taken. I disagree that airing old news is constructive. Continued comments about how Clinton supporters do it too, is true, but not constructive. I think there is a reason why more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the reverse. I think it is something Obama supporters should consider. Continued references to Charles who hasn't posted anything controversial in months is exactly the kind of bitterness I'm talking about. We need a fresh start not more of the blame game.

You mean like instead of telling Zaph that his post is tasteless, counter productive and not welcome

I've stopped clicking Youtube links in OGM comments... I'm sure it's just a sad attempt at humor?

If Hillary is finished, I guess I'm glad, since that would mean that half of the remaining awful Democrapic presidential candidates is gone.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama in November, knowing full well that his election will mean four years of being called a "racist" every time I point out that The Fraud is bending over again for the Republicans and the corporations which own him. And there will be LOTS of bending over. You'll know it because it'll be called "unity," "working together," "compromise," or some other such bunk.

I disagree that airing old news is constructive. Continued comments about how Clinton supporters do it too, is true, but not constructive. I think there is a reason why more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the reverse. I think it is something Obama supporters should consider. Continued references to Charles who hasn't posted anything controversial in months is exactly the kind of bitterness I'm talking about. We need a fresh start not more of the blame game.

Can we put that at the top of today's posts instead? well said.

I think there is a reason why more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the reverse. I think it is something Obama supporters should consider.

This is a great thing to focus on. There is a lot of false stereotyping going on here. The big one's that come to my mind:

Obama supporters were blind zealots.

Hillary supporters were closet republican/racists.

We really need to reach into both our camps to undo these false assumptions and get us moving in a solid block quickly.

This election is nothing less than a referendum on the ethical template of the nation. We have, right now, a golden opportunity to begin a long overdue, wholesale reform of the socio-politico-economic landscape. "In your face!", "My candidate, right or wrong," and other forms of divisive dittoheadedness have no value here.

This is really a beautifully expressed thought. And although it explains my opinion of Mrs. Clinton, it also explains why my above video was in poor taste.

My sincere apologies to those who were offended. But, you have to admit- Obama does look nice in pigtails.

Actually I caucused for Obama BECAUSE I'm bitter. Bitter bitter bitter! I thought Clinton supporters were non-bitter and happy with Washington politics as usual. (Pardon my sweeping generalization Norm.)

But a couple months later I'm as bitter as I've ever been and pretty much planning to throw my vote to a 3rd party candidate in protest against our shitty system. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I want to change but here are some ideas:

• I'm sick of "debates" moderated by media personalities. That's not a debate. That's Q&A. You can do that in a studio without making some poor schmucks no one cares about stand on the stage too.

• I'm sick of polls. Seriously. The candidates just tell people what they want to hear based on their public opinion polls. It makes looking at their official positions useless.

• I'm sick of ads. The only way to make an impact in the length of an ad is through emotional button pushing and that's not democracy.

Wait. I'm just sick of everything aren't I? Fuck 'em all.

For the record, Dar, I fully admitted that speculating publicly about Norm taking money from the Clinton campaign was irresponsible, both in the original thread and in a related context in another thread. I did it because I thought it was important to admit and correct my mistake. I stopped just shy of apologizing outright, because I didn't think that airing the possibility was really equivalent to insinuating its veracity. But I suppose the distinction is fine enough between the two that I shouldn't split hairs.

For the record, I apologize unreservedly for speculating, without any factual basis whatsoever, on the possibility that Norm was in any way paid to express the political opinions he has presented here.

We all make mistakes. Only fools perpetuate them with denial and bellicosity.

Let's not be fools.

I would've applauded your post if you had said "mean spirited bashing of either Clinton or Obama" but then we would have equality and we can't have that.

I realize it's your blog but by censoring and controlling speech from perfectly reasonable people (when all is said and done, the Obama and Clinton supporters on this site are not that different versus, say, Bush lover vs the people who visit this site) you are being hypocritical and resorting to the tactics that you so frown upon from Fox News.

as a devout obama cultist, i.. no, wait!

as an enthusiastic obama supporter, i do feel good about yesterday's vote. to gloat would be foolish on many levels.

for some insight into the culture we find ourselves in going into this election, check out this bill moyers piece -

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/7/broadcastinglegendbillmoyerson_the

and this article by erik k. arnold - http://www.eastbayexpress.com/music/obizzlefashizzle/Content?oid=722118

interesting times.

whoops! sorry those links didn't survive. using the url field to try again. here's erik k. arnold on obama and hip hop and pundits and hypocrites.

and here's the bill moyers bit. cheers all. let's get it done.

oh i see - the url field is linked to the profile, not the post. oh well! 'scuse my newbieness. gonna paste this once more and hope - as it is a very interesting read.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/music/obizzlefashizzle/Content?oid=722118

byeeee!

amorphousblob, use HTML markup as described here. [http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com]

Then you can link to the article you want to like this.

leftbanker is a right(correct) thinker. When I decided to support Obama over Clinton, it was mainly for two reasons:

(1) I think, rightly or not, that Obama is less enamored of the imperialist drift our foreign policy has taken than is Clinton. Either is better than any of Republicans (except Ron Paul - with whom I agree more on this issue than any other, by far).

(2) Our system is badly broken and largely corporate controlled/manipulated. Because it is so badly broken, I am gambling that a personally likable and dynamic president may be better at effecting change in our policies (health care, foreign policy, taxation and spending, etc.) than a skilled technocrat who "knows how to work the levers of power". I'm disillusioned and now think that until we bring about some sweeping reforms, "working the levers of power" no longer works for the people. Hence, Ronald Reagan was more effective at making change (mostly bad) than most other recent presidents because he was able to put electoral pressure on Congress by making direct appeals to the electorate. Neither Obama nor Clinton seems likely to bring about sweeping reform - I'm just gambling that Obama will be a Democratic version of Reagan. I don't like it that this seems to be the best hope for getting things the citizenry wants and needs - I'd prefer a system that is much less corrupt, but I don't see that coming now.

These two reasons aside, I was always willing to vote and support either of these two candidates vs. John McBush - in my opinion anyone who doesn't is foolish or a Republican (not that I can make much of a distinction).

Thanks for pulling the "cult" language from your header, Norm. I apologize to any and all for the times I have been pulled into the nasty vortex of ad hominem attacks. In that spirit, let me say that Charles' 'cash cow' comments are good.

This observation is not in reference to the comments on this site particularly. Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I can't claim to read all the comments. From the beginning I have suspected that many of the more inflammatory comments posted in progressive blogs were not from Obama or Clinton supporters but by anti-Democratic operatives (amateur... or maybe even professional) intent on dividing the party. Unfortunately, wherever the bait has been offered, many Clinton and Obama supporters have been quite willing to pick it up and respond in kind.

I don't like calling McCain "McBush". Let's just beat him down on the issues, please.

Just for the record, Norm, would you say that you agree with the following policy statement or no:

Any comments that include the kind of mean-spirited Obama bashing I've seen recently will be deleted and, if you persist, you will be banned.

I'm just trying to get a sense of symmetry in your policy.

Any comments that include the kind of mean-spirited Obama bashing I've seen recently will be deleted

Why don't we just delete eveybody that goes off DNC talking points?

As always Norm, your show, but I would hate to see an edited discussion. Single commenters that simply make insults and leave I think are fine for deleting.

I think we all can stand to ratchet back our language, but if Clinton supporters don't support Obama because Zaphod posts a video about the wicked witch, I think they lack perspective. Similarly if Obama supporters need to crucify Clinton for simply trying to win, they need to get over themselves.

Phillipides said:

Just for the record, Norm, would you say that you agree with the following policy statement or no:

Any comments that include the kind of mean-spirited Obama bashing I've seen recently will be deleted and, if you persist, you will be banned.

I'm just trying to get a sense of symmetry in your policy.

Yes, indeed, a little balance, although that's difficult when one has a certain biased point of view.

I suppose that where we stand depends upon where we sit.

At least the official attack against Obama is over, and thus the responding attacks against Clinton are also over.

What a relief.

I understand why there are so many Hillary supporters who now say they will not support Obama and they have my sympathy though not my support.

And I understand why there are so many Obama supporters who said that they would not vote for HIllary. And although they had my support, they did not have my sympathy.

In fact, there are more Hillary supporters who said that they would not support Obama than vice versa. It turns out that it is the Obama supporters who were the more loyal Democrats. Blacks have always been the most loyal group in the Democratic party. I toast them and I toast Obama.

There is a great piece in this months Vaniety Fair about the blog war over obama/clinton,,,,"When Democrats go Postal", it is worth a read, i may try and send it to Norm if I can find it online.

I still think a lot of this attacking behaviour is what you see at the superbowl, or world cup, sort of crazy loyalty to the team you have chosen to support. Sort of rah rah gone drunken and ugly. Hopefully will stop when the game ends? I would like us also to not attack McCain with a bunch of silly distractions, ie his wifes stolen recipes or stolen drugs for that matter, and try to stick to real issues, which there are many.

I agree wholeheartedly with RedSeven. "Your house, your rules" carries a lot of weight. But I also appreciate it when stuck-on-stupid jerks are allowed to make examples of themselves up front and publicly, so I know who they are and not to indulge them.

At the same time, the mere presence of flame wars & the like can seriously detract from a discussion, even when you ignore them. What I intend to try at my blog (if I ever have to contend with that kind of activity) is set up a "Romper Room" discussion thread and transplant the insult-trading there if it persists past a salvo or two from either side.

Either way, it's a maintenance issue - but so's weeding a garden.

Did anyone else watch that clip from the Wizard of Oz and think...

"Man, I need to rewatch this movie under the influence of some serious drugs."

I guess I hadn't seen it in a while, but damn that movie is trippy.

On topic:

Four more years of a Republican in the White House will be disastrous to our nation. We live in momentous times.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC 2008!

(This post would be exactly the same if Hillary was the nominee.)

"When Democrats go Post-al " Vanity Fair june 2008

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/wolcott200806

Did anyone else watch that clip from the Wizard of Oz and think... "Man, I need to rewatch this movie under the influence of some serious drugs."

Hahaa, totally. I'm finding it hard to believe that I watched this movie as a kid ("allegedly" sober) and took it completely in stride. I also need to try out "Dark Side" alongside the movie; I haven't done that yet.

also, @ the first link.

WTF

I mean, I suppose Florida is a place as likely as any in the world to find someone who was alive during the actual witch trials, but still...really Tampa really?!

I think I am very simplistic in my reasons of why I go with Obama. Being a woman I very much wanted to support Clinton but I think we need to give new and young people a chance. Like the Europeans say, here in the US we have this dynasty system where it's always people in the political families that get to be president. We had Bush, we had Clinton, then Bush and now Clinton again? Give someone else a chance! Obama is refreshing, someone who grew up in a middleclass family and worked his way up. Like someone said earlier, I think his foreign policy will be better than the war drums that Mccain and Clinton are beating. When Hillary said she would 'Obliterate Iran' she lost my support. That shows a lack of understanding, a basic lack of human feeling for the loss of thousands of innocent lives. And sometimes, like yesterday, I get frustrated when everyone says it's almost impossible for Hillary to win, but she is still in the race. Is she expecting a miracle? I think that's the frustration Obama supporters are feeling and sometimes the anger comes out in some comments. But comments that are just mean and has no purpose have no place here. But I do hope constructive criticism of Hillary is allowed and people are not banned for that.

Any comments that include the kind of mean spirited Clinton bashing I've seen recently will be deleted

I also appreciate it when stuck-on-stupid jerks are allowed to make examples of themselves up front and publicly, so I know who they are and not to indulge them. At the same time, the mere presence of flame wars & the like can seriously detract from a discussion, even when you ignore them.

BoingBoing "disemvowels" offensive or worthless posts. Removing all the vowels makes it incredibly difficult (although not impossible) to read the post, and no one feels inclined to give any attention to the disemvoweled poster. I think this works far better than simply deleting the offending post and I'd recommend that Norm try it here (seriously, Norm, this would be better).

For example, if Ann Coulter pops by and writes:

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

then we'll only see:

"t wld b mch bttr cntry f wmn dd nt vt. Tht s smply fct. n fct, n vry prsdntl lctn snc 1950 - xcpt Gldwtr n '64 - th Rpblcn wld hv wn, f nly th mn hd vtd."

Now doesn't that look better?

As a resident of the USA's wang, I must correct you forester, that's Pasco County, not Hillsborough. WTSP, like many other local stations, just cover things statewide. Still though it is not a good sign of the times.

Well time to go, the elves and the ogres, they're always chatting me up. We're all planning to steal children and imprison them in gingerbread cages. First, step get rid of all the consumer bread, bread crumbs are the one weakness in the plan.

"I get frustrated when everyone says it's almost impossible for Hillary to win, but she is still in the race."

I agree she is in a tough situation. She could drop out, but it goes against every political instinct that any politician has. You don't leave anything on the table, and you don't tell your supporters that have worked so hard for you that "I've given it a good shot, but I'm going to do the magnanimous thing and drop out." That would be to assume that it's all about you and that your supporters are just groupies.

That said, she really does have little chance and it would be good if she could somehow lose. But not if she's intimidated by Gore or Carter to drop out. That would only enrage her supporters more, and make them feel they've been robbed.

As for the acrimony, I think it gets to all but the people who are most used to politics. I seriously think HRC and Obama don't have hard feelings about it. People like Michelle Obama do because they're not used to it. The sad thing is that there are two candidates that are pretty impressive as politicians go and Democrats are starting to go all "pox on both your houses" on them beause of the campaign dragging on so long. It's sad beause in many ways the nominating contest has disproved a lot of the pessimism about the political process--that you have to have a lot of money to compete, that you have to be from a certain family, that you have to be ideologically pure, etc.

Tim wrote:

I apologize to any and all for the times I have been pulled into the nasty vortex of ad hominem attacks.

Tim, that might have carried a bit more weight if you hadn't written this two sentences earlier:

These two reasons aside, I was always willing to vote and support either of these two candidates vs. John McBush - in my opinion anyone who doesn't is foolish or a Republican (not that I can make much of a distinction).

Or is it that courtesy is reserved only for those who agree with you?

forester:

I am to please-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7667000257414927973&hl=en

Tim:

I really like your opinion of foreign policy. I suppose this makes us even for you turning me into a pro-single payer healthcare "liberal"-tarian.

the easily offended:

For the record, my joke also implied that Obama is a little girl from Kansas. Not as bad as calling Senator Clinton a witch I suppose, but I think some of this may be sour grapes.

Hell, it's not over 'til its over. And for the record: I respect Hillary supporters a hell of a lot more than the 90% of lazy Americans who sit at home watching tee vee instead of campaigning, debating, volunteering and donating. We may not agree on much, but we do agree on the value of citizenship, and our participation in Democracy.

Or is it that courtesy is reserved only for those who agree with you?

Oh, you want a qualifies to my implication that Republicans are fools? How about: they don't have to agree with me about a lot of things, but if, after 4 years of George Bush, they stepped into a voting booth in 2004 and voted for him – they're fools. Three Republicans who had at least enough respect for their country to reject George Bush and therefore deserve at least some respect are Kevin Phillips, Bruce Bartlett, and this guy.

Bah! that should have read ...want me to qualify my ...

Why doesn't (whoever it was) like "McBush?" I think that's a perfect description. And, I am truly shocked at anyone who supported either Hillary or Obama who would not vote for the Democratic candidate at this point.

There is SO much at stake in the race it is unbelievable - not least being the Supreme Court. The Republicans don't even want "conservative" judges anymore - they want fully partisan judges like Scalia. And, of course, they want their tax cut made permanent in the midst of this economic nightmare and Bush's war - his war that he doesn't want his people paying for or fighting in.

It's okay, everyone: my cat is channeling Hillary. Now you know what's really going on.

Why doesn't (whoever it was) like "McBush?"

Because it's name calling. Name calling is unnecessary and turns many people off to politics. We need problem solving discourse, not playground taunting.

"Because it's name calling."

"Must fight fair," the Progressive weakly mutters to himself as the Regressive Gang kicks him repeatedly in the nuts . . .

Because it's name calling.

So you do like McBush, you just don't like it when people call him "McBush"

You know that Bush is the name of the current president that he has strongly supported, right? Its the name of the leader of his part.

I bet 100 dollars, someone asks John McCain if calling him Mcbush is an insult, he says NO.

So you do like McBush, you just don't like it when people call him "McBush"

Replace that "do" with "don't" and, yes, you are correct.

I'm not partial to labels of any kind, positive or negative. Uniter, divider, McBush, Obamabots,Shriliary, good, bad... Jesus is just Jesus, Hiller is just Hitler; Obama is just Obama, McCain is just McCain.

I'm not partial to labels of any kind, positive or negative.

My coffee is coffee not hot or cold. The movie I saw last night is just a movie not good or bad.

I get it you've sworn off adjectives whats next adverbs? :)

I bet 100 dollars, someone asks John McCain if calling him Mcbush is an insult, he says NO.

Exactly. If John McCain is the straight talking maverick he is portrayed to be, then he is free to repudiate any part of the Bush agenda he chooses. On the contrary, he has done exactly the opposite in some very important areas. John McCain has embraced George Bush's ruinous tax policies. John McCain caved on torture. John McCain has now embraced some of the craziest bastards in the evangelical zoo (and he is transparently phony in doing so - look at the clip where pastes on a phony smile and introduces Rod Parsley as Ralph Parsley). In foreign policy, John McCain is a neocon's neocon. As oversimplifications go, calling McCain "McBush" is about as fair as one can get.

Finally, as a matter political strategy, it is time that we recognize that an purely "eggheaded" analytical approach to evaluating candidates is a loser. The GOP has attempted to any transform any Democrat currently running into whichever past Democrat they wish. Obama has been called "McGovern" and "Dukakis" more times than I can count. John McCain has steadily embraced ever more of a failed president's agenda as time as gone on - he should be hung with his own rope.

I'm not partial to labels of any kind, positive or negative. Uniter, divider, McBush, Obamabots,Shriliary, good, bad... Jesus is just Jesus, Hiller is just Hitler; Obama is just Obama, McCain is just McCain.

Well said.

As to the negativity... it's gotten a ton better lately, no? There are a few people who are still setting on a hair trigger, but by and large the evaporation of Charles' uglier screeds from the blog "fixed" the problem. Clearly there are still flare-ups (I must have missed the post where Norm was accused of being in Hillary's pocket), but unless this blog is heavily moderated nigh-constantly, it's a problem that's mending with time.

I feel that this is down to the realization that one or the other of these people will be the Democratic candidate for president, and a McCain presidency is simply not a tenable option. Whatever the reason, there's more congeniality between the two camps now, and it will only increase as the election gets closer.

I get it you've sworn off adjectives whats next adverbs? :)

OMG! you used an emote!

Ok, ok you got me. I went overboard on the whole no-label thing.

I Still don't like name calling.

Tim wrote:

Oh, you want me to qualify my implication that Republicans are fools?

It just struck me that your post was a bit duplicitous. You agree that divisiveness is bad for Democrats, then go on to promote divisiveness for the nation. It can be subtle, and I've certainly been guilty of it myself, so it's something I try to watch out for.

How about: they don't have to agree with me about a lot of things, but if, after 4 years of George Bush, they stepped into a voting booth in 2004 and voted for him – they're fools.

I would agree with that sentiment. As a conservative, I did in fact vote for Bush in 2000. Certainly not in 2004. I am dismayed at what the Republican Party has turned into at the national level, and I am further dismayed that so many people who call themselves Republicans just don't see it.

Ah, I've strayed a bit here. Perhaps I'll pick this topic up in the McCain thread.

I am dismayed at what the Republican Party has turned into at the national level, and I am further dismayed that so many people who call themselves Republicans just don't see it.

I think that's what Tim meant by "fools". That's certainly why I call Republican's who still think bush is great "fools".

You agree that divisiveness is bad for Democrats, then go on to promote divisiveness for the nation.

Divisiveness with people that think war is a good thing and shouldn't be thoughtfully debated, think god should rule our country, and think single payer healthcare is evil, is just something people with common sense need to accept in life.

Good Ideas are worth fighting for, its blow jobs and vilification of labels that is a waste of everyones time.

RedSeven wrote:

Good Ideas are worth fighting for, its blow jobs and vilification of labels that is a waste of everyones time.

I say we stop the political dialogue and discuss this comment. :)

Teodomiro - You are pretty funny.

Just getting back to this thread. Seeing why thaddeusphoenix doesn't like McBush - saying it's name calling which I disagree with - calling it a label I would agree with.

I think it is a very clear, succinct description of McCain's policies - that he has voiced again and again. If you like Bush, you will like McCain and that's fair: Bush did (or did not) win two elections; He continues to have influential supporters; He represents the direction McCain is continuing to take the Republican party.

To Norm's group of readers (with a few exceptions), calling McCain McBush IS an insult but so is calling him a Bush-supporter and you would have to say that is true - and it means the same thing except in a more fun, clever way. Comparing that to, for example, Shrillary? If you called her shrill - that would be name calling, no matter how you slice it. If you call (just her) Billary that would be again a pretty clever short-handed label (and, I'm sure to right wingers --- they would mean that as an insult.)

I'm afraid if you don't like labels you must have a very hard time in this world of marketing where everyone is looking for shorthand to express a product, a brand, an idea - whatever.

Anyway - no big deal... I just found it very curious and your explanation doesn't really change that.

Sorry redseven for another post off the important topics....yes, it is minutiae.

No need to apologize to me.

I am just some commenter, and you pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

Unless you're dealing with spam, deleting posts is just a bad idea.

If a poster makes a really vile and horrible comment, the best thing a moderator can do is simply to leave the post as it is. That way, everyone gets to see exactly how vile and horrible it was, and will adjust their perception of the poster's future comments accordingly (vile or not).

As an example, when I saw Pat Robertson promoting awareness of global warming I thought, "Well that's nice, but you're still a scumbag." If Robertson was a poster on a forum, and the moderators deleted every vile and horrible comment he made, I might actually think he was a nice guy... See how it works?

If you take that to heart, the only motivation for deleting such posts is to stifle dissenting voices. The "tasteless and counterproductive" argument is merely a cowardly excuse — the best way to deal with counterproductive and tasteless comments is simply to respond with an elegant and constructive comment. Deleting a post is the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly cutting off a guest's microphone because he can't think of a good response.

And finally, I really think the world would be a much nicer place if everyone were to remember the wisdom of that great American poet Bette Midler: "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."

Yeah, and joke 'em if they don't give a fuck!

Dzwonka,

You are less productive than Norm on this. If you want him to respect you position, you might avoid phrases like, "a cowardly excuse" and "Deleting a post is the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly cutting..."

It's not cowardly to delete off topic insulting comments, I also think some insults can come up in conversations and the conversation will work them out on its own.

I agree for the most part with Dzwonka's views on censorship, but I think calling it cowardly is jumping to a rash conclusion.

For example, shushing caterwauling kids so the adults can have a conversation is not cowardly, and it is censorship.

But I do think censorship should be used as minimally as possible, and should always be coupled with a carrot of some sort. Chastising the kids but allowing them to remain & participate if they can do so in an adult manner encourages them to grow up, instead of driving them away to stick firecrackers up cats' butts to release their pent up aggressions.

I like the "disemvoweling" concept, and I think there are potentially many other creative and constructive ways of handling habitually disruptive people. The key is to model mature behavior and encourage mindfulness, instead of creating a schism and posting a "Do Not Cross" sign.

RedSeven: nope, deleting a post is in fact far more severe than cutting someone's microphone — it's like cutting someone's microphone, and somehow permanently erasing what the participant said, BEFORE the microphone was cut. I believe my point still stands.

perspicio: I'm happy someone shares my opinions on censorship, but I do hope you live in permanent fear of the day when someone deletes your contrary opinion with the excuse that it was the caterwauling of a child... :) Or not productive. Or non-constructive. Or insulting. Or insensitive. Or blasphemy. Or — well, you get my point, I hope.

I most assuredly do.

RedSeven: nope

It's your tone I disagree with, not your point.

Although in the world of anonymous comments people say things much worse then they ever would on any show with a camera in their face. If I had my choice I would probably delete some of my own comments.

Disemvoweling has none of the problems you describe.

It's your tone I disagree with, not your point.

Ah, then I am at ease. Fair enough.