RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


bipolarber -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 7:05:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Hahahahaha!!! You're so cute when you're miffed! [8D]

...

Sooooo cute!

I was born cute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You weren't really hoping all Democrats to be coiffed with shining halos, were you? This one sounds like he should join the ranks of the Republicans: he's far too obvious about his devioussness.

Many posterss think, and act as if "dirty trickss" was ssomething only practiced by the Republican sside of the political sspectrum, when in fact, it is jusst as prevalent on the "left" sside. [8D]

Firm



Oh, more than that! The Republicans are so much better at this sort of thing than the left is. They not only are known for their "dirty tricks" they own the patent and copyrights on "October Surprises" and have recently rolled out their new 2004 model "Swiftboating." These, combined with heavily biased radio talk shows, makes the GOP the single most propaganda dependant political entity since Germany 1938.

The Democrats are little kids stealing a peice of gum from a grocery store by comparison.




bipolarber -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 7:13:38 AM)

Aynne,

Thanks for the breakdown on the slang term "gook" (you learn something new every day around here) So it's not really derrogatory at all?

Hummm... did you know that the term "faggot" is just a bundle of sticks, to be used in a fire? I guess it came into use for gay people during the middle ages, when they used to burn homosexuals at the stake for being "abominations before God." (and then they'd steal their lands and possessions) So, I'll have to tell my gay friends how I should be able to call them faggots in public and not be considered bigoted. I'll just walk into my local leather bar, and call everyone there a faggot.

Sort of the same way MsCain just called every asian in the US a gook. What could possibly go wrong?  ;)




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:22:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Aynne,

Thanks for the breakdown on the slang term "gook" (you learn something new every day around here) So it's not really derrogatory at all?

Hummm... did you know that the term "faggot" is just a bundle of sticks, to be used in a fire? I guess it came into use for gay people during the middle ages, when they used to burn homosexuals at the stake for being "abominations before God." (and then they'd steal their lands and possessions) So, I'll have to tell my gay friends how I should be able to call them faggots in public and not be considered bigoted. I'll just walk into my local leather bar, and call everyone there a faggot.

Sort of the same way MsCain just called every asian in the US a gook. What could possibly go wrong?  ;)


I suspect that  Aynne  simply doesn't have a lot of experience with  people in her life that use derogatory terms such as "gook" on a common basis, and is simply talking about her personal experience.

Your attempt to throw up a straw man argument about "faggot" seems more like an rhetorical incendiary device than an actual serious contribution to the thread.

And is off topic as well.  Please start another thread if you wish to discuss this aspect of language and politics.

Firm




Owner59 -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:26:15 AM)

[sm=hissyfit.gif]




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:45:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Oh, more than that! The Republicans are so much better at this sort of thing than the left is. They not only are known for their "dirty tricks" they own the patent and copyrights on "October Surprises" and have recently rolled out their new 2004 model "Swiftboating." These, combined with heavily biased radio talk shows, makes the GOP the single most propaganda dependant political entity since Germany 1938.

The Democrats are little kids stealing a peice of gum from a grocery store by comparison.


Perhaps.

I tend to think that Democrats like to think that Republicans are more likely to use dirty tricks, simply because it fits into their belief system about anyone who disagrees with them.

From my observations, true believers of the "left" variety tend not to be able to engage in an open exchange of ideas (yes, this is a generalization), and tend to classify people who disagree with them in one of three categories:

1. They are stupid, or mentally deficient,
2.  They are criminal and/or evil, or
3.  They are deceived.

What is rare for such true believers is to think or understand that someone can be intelligent, not evil, and not deceived, yet have a morally consistent point of view which simply disagrees with some of the "lefties" basic assumptions.

The "right" has some of it's own such assumptions, but I personally find the inability or unwillingness of large segments of the "left" to be able to engage in civil discourse particularly troublesome.

As to specifically political dirty tricks, I also often find that on both sides, it is sometimes a matter of one's particular bias in the perception of what is said, or done.

For example, some on the "left" would (and have) said that the actions of the "Baptist minister" was a perfectly legitimate political statement, and not a political dirty trick at all.

On the right, the fact that a left leaning site such as Huffington Post, which used the term "Baptist Minister" in bold headlines to start the article on the entire event was nothing more than a continuation of the dirty trick. Or at least an open attempt to shift the blame onto a supposedly "right leaning" part of the political spectrum. This plays right into the "rights" belief that the majority of the media is inherently biased against religion and the Christian belief system.

I think that often, members of the "left" also use the statement (and belief) that political dirty tricks are primarily a Republican activity as justification for their own dirty tricks, or for their continued anger and self-righteousness.

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:49:08 AM)

To Owner59,

[Awaiting Approval]?

Man ... you gotta get a handle on your relationship with Mod 11 once you get off this moderation.  [:D]

When do you get out of jail, anyway?

Firm




Zensee -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:49:28 AM)

Gotta love it when Mr. Napalm himself instructs the people of CM on how and when to respond to his private threads and what aspects of a topic suit his convenience.

You want to play with strawmen and matches, you're going to get burned.


Z.




Aynne -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:50:43 AM)

Personal experience? Well, married to a Korean for 17 years? ( now divorced )Does that count? Currently (and forever I hope) in love with my Master who is Chinese.

I was not going to go into my personal life but you brought it up.  Yeah, I heard the term more than once.
.
Careful what you assume Firm, you told me that yesterday, remember? 




quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Aynne,

Thanks for the breakdown on the slang term "gook" (you learn something new every day around here) So it's not really derrogatory at all?

Hummm... did you know that the term "faggot" is just a bundle of sticks, to be used in a fire? I guess it came into use for gay people during the middle ages, when they used to burn homosexuals at the stake for being "abominations before God." (and then they'd steal their lands and possessions) So, I'll have to tell my gay friends how I should be able to call them faggots in public and not be considered bigoted. I'll just walk into my local leather bar, and call everyone there a faggot.

Sort of the same way MsCain just called every asian in the US a gook. What could possibly go wrong?  ;)


I suspect that  Aynne  simply doesn't have a lot of experience with  people in her life that use derogatory terms such as "gook" on a common basis, and is simply talking about her personal experience.

Your attempt to throw up a straw man argument about "faggot" seems more like an rhetorical incendiary device than an actual serious contribution to the thread.

And is off topic as well.  Please start another thread if you wish to discuss this aspect of language and politics.

Firm





FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:55:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Gotta love it when Mr. Napalm himself instructs the people of CM on how and when to respond to his private threads and what aspects of a topic suit his convenience.

You want to play with strawmen and matches, you're going to get burned.


Z.



I have no power other than persuasion to control the thread, Z.

Why not actually post a substantive comment, rather than doing a useless and insulting drive by?

I know you are a smart guy (even if you are a Canadian [:D]). Why not show it?

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 8:59:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne

Personal experience? Well, married to a Korean for 17 years? ( now divorced )Does that count? Currently (and forever I hope) in love with my Master who is Chinese.

I was not going to go into my personal life but you brought it up.  Yeah, I heard the term more than once.
.
Careful what you assume Firm, you told me that yesterday, remember?


I used the conditional term "suspect" because I did not know.

Your Korean ex-, and current Chinese SO didn't and don't use the term "gook" in a derogatory manner, do they?  [:D]

Firm




Zensee -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 9:03:57 AM)

I'm no expert on US politics but I can tell the difference between a disgruntled person asking a nasty question at a political forum and say, burglarizing your opponent's offices.

The example you offered in your OP falls far short of the measure for a real Dirty Trick - but then numerous people have already argued that and you have sidestepped the resulting heap of straw and tried to control the debate by the usual tactics of diversion and submersion. I was merely pointing out a certain hypocrisy inherent in your methods and, given the topic of this thread, that's no hijack or drive-by, in my opinion.


Z. 




Aynne -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 9:08:15 AM)

Only to each other...[;)]

God, I hope he isn't reading this....

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne

Personal experience? Well, married to a Korean for 17 years? ( now divorced )Does that count? Currently (and forever I hope) in love with my Master who is Chinese.

I was not going to go into my personal life but you brought it up.  Yeah, I heard the term more than once.
.
Careful what you assume Firm, you told me that yesterday, remember?


I used the conditional term "suspect" because I did not know.

Your Korean ex-, and current Chinese SO didn't and don't use the term "gook" in a derogatory manner, do they?  [:D]

Firm





DDraigeuraid -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 9:22:59 AM)

quote:

In particular, I don't like the Obama's campaign's messianic, non-specific type of campaign.  It smacks of hypocrisy and manipulation.

So the reason for this thread is:

1. To chronicle all three candidates "dirty tricks" as they are exposed.
2. To specifically chronicle the Obama's campaign's "dirty tricks",
3. To specifically chronicle Democrats "dirty tricks".


Firm, you stated earlier that you would chronicle Obama's dirty tricks.  Can you name one?
Dragon




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 9:30:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DDraigeuraid

quote:

In particular, I don't like the Obama's campaign's messianic, non-specific type of campaign.  It smacks of hypocrisy and manipulation.

So the reason for this thread is:

1. To chronicle all three candidates "dirty tricks" as they are exposed.
2. To specifically chronicle the Obama's campaign's "dirty tricks",
3. To specifically chronicle Democrats "dirty tricks".


Firm, you stated earlier that you would chronicle Obama's dirty tricks.  Can you name one?
Dragon

It's a work in progress. My intent isn't to go back and try to uncover things that have already occurred, just to have a place to document them as I learn of them, over the remaining campaign.

Feel free to do so yourself, or to document any candidates "dirty tricks" as they become exposed.

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 9:46:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I'm no expert on US politics but I can tell the difference between a disgruntled person asking a nasty question at a political forum and say, burglarizing your opponent's offices.

The example you offered in your OP falls far short of the measure for a real Dirty Trick - but then numerous people have already argued that and you have sidestepped the resulting heap of straw and tried to control the debate by the usual tactics of diversion and submersion. I was merely pointing out a certain hypocrisy inherent in your methods and, given the topic of this thread, that's no hijack or drive-by, in my opinion.

Please notice my earlier comment:
As to specifically political dirty tricks, I also often find that on both sides, it is sometimes a matter of one's particular bias in the perception of what is said, or done.

For example, some on the "left" would (and have) said that the actions of the "Baptist minister" was a perfectly legitimate political statement, and not a political dirty trick at all.
I think your comments reflect the reality of my statement above.

Perhaps a definition of political "dirty tricks" would help?

dirty tricks: noun, Informal: unethical or illegal tactics, specif., such tactics used to discredit, harass, etc. one's political opponents

dirty tricks: pl.n. Informal: 2. Unethical behavior, especially acts undertaken to destroy the credibility or reputation of an opponent.

dirty tricks: n 1: underhand commercial or political behavior designed to discredit an opponent

dirty tricks: Noun: underhand commercial or political behavior designed to discredit an opponent

Perhaps your definition of "dirty tricks" differ from all the ones I found on the net, and the one I am using. If so, please describe how the incident I cited in the OP isn't a "dirty trick".

Also, please, in the interest of my education, point out to me my tactics of diversion and submersion?

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 10:12:02 AM)

FR:

One of the better articles about political dirty tricks, even if it is from the 2004 Presidential campaign, and it has plenty for all sides, Dem or Repub:

Playing Dirty
by Joshua Green
June 2004 Atlantic Monthly

Some interesting excerpts:

Attempting to define a political opponent as something less than presidential is a hallowed American tradition. Two centuries ago, in attacks that echo in Republican characterizations of John Kerry, Federalist opponents assailed Thomas Jefferson with what amounted to the charge that he—a free-thinking deist who sympathized with the French Revolution—was in fact a godless Francophile bent on destroying the institution of marriage. Andrew Jackson's marriage to a woman he wrongly believed to be divorced, Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child, and Teddy Roosevelt's alleged drunkenness were all pushed by opponents during nasty presidential campaigns.

After Watergate and Nixon's dirty tricks, carrying out surreptitious attacks, even those based on the truth, took on a measure of risk. During the 1987 race for the Democratic nomination Michael Dukakis's campaign manager, John Sasso, and his political director, Paul Tully, slipped to several media outlets a videotape that showed an opponent, Senator Joseph Biden, delivering a speech partially plagiarized from the British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. This prompted further scrutiny, and subsequent revelations of plagiarism and academic exaggeration drove Biden from the race. When it was learned that his campaign had supplied the damaging tape, Dukakis felt compelled to call a news conference and later fired his aides.

...

In the 1992 Senate race in California, Bob Mulholland, a state Democratic Party official, learned that the Republicans' morality-and-values candidate, Bruce Herschensohn, frequented a Sunset Boulevard strip club. Four days before what looked to be a close election, Mulholland confronted Herschensohn at a campaign event waving a poster-size photo of the club and its marquee: LIVE NUDE—GIRLS, GIRLS, GIRLS. Last July, Representative Darrell Issa, who launched the campaign to recall the California governor Gray Davis, was revealed in a front-page San Francisco Chronicle story to have been arrested twice in the early 1970s, for weapons charges and auto theft—a story that was the handiwork of Davis researchers. And although no one has yet proved it to be so, an article of faith among Republicans (and some Democrats) is that the revelation on the eve of the 2000 election that George W. Bush was once arrested for drunk driving was a particularly devious plant by the Gore campaign. "You can't Botox your record these days," Comstock says. "You can't hope anymore that no one will go in and look."

It is perhaps not surprising that oppo research is among the more reviled professions, its practitioners held in about the same regard as spammers and ivory smugglers. This breeds defensiveness and a tendency for researchers to invoke a variation of the NRA claim that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Lehane says, "One of the greatest misperceptions is that opposition research is going out and finding stuff that's not already in the public domain. But the reality is that most of the stuff that really ends up having an impact is stuff that's out there in the public record." Two years ago a Democratic researcher named Jason Stanford was moved to write an article in the trade journal Campaigns & Elections that was as notable for its impassioned defense of his vocation as for his candid admission that rather than admit to her son's line of work, his own mother tells people he's a used-car dealer.

...

Both parties now disseminate daily e-mails with headings such as "Sen. John Kerry's Hypocrisy, Vol. 1, Issue 10" and "Bush White House: Home of the Whopper," which contain quotations, links, audio, and even video of what is often accurately judged to be damaging or compromising information. Contrary to the popular impression that campaigns traffic mainly in sleaze and rumor (though this occurs too), these e-mails are almost always scrupulously sourced from the public record. The goal is not to spread untruths but to have journalists repeat a selective—and often deeply misleading—version of the truth.
Firm




TheHeretic -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 10:38:59 AM)

        I think you've set the bar pretty high for yourself on this one, Firm.  The dirtiest trick in the Barry camp's bag is going to roll out in a very organic sort of way.  That, of course, would be "If you don't support Obama, you must be a rascist." 

       Then you have the simple denial you will never get past.  Here we are, talking about an ad campaign (Swiftboat...) as the most heinous of "dirty tricks," all by Republicans, when, in the very same race, a major national network news program ran a story attacking the other candidate based on blatantly forged documents. 


      ____'s in a candy store my ass.  How about they had it so easy, for so long, that they forgot how to do it right?  Jesus H. Christ, these people have become so locked in to the victim mentality, they expect admitting incompetence to excuse failure.




Alumbrado -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 10:56:56 AM)

quote:

Perhaps a definition of political "dirty tricks" would help?


dirty tricks: noun, Informal: unethical or illegal tactics, specif., such tactics used to discredit, harass, etc. one's political opponents





In the current environment, both sides are so invested in the win at any cost paradigm that even the most extreme tactics are going to be seen as justified, not unethical, by the side perpetuating them.

Mudslinging and dirty tricks are a matter of election routine, because they work so well at scaring the lumpen into voting against the evil other side.
No 'twue' partisan loyalist would see effective tactics as a bad thing, because they are serving the 'greater good' in the most efficient manner. 'Blame the victim' finger pointing fits hand in glove with such objectification, making it doubly OK.

So making a list of dirty tricks is only going to produce more of the above responses of 'bu-bu-bu-bu they....'


That's why I start from the premise that no one who is not a seriously defective powermonger of some stripe would ever end up being elected to high office...no one.
It is axiomatic, and writers from Sam Clemens to H.L. Mencken, to Dick Gregory, to Kurt Vonnegut have devoted reams to the phenomenon, while psychologists have developed an archetype, the 'partial psychopath' to categorize remorseless, glib, superficial power junkies such as career politicians and used car salesmen.

The partisan followers who function on blind faith, superstition, bigotry, and fear, are the ones who drink the koolaid, and serve as viral carriers of whatever piece of inflammatory gossip their campaign spews. 
Again, axiomatic and crossing both sides of the aisle, and national borders.







popeye1250 -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 11:16:02 AM)

Wow, I'm glad I'm not one of those anal-retentive people who go through life worrying as to whether everything they say might "offend" someone.
What a burdan!
The last time I checked it's not against the law to "offend" someone.




Alumbrado -> RE: Latest Democratic Dirty Tricks (5/4/2008 11:30:43 AM)

Poor baby, those easily offended blacks,  and 'trannies', and Hispanics, and 'gooks', are such a burden on you, aren't they Popeye?
Judging by the way you rant against them here, you hardly have a moment to correspond with your old Navy buddies.[8|]




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02