you could make assumptions. And that’s all anyone on either side does about the other, short of actually knowing the person.
You can make numbers and words do anything you want, for whatever purpose suits your desires…
I have no desire other than to get at the truth.
I personally think this article is crap. Why is this continued focus on liberals - we have no power anymore. Why bother to even talk to us?
mosquitos have no power either, but in MN we still need to slap them now and again…
You should move to a Red state 
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 15 2005,13:55) |
| Funny I have the same feeling with discussing/arguing with so-called "conservatives" these days. PS - Ward Churchill is an idiot. The right-wing press have completely overblown this guy & have attempted to make him a spokesman for liberals, which he is NOT. |
Ever read any of his stuff? He is no idiot.
mosquitos have no power either, but in MN we still need to slap them now and again...
Clark, you ought to meet the Scottish Midge (pronounced midgy).
(Actually that's not true, it's really pronounced "f***ing midgy".)
These tiny beasts travel in flocks (swarms?), and make life #### for man and animal both.
Not only that, but they are unbelievably strong for their size and have been known to carry off small children.
What they do with them is anybody's guess; but for a long long time, young kids used to appear out of the wilderness speaking no known language, (they did however buzz a lot).
How to deal with this social problem of the unknown poor wee waifs was a puzzle. The orphanages soon became overburdened, and anyway, the wee souls needed far more help than institutionalisation could offer.
Then, it was realised that a swift whack with a really heavy rolled up newspaper solved everything.
Clark, you ought to meet the Scottish Midge (pronounced midgy).
(Actually that's not true, it's really pronounced "f***ing midgy".)
These tiny beasts travel in flocks (swarms?), and make life #### for man and animal both.
Not only that, but they are unbelievably strong for their size and have been known to carry off small children.
What they do with them is anybody's guess; but for a long long time, young kids used to appear out of the wilderness speaking no known language, (they did however buzz a lot).
How to deal with this social problem of the unknown poor wee waifs was a puzzle. The orphanages soon became overburdened, and anyway, the wee souls needed far more help than institutionalisation could offer.
Then, it was realised that a swift whack with a really heavy rolled up newspaper solved everything.
I have no desire other than to get at the truth.
When you find it Toke, please let me know. I've been waiting a looooonnnng time.
When you find it Toke, please let me know. I've been waiting a looooonnnng time.
The TRUTH??? You CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
Er… sorry. Channeling Nicholson for some reason…
TG
Channeling Nicholson for some reason......
I once channeled Jim Beam, made quite a mess.
I once channeled Jim Beam, made quite a mess.
Does “channeling” here mean “projectile vomiting”?
Only projectile vomit after playing a strat!
And for the record, I would drive into the ditch just to hit the darn cat!
What’s new greasy spot, whoa whoa whoa. 
| Quote (ksdb @ April 15 2005,14:42) | ||
Are you saying that your example hasn't happened before?? |
No of course not, two wrongs do not make a right. I will add that this sort of side step approach to legitimate statements of fact are a common approach by those who see the truth and do not want to respond to it.
As far as it being an unlikely source, it is a well known fact that Pat Sajak is an outspoken conservative well versed in bashing what he considers "Liberal". So the source is not all that "unlikely". I would say that it is more that you were just "unaware" of these facts.
This is the first time I've ever heard of Pat Sajak being vocal about anything besides Vanna White's dress. I was very surprised to see his name at the bottom of the essay that John posted. Just goes to show that what you might think is common knowledge ain't.
Just because you have no knowledge of it does not mean it does not exist. If we all went by that logic, we would all be republicans...
Mike
The most interesting thing about this group of posts has to do with the topic. You say you have stopped arguing with what you consider as “liberals”, yet you still take pot shots at them. On top of this, you are the ruling party. Never in my lifetime has one party so dominated the government. Yet the ruling party can’t seem to stop kicking a dead horse.
Being the winner and still complaining. I was always taught the this was being a bad sport or a poor winner. Where is this amazing moral side to the republican party. Could it all be smoke and mirrors?
Mike
Well said Mike. Rush et al. don’t have anything else to do, I mean that’s how they make their money. And when the economy and the environment and all our entitlements go south, they’ll continue to blame us.
As Garrison said, it’s capitalists that have caused this country to go morally astray, not liberals or Democrats.
Tom - I heard Ward Churchill speak on TV & I listened to what he said about the 9/11 victims. He did NOT impress me at all. He’s no spokesman for me or any liberal I know.
I personally do not know this Ward Churchill character. I did see a press conference with him speaking on TV once. He strikes me as a pacifist, hippie, intellectual. He is very passionate about his views and angry that america ( and americans ) push their self-serving views on the rest of the world.
His words are often anti-american government because of what he sees as anti-rest-of-the-world politics. This makes him a target for the powerful corporate/government heirarchy. In George Bush’s words, “If you aren’t for us you’re against us”. He also believes that americans are responsible for the american government and in his view should be held accountable for the american government’s anti-world politics.
You may not agree with him, but he is a messenger of how many in the world view americans and the american government. Should we ignore his views? Or should we explore them to see if there is merit and possibly a way the government can change in a positive way. I believe the later is the way to growth.
Mike
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 16 2005,18:01) | ||||
No of course not, two wrongs do not make a right. I will add that this sort of side step approach to legitimate statements of fact are a common approach by those who see the truth and do not want to respond to it. |
I didn't side-step anything, I asked a simple question. Short answer was no without the defensiveness explanation.
As far as it being an unlikely source, it is a well known fact that Pat Sajak is an outspoken conservative well versed in bashing what he considers "Liberal". So the source is not all that "unlikely". I would say that it is more that you were just "unaware" of these facts.
This is the first time I've ever heard of Pat Sajak being vocal about anything besides Vanna White's dress. I was very surprised to see his name at the bottom of the essay that John posted. Just goes to show that what you might think is common knowledge ain't.
Just because you have no knowledge of it does not mean it does not exist. If we all went by that logic, we would all be republicans...
Mike
I didn't say whether anything existed or not. Is that winning logic on your part??
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 17 2005,10:35) |
| I personally do not know this Ward Churchill character. I did see a press conference with him speaking on TV once. He strikes me as a pacifist, hippie, intellectual. He is very passionate about his views and angry that america ( and americans ) push their self-serving views on the rest of the world. His words are often anti-american government because of what he sees as anti-rest-of-the-world politics. This makes him a target for the powerful corporate/government heirarchy. In George Bush's words, "If you aren't for us you're against us". He also believes that americans are responsible for the american government and in his view should be held accountable for the american government's anti-world politics. You may not agree with him, but he is a messenger of how many in the world view americans and the american government. Should we ignore his views? Or should we explore them to see if there is merit and possibly a way the government can change in a positive way. I believe the later is the way to growth. Mike |
Certainly such a learned person would know to articulate himself in a less inflammatory way (or is the only way to call attention (or get personal attention) to his point-of-view)?? It doesn't seem a constructive way to begin a dialogue.
Uh Pat, Id like to solve the puzzle.
Every Good Boy Does Fine.
jerm 
ksdb, do you always answer questions with a question? Can you not see that by doing so never commits you to an answer? Do you not realize that your questions completely sidestep the point so you do not have to show any thought on your part? Do you see that by consistantly asking a question when a question is asked is just pointless and adds nothing to the discussion except an obvious lack of knowledge on your part?
Irritating, isn’t it… 
ksdb, if you are going to make an intellegent remark about what you believe, please do so. I am all ears. So far all I can tell is that you like to dodge statements with questions that change the subject. How can you have a discussion like that.
My statements are clear and to the point. There is no defensiveness.
Also you stated,
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Just goes to show that what you might think is common knowledge ain’t. |
meaning that it is not common knowledge that Pat Sajak is an outspoken conservative. The fact is he is. He has been on dozens of TV programs speaking about his politics, has his own web site, has been quoted all over the internet and in newspapers all over the US. I guess he could come to your house to prove it, but that would be up to you to arrange it. So, it does “exist”.
As far as learned people who do not share their message well, there are many passionate people who have that same problem. Including many people in the current government. Should they lose their jobs cause they insult millions of Europeans? I don’t think so.
Mike
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 17 2005,23:38) |
| ksdb, do you always answer questions with a question? Can you not see that by doing so never commits you to an answer? Do you not realize that your questions completely sidestep the point so you do not have to show any thought on your part? Do you see that by consistantly asking a question when a question is asked is just pointless and adds nothing to the discussion except an obvious lack of knowledge on your part? Irritating, isn't it.... ksdb, if you are going to make an intellegent remark about what you believe, please do so. I am all ears. So far all I can tell is that you like to dodge statements with questions that change the subject. How can you have a discussion like that. My statements are clear and to the point. There is no defensiveness. Also you stated, Just goes to show that what you might think is common knowledge ain't. |
meaning that it is not common knowledge that Pat Sajak is an outspoken conservative. The fact is he is. He has been on dozens of TV programs speaking about his politics, has his own web site, has been quoted all over the internet and in newspapers all over the US. I guess he could come to your house to prove it, but that would be up to you to arrange it. So, it does "exist".
As far as learned people who do not share their message well, there are many passionate people who have that same problem. Including many people in the current government. Should they lose their jobs cause they insult millions of Europeans? I don't think so.
Mike
Considering that at least one (if not both) of your "questions" was rhetorical and seemingly sarcastic, I was hardly "answering a question with a queston." It also wasn't sidestepping an issue, it dealt directly with your claim which had more than a hint of condescension. You answered an unequivocal no to my question. You obviously understood the point, despite your melodramatic protestations of irritation.
My idea of "common knowledge" is obviously much broader than yours or perhaps you presume the majority of Americans are as dedicated to the study of politics as you are. Pat Sajak could come to my house and talk politics anytime he wanted; it wouldn't prove that his political affiliation is well-known. Outside of extremely narrow political circles and a few political nerds, PS is just a game-show host.
On the third issue, you oversimplified what I said by changing "inflammatory" language to "not share their message well." Which insults and by whom have you heard insults about millions of Europeans that were similar in nature to WC's remarks?? You're making a Rather broad comparison (pun intended); let's see your substantiation.