Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Peter Fonda encourages his grandchildren to take up arms against President Barack Oba (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Peter Fonda encourages his grandchildren to take up arms against President Barack Oba
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the National Review article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224557/lott-should-go/editors
quote:
Thus wrote National Review in November 1998 after the GOP midterm disaster that year. We have long considered Lott a clumsy and ineffective Republican leader, and his controversial Strom Thurmond birthday remarks are a spectacular confirmation of that judgment. Is Lott a racist? We don’t think so. Are many of the attacks on him dishonest and opportunistic? Yes. But he has been a poor leader of Senate Republicans, and the latest gaffe will only further erode his standing and his ability to lead.
Doesn't sound to me like they're holding him accountable for what he said in any way. In fact they're actively saying that what he said was just fine, the demand for him to step down was because he'd opened himself up to attack, not because anything fundamentally wrong about what he'd said.

There's no accountability there, just using an opportunity that he gave them to reiterate their existing position on him.

quote:
But we can’t be loyal to a Majority Leader who we didn’t support in the first place.
It's also worth noting that Lott was easily reelected after this; he didn't even fact a Republican challenger
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There's no accountability there, just using an opportunity that he gave them to reiterate their existing position on him.

[DOH] Sure, that's what it was.

Would you like to move the Goal Posts down the field a little further?

[ May 27, 2011, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't understand your complaint, JWatts. Why don't you think that's an effective rebuttal?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There's no accountability there, just using an opportunity that he gave them to reiterate their existing position on him.

[DOH] Sure, that's what it was.

Would you like to move the Goal Posts down the field a little further?

He was very explicitly explicitly no held accountable for what he said, and the National Review had already been calling for him to get out of the way long before he said anything. The NR pretty much says that it though the complaints about what he said were overblown, but it wanted to reiterate its position that he should go in favor of someone who wouldn't let it hang out quite as much.

At no point so it so much as call for him to apologize fir what he said; it explicitly claims that people making a big deal of what he said are just political opportunists.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't understand your complaint, JWatts. Why don't you think that's an effective rebuttal?

Previously Pyr posted this:
quote:
When have conservatives done even that much for their big voices? Demanded any of their big names to apologize for equivalent over-the-top attacks and insults to liberals?
Then Adam Masterman posted this:
quote:
The Trent Lott situation comes to mind.
At which time I proved that Trent Lott was held accountable for his actions.

Then Pyrtolin responded by saying that punishing Trent Lott does not count because The National Review wasn't happy with him previously. That's essentially irrelevant to the argument and ignores the fact that the Republicans in Congress also booted him out of his leadership position.

I believe that Pyrtolin was wrong in general and was specifically wrong in this case, but instead of admitting the point he is trying to claim that this instance shouldn't count. Effectively he is using a Moving the Goalpost argument.

Moving the Goalpost

quote:
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion
I believe that in almost any conceivable case I presented that Pyr could point to some conservative source that was unhappy with the person who was guilty of a transgression. So the rebuttal he used could be used generically.

I could just have easily have said in the original argument that, yes MSNBC gave Schultz a 1 week suspension, but they were already upset with him so it really doesn't count. Saying such would have been specious and unfair on my part however. Instead, I agreed that MSNBC's response was reasonable to the offense committed. Whereas, ThinkProgress' suggested punishment was ridiculously small.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me repeat back to you the critical line from what I asked:
quote:
Demanded any of their big names to apologize for equivalent over-the-top attacks and insults to liberals?
I am not moving the goal posts. I am continuing to insist that you show me where they at least demanded that the person in question apologize for their remarks, or otherwise held them accountable for their remarks. The National Review article explicitly gave him a pass on the remarks.

You tried to move the goal posts in your favor by insisting that suffering political fallout for political embarrassment is equivalent. It's not even remotely so, especially when its not the words that were said but the embarrassment that the person is being held accountable for.

The demand for for Shultz to apologize for what he said, not to apologize for embarrassing MSNBC. No conservative called out Lott for what he said, only for embarrassing the GOP by how he said it; to the contrary, they lept to defend and justify what he said by explaining how he didn't really mean it to be racist.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then Pyrtolin responded by saying that punishing Trent Lott does not count because The National Review wasn't happy with him previously. That's essentially irrelevant to the argument and ignores the fact that the Republicans in Congress also booted him out of his leadership position.
You would have a point, JWatts, except that the National Review did not criticize him for the specific action. You said he was "held accountable for his actions" by this conservative source (which you quoted), but they did not hold him accountable for his supposedly racist remarks.

As you just quoted, Pyrtolin asked for "When have conservatives...[d]emanded any of their big names to apologize for equivalent over-the-top attacks and insults to liberals?" There was no such demand in your example.

So, no, I don't see the goalposts being moved. I see saying that you came close to the goalpost and that should count.

If you have an example of conservatives demanding an apology from one of their own, provide it. But don't complain if you're called on it when you did not provide it.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
As you just quoted, Pyrtolin asked for "When have conservatives...[d]emanded any of their big names to apologize for equivalent over-the-top attacks and insults to liberals?" There was no such demand in your example.

I think it's critical to the point to note that it wasn't just that there was no such demand, there was, in fact an assertion just to the opposite- that there was nothing inherently wrong with what he said, and that people were making a fuss over nothing.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Let me repeat back to you the critical line from what I asked:
quote:
Demanded any of their big names to apologize for equivalent over-the-top attacks and insults to liberals?
I am not moving the goal posts. I am continuing to insist that you show me where they at least demanded that the person in question apologize for their remarks, or otherwise held them accountable for their remarks. The National Review article explicitly gave him a pass on the remarks.

How was asking for Lott's removal from his post, not holding him accountable?

And the National Review did not give "him a pass on the remarks".

National Review
--Robert A. George
--December 10th, 2002
quote:
As everyone knows by now, in a Thursday testimonial to the retiring Senate legend, Lott said, “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

“These problems?” When Thurmond ran for president in ‘48, it wasn’t as a Republican or Democrat. It was as the candidate of the State’s Rights Democratic party — founded explicitly to keep Jim Crow alive.
...
Unfortunately, those words just didn’t cut it. The incoming Senate Majority Leader was speaking directly to the moment in time when Thurmond split the Democratic party over Harry Truman’s embrace of a civil-rights agenda.

From the Mississippi State Democratic party’s official sample ballot for the 1948 election, here’s some of the “problems” that Mississippians feared: “A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman’s so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious…anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever.”

Perhaps Sen. Lott should ask Alabama-born Condoleezza Rice — whose childhood friends were killed in a church bombing — if she believes her life would have been better if Strom Thurmond had become president.
...
So, Monday night, faced with mounting criticism of his comments, Lott issued another apology. This time, it was, “A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”

“Discarded policies” — that’s a quaint, benign quaint phrase that effectively sidesteps the real horror that was Jim Crow. The new statement itself was very nice and, all things considered, one might give Lott the benefit of the doubt — if he didn’t have a record, unmatched by any other current leading Republican of paying homage to a romanticized view of the “old South.”

That’s right. This isn’t the first time Lott has been caught up in “a poor choice of words.”

In a 1984 speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Miss., Lott declared: “The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform.”
...
In 1998, it was revealed that Lott had spoken several times to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a “racialist”, neo-white supremacist organization.
...
We’re supposed to believe that this latest gaffe is “a poor choice of words” — one that just happens to pop up over and over again?
...
Ultimately though Bush, Rove, and Co. have to ask: “Do they want someone who deserves to be Senate Majority Leader — or a man who seems to continually fantasize being white majority leader?”

Link

They did not give him a pass.

[ May 27, 2011, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
]You would have a point, JWatts, except that the National Review did not criticize him for the specific action. You said he was "held accountable for his actions" by this conservative source (which you quoted), but they did not hold him accountable for his supposedly racist remarks.

I've posted an editorial that was on the National Review 3 days prior to editorial Pyrtolin posted. As you can see the author definitely held him accountable.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
As you just quoted, Pyrtolin asked for "When have conservatives...[d]emanded any of their big names to apologize for equivalent over-the-top attacks and insults to liberals?" There was no such demand in your example.

So, no, I don't see the goalposts being moved. I see saying that you came close to the goalpost and that should count.

If you have an example of conservatives demanding an apology from one of their own, provide it. But don't complain if you're called on it when you did not provide it.

Trent Lott apologized almost immediately and repeatedly before these editorials came out so, no they didn't ask for another apology. They did condemn his apologies as trivial and then later demanded his removal. That's far stronger than just asking him to apologize.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Grant, I'm going to come right out and ask this: do you know if you have Asperger's? The reason I'm curious is that you seem to have a bit of a difficulty picking up on connotative meaning sometimes -- as with this whole discussion of racism -- and I'm coming to think that it's more than the typical partisan bias. The other couple of people I know with similar social issues are mildly autistic, and it'd be interesting to discover that you're in the same boat.

Tom, I promise I've never eaten any Asburgers. [Smile]
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As you can see the author definitely held him accountable.
I commend that author, and in that I agree that there was at least one voice that was actually holding him accountable for his words, but he was a contributor, not a representative of the NR itself. The NR editors, on the other hand, made it clear that they thought the complaints about what he said were overblown.

quote:
How was asking for Lott's removal from his post, not holding him accountable?
Can you show in any way that the pressure on him to step down was due to what he said rather than due to the scandal over what he said? Going by what the NR editors said, it was very much the latter, not the former, but, while a more significant voice than one more moderate author, they're not the GOP leadership, so it's fully possible that the GOP leadership issued a statement condemning his words unconditionally, with no weaseling.

quote:
Trent Lott apologized almost immediately and repeatedly before these editorials came out so, no they didn't ask for another apology.
No, he tried several times over to justify his remarks; playing the "That's not what I meant to say game" instead of apologizing. When he did actually come close to an apology, he still didn't actually take responsibility for his words, using instead a variation on the "I apologize if I offended you" copout; displacing responsibility for being offended to the listeners, rather than owning up and taking responsibly for what he said.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For other instances, since you asked, in addition to the quote from Rush above:

-Coulter:

"You will find liberals always rooting for savages against civilization." –Ann Coulter
"They didn't root for the Nazis against civilization." –Bill O'Reilly
"Oh yes they did. ... It was only when Hitler invaded their precious Soviet Union that at the last minute they came in and suddenly started saying oh no, now you have to fight Hitler." –Ann Coulter, "The O'Reilly Factor," May 7, 2010

"I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." --on the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, FOX News interview, June 22, 2009

"We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." --arguing that it would be better if we were all Christian

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot." --at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole."

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties -- provided we're only talking about criminals."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

I'll dig through Back, Limbaugh, Hannity, and other big name conservative pundits when I get a chance.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Grant, I'm going to come right out and ask this: do you know if you have Asperger's? The reason I'm curious is that you seem to have a bit of a difficulty picking up on connotative meaning sometimes -- as with this whole discussion of racism -- and I'm coming to think that it's more than the typical partisan bias. The other couple of people I know with similar social issues are mildly autistic, and it'd be interesting to discover that you're in the same boat.

Tom, I promise I've never eaten any Asburgers. [Smile]
Please don't lump me with him Tom.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At which time I proved that Trent Lott was held accountable for his actions.
I would argue that you did not prove this. Do you understand why I and others do not believe that you have?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
At which time I proved that Trent Lott was held accountable for his actions.
I would argue that you did not prove this. Do you understand why I and others do not believe that you have?
I agree that I have not proven that I havn't eaten any Asburgers.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would say that he wasn't held accountable, but he paid the price for it, anyway. He was pushed out for other reasons, but this gave people the leverage to do it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Several commenters have mentioned the Klan in relation to the south. I live in upstate South Carolina. I have not seen or heard of a Klan rally around here or in this state for over 20 years. If you hear of one it will probably be in Indiana. I stopped in a small bar in Veedersburg IN. There was a PBR beer poster above the bar with an attractive black woman in a bikini. The bartender said, “That's the only N****R we allow in Veedersburg." He thought it was funny. I didn't. I'm a white Southerner.

BTW, Peter Fonda is a jerk.

Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I would say that he wasn't held accountable, but he paid the price for it, anyway. He was pushed out for other reasons, but this gave people the leverage to do it.

Yes, it's the point Pyr is unsuccessfully trying to make. You can argue all you want to that Trent Lott was pushed out for more than one reason. I don't disagree with that.

But it's absurd to say he wasn't "punished" for his statement, just because it wasn't the only reason that he was kicked out for.

Pyr, all your statements are Conservatives talking about Liberals. None are racist statements.

[ May 31, 2011, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An excuse can be considered a reason or be a tipping point. This can't be considered the reason, however. The unanswerable question is how long he would have lasted had this not happened.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So far, on the Lott issue, you've shown that one pundit had some sense, when even the magazine that published his article was giving Lott an explicit pass on what he said. For losing his position to count, though you have to show that it actually over what he said, and not from the political weakness that followed. Where's the statement from GOP leadership at least demanding an apology, if not going beyond that to denounce what he said? So far you have exactly one voice repudiating him and only incidental fallout, not direct consequences on that matter.

quote:
Pyr, all your statements are Conservatives talking about Liberals. None are racist statements.
Racism isn't specifically at issue (unless you're somehow qualifying "slut" as racist) it' a matter of what should be considered reprehensible speech, regardless of the target, getting a nod. I'm sure, among that list you can find some degree of conservative outcry over the language used; there's plenty to pick from, some maybe not quite as bad as what Schultz said ,some at least on par with it. Where's the outcry over objectively over the top rhetoric? Or, as you suggest, is it okay since she's attacking liberals rather than conservatives?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
An excuse can be considered a reason or be a tipping point. This can't be considered the reason, however. The unanswerable question is how long he would have lasted had this not happened.

I don't see that as relevant. He could, in fact, have been pressured to step down explicitly because of his words, but the lack of a public denunciation of them renders that moot- in fact, because he stepped down, he helped the GOP avoid having to make any explicit public repudiation of what he said. A public demand for an apology would have been the minimum, but even if his not-apology was treated as one, then some other public form of repudiation would suffice. As it stands he was quietly pressured to step down, which he did, allowing everyone for go home and use the event to pick up votes by complaining about how those PC liberals created a scandal that pushed a good guy like Lott out of what e'd earned.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But it's absurd to say he wasn't "punished" for his statement...
Can you find anything released by the GOP that asserts Lott's fall from leadership was a result of his statement?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
But it's absurd to say he wasn't "punished" for his statement...
Can you find anything released by the GOP that asserts Lott's fall from leadership was a result of his statement?
Do you even ever try to see issues in anything other than the most rank partisan sense?

I'll look for such an assertion right after you show such a statement from the DNC after a leader has been kicked out for anything shy of a criminal investigation.


quote:
White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press on Monday that Bush would not try to save Lott's job.

Political advisers to the president told The AP they are highly disappointed with Lott's explanations, but that Bush ordered them not to take any overt or covert action against the Mississippi Republican.
...
The National Review, the Wall Street Journal and William Bennett all have called for Lott to step down as Senate Republican leader.

Republican strategists Ed Rollins and Peggy Noonan both said today on Good Morning America that Lott should step down, if for no other reason than to let the president get on with his agenda without the controversy he has created.

"I would hope in the next couple of weeks he would step aside because he's a distraction to the president's agenda," Rollins said. "He's become an embarrassment to his party, and I think the reality is, he's going to be a distraction to the agenda."

"I think if he does not choose to step down it would be wonderful if his Republican colleagues removed him as their leader for all of the obvious reasons," Noonan said.

ABC news
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you even ever try to see issues in anything other than the most rank partisan sense?

I'll look for such an assertion right after you show such a statement from the DNC after a leader has been kicked out for anything shy of a criminal investigation.

No, see, that's not how it goes. Look at the quote you just provided. Again, Rollins and Noonan are saying: "Lott didn't say anything wrong, but he gave the President an opening and, ostensibly for giving the President an opening (but in reality for a whole bunch of reasons completely unrelated to anything he may or may not have said), should step down." That is the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate with this example, isn't it?

[ May 31, 2011, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, I think you're glossing over the obvious. If Lott was the right torchbearer they wouldn't have wanted him to leave; in fact they would have said anything to attack his critics and run out the clock. That they didn't is all the evidence you need that he was already a liability.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Do you even ever try to see issues in anything other than the most rank partisan sense?

No, see, that's not how it goes.
Enough said.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry. Are you attempting to dodge the fact that you've failed to prove your point by asserting that it's only my personal flaws which prevent me from recognizing the strength of your argument?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1