"Whistleass"

[Bertrand]

I cringe whenever i hear people call Bush this. All it does is lend to the propaganda of Ann Coulters hypocritical charge that "all" Liberals do is call names, not to mention it being a substitute for actual rational debate.

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. I cringe to think you would even care

what Anthrax Coulter would think.

[Bertrand]

2. Im referring ot the propaganda

not the person, although i try to care about what everyone says and filter it through what i believe to be rational or not.

[thebigidea]

32. why would you even TRY to care about what Annie dearest says?

you gnash your teeth over a harmless insult coined by a dead grandmother, yet give Coulter the time of day?

huh?

[Bertrand]

38. I try because

if i were to evaluate something while placing my biases in the forefront, i would be intellectually dishonest with myself over how i try to deconstruct other peoples opinions. As i implyed in my other post, i think Ann Coulter is a hypocrite because she obviously uses ad hominem attacks as well, but that doesnt mean that people on the left who do the same are making rational arguments.

[TKP]

3. Bertrand

You're right. But that's not what they want.

Read some of the writers on some of the other threads. "Actual rational debate" is the last thing some of these people want. They want fire and brimstone spewed from Al Franken. They think this is the way to stir up the masses. They base this "logic" upon book sales.

[diplomats]

11. I think most of us realize name-calling is not a substitute for debate

but I don't consider using nicknames for Bush on a Web site like this that big of a deal. It's not like our Dem candidates are calling him Whistle-ass. I believe part of the reason behind that language (which I admit to using on occasion) is a desire to give the RW a taste of its own medicine.

[Bertrand]

19. I admit to it too (from time to time)

i dont think any of us are innocent, especially whenver something really angers us, but i think it has become accepted around here as a substitute for actual debate. I try to pride myself on not falling into this mode of thinking because once it becomes accepted people (including myself) tend to gravitate to it because it's the easiest path.

[Bertrand]

13. I agree that some give off that perception

I think that people have a better chance conveying their POV and ideas about politcs to others through a stinging deconstruction of what many of us believe to be Bushs failures rather than copouts like the title of this thread.

[Guaranteed]

4. I think calling Bush names

within our "little" group helps to keep up our morale. It's important.

[thebigidea]

5. yeah, its much better to just use "asshole"

either that or take the proud, strong Alan Colmes route and never criticize the President.



Ahhhhh, Alan Colmes. Feast on his radiance.

[Bertrand]

6. Come on

you know theres a difference between criticism and ad hominem attacks.

[TKP]

7. Bertrand

>you know theres a difference between criticism and ad hominem attacks.

No, they really don't.

[Beetwasher]

14. who's "they"?

And how do you know what "they" know?

I suppose you mean Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilly and Rush Limbaugh, who only know how to argue using ad hominems? Or do you mean someone else? Explain yourself...

[thebigidea]

15. apparently I'm part of some nebulous "they"

and hell, I've never even USED the term mentioned in the subject line.

Don't worry, though. TKP set me straight with some sound talk on Alan Colmes, and I'm ready to be a good little stooge now.

"Over to you, Sean."

[Beetwasher]

33. Dude, you totally had me LOL in that thread!

That was some funny shit!

Is alan colmes not the creepiest, most ghoulish freak they could have possibly dug up for their token liberal? They really went out of their way to get someone who on looks alone would be denied any sort of credibility. I've never seen anyone who's demeanor screams child molesting freak more than AC. I know he's not, but you know that's what they were after when they chose him for his role.

[TKP]

20. "They"

Do you use ad hominem attacks when debating or when discussing your viewpoints of your political opposition? Then *you* are part of the "they".

How do I know what they know? It's obvious if they knew, then they would also know that using ad hominem attacks don't work, and they wouldn't use them. They use them, hence, they don't know any better.

[Beetwasher]

29. Pathetic Evasion

Why are you here?

Ad Hominem's don't work? Then why is Fox News the number 1 cable news channel? Why are liberals branded as weak and pathetic and lot's of people buy it? The sad truth is, from a marketing stand point, ad hominem sound bites work for a lot of people. You're being naive and ignorant if you think otherwise. Reason and logical discourse are above many people's heads otherwise more people would be liberal democrats, because logic and reason lead to liberal democratic positions on just about every issue that matters. It's only through demagoguery and ad hominem attacks that the rightwing was able to gain any kind of foothold whatsoever. Get real.

Personally, I don't subscribe to ad hominem attacks, but to claim they don't work in branding through propoganda is naive.

[TKP]

34. Logical

>because logic and reason lead to liberal democratic positions on just about every issue that matters.

The perfect reason to keep making them and to avoid ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks may produce short-term victories. But at the end of the day, logic and reason win out.

[Beetwasher]

Puhhleeze! Show some evidence for that claim!

And people on the left DO continue making them (logical arguments), but your average citizen is unable to comprehend logical discourse.
I am not defending Ad Hominem attacks, but your point of view is naive.

Answer this question: Why are Democrats viewed as weak on defense? Is this a true claim?

[Bertrand]

39. Compare Western civilization 600 years ago

to today.

[Beetwasher]

That's assinine

Yeah, scientific method works for advancing civilization, but NOT in courting public opinion. Look at Nazi germany and their use of propoganda and Ad Hominems against Jews. Game. Set. Match. You're being naive.

How many people do you know that are even familiar with the scientific method, or even know what an Ad Hominem is?

[Bertrand]

41. Beetwasher

I see the rise of democratic institutions and the errosion of power among the elite as a progression toward the acceptance of rationalism over dogmatism. You point out specific cases such as Nazism to counter my pov, but my claim wasnt toward the cycle of humanity as it liberalizes, but the act of liberalization as validating my POV. People of today are more informed than they were 600 years ago just as the people of Germany in the 1930s were (which is why the rise of nazism was initiated through an advanced propaganda system), and are much harder to sell towards an elite position than before, even though as we all know they are still falling for them.


Edit: little d, not big D.

[Beetwasher]

42. I agree, however it's a much slower process

And the process can usurped at any time by the rise of fascism as we saw in Nazi Germany and arguably as we're seeing now in the US. Unfortunately, propoganda works and Ad Hominems are part and parcel of it. To think otherwise is to ignore history.

"...and are much harder to sell towards an elite position than before, even though as we all know they are still falling for them."

Really? Then how does this explain the success of Fox news? I'm not being facetious at all w/ this point, merely pointing out the double edged nature of progress. The same systems that are the result of progress can be used and ARE used to undo that progress. The "dumbing down" of the public in this country is not an accident. An informed electorate is the enemy of certain people in power in this country and they will and do use the tools created by a progressive system in order to stifle progress and illumination.

[Bertrand]

43. Completely agree

that the process is slow, but as i said previously, while there may be obstacles along the way(for example the rise of the current breed of social darwinists), the clear trend is toward liberalization of power.

[Beetwasher]

46. Unfortunately, maybe too slow

There have been setbacks before (medieval dark ages, Nazi's), and never before have the prospects of such setbacks been more dire than they are now. Humanity has reached a critical point where technology has reached such a level that an extrememly small group of people hold incredible power, in fact, they hold the power to completely destroy humanity. And it's not just the power of destruction that they yield, but also the power to ignore pressing problems and do nothing about them, like global warming, which can also destroy humanity. So while the trend has been forward, it can easily be practically irrevocably reversed by a handful of greedy, corrupt, power hungry, depraved individuals...

That being said, if the Left finds an Ad Hominem that sticks, and works to our advantage, I say, go for it, as long as the also continue to concurrently lay down the truth and the facts...For a non-thinking, non-rational populace, the best way to get your point across just might be a soundbite. If it's an Ad Hominem, so be it. Personally, I prefer rational debate, because I'll always win, but for the most part, rational debate doesn't reach the lowest common denominators. It's unfortunate, but it's reality. The term "whistleass" isn't gonna bring down Western Civilization. The propoganda from right certainly might.

[Bertrand]

51. I disagree a bit here

There have been setbacks before (medieval dark ages, Nazi's), and never before have the prospects of such setbacks been more dire than they are now. Humanity has reached a critical point where technology has reached such a level that an extrememly small group of people hold incredible power, in fact, they hold the power to completely destroy humanity. And it's not just the power of destruction that they yield, but also the power to ignore pressing problems and do nothing about them, like global warming, which can also destroy humanity. So while the trend has been forward, it can easily be practically irrevocably reversed by a handful of greedy, corrupt, power hungry, depraved individuals...

The current administration in no way responsible for greater dire prospects than Nazi Germany or any other totalitarian regime, including the "communist" state totalitarian govts. Also, It isnt the Bush admin that's ignoring global warming by itself, but most of the powerful countries in the world that dont want to do anything really substantive to change the current economic ideology for fear they cant compete. To help with my initial premise of the thread, the people are also putting pressure on govt to do something about it to the point that Bush has mislead the public into him being pro-environment (photo-op Bush, Fuel Cell Technology Bush, Clear Skys Bush, etc.)

The Bush Admin isnt presenting anything new, just an extention of what happens when you consolodate state power in the hands of the plutocracy, and while everyone should be against it, we shouldnt shroud it in hyperbolic terms which do a disservice to the goal of eliminating them like comparing them to a fully formed fascist state like nazi germany. Everyone knows the term Nazi (and for that matter, fascism to a certain extent) is loaded because of the extermination of the jews, so whenever someone compares Bush to Nazi's people roll their eyes.

That being said, if the Left finds an Ad Hominem that sticks, and works to our advantage, I say, go for it, as long as the also continue to concurrently lay down the truth and the facts...For a non-thinking, non-rational populace, the best way to get your point across just might be a soundbite. If it's an Ad Hominem, so be it. Personally, I prefer rational debate, because I'll always win, but for the most part, rational debate doesn't reach the lowest common denominators. It's unfortunate, but it's reality. The term "whistleass" isn't gonna bring down Western Civilization. The propoganda from right certainly might.

I totally disagree with your opinion that people arent rational and dont think. I think that people are uniformed about the political process because their lives are consumed by work, family, etc and are so absorbed on the micro level they ignore the macro or are more susceptable to the lies by those in leadership positions. I also think that this type of position on people is wrong because both you and me are not much, if any, smarter than other people. The positions you and i may hold are in no way objective, but just ideas on how government should evolve. While we may believe we have more subjective knowledge than Joe Sixpack from Omaha, for us to play the elitism card is not only hypocritical to our ideas about society being democratic, but a real political stinker if i can be blunt.

Also, i dont understand how you can rationalize name calling being the best way to achieve change toward rational debate especially since it doesnt eliminate (although it may stall) the advancement of conservative beliefs.

[Beetwasher]

55. I'm not rationalizing name calling

and I'm not saying it's the best way to achieve anything, especially progress. However, Ad Hominems certainly serve their purpose for the Rightwing, that purpose being Ad Hominems in lieu of substantial debate. As far as I know, no one here is suggesting that we call Bush whistleass and leave it at that. We call him whistleass and then list his incompetence.

You really do misconstrue and mis-represent my arguments. I use things as examples, such as global warming, which by the way as the single largest user of fossil fuels, the US is certainly the biggest contributor to. We also pulled out of Kyoto much to the chagrin of the rest of the world.

"The current administration in no way responsible for greater dire prospects than Nazi Germany or any other totalitarian regime, including the "communist" state totalitarian govts."

I beg to differ. The Nazi's and Stalin didn't have television, just imagine if they did. Think about it for a moment.

As far as comparing the admin. to Nazi's and calling them fascist, too bad. The Nazi's didn't emerge full fledged you know, they built themselves up to that point and the paralells I see now, as one who has studied propoganda techniques, are frightening. Again, imagine what they could have accomplished had TV been as ubiquitous then as it is now. TV is the main medium of information for most people these days. Theoretically what the admin. is doing isn't new, however, the tools at their disposal are new and far more deadly than what others with similar goals had at their disposal.

"I totally disagree with your opinion that people arent rational and dont think."

You're entitled to your opinion as well, unfortunately the evidence backs up my opinion. When 70% of people believe SH was behind 9/11 you've got a serious lack of critical thinking in the populace. You can chalk that up to the populace being misinformed, but that only strengthens my point. He who controls the medium controls the message. I'm sure you've heard that before, and it's never been more true. Thankfully, it seems people are becoming disabused of that notion, but the fact that it happened in the first place is frightening, and too many still hold that belief.

"I think that people are uniformed about the political process because their lives are consumed by work, family, etc and are so absorbed on the micro level they ignore the macro or are more susceptable to the lies by those in leadership positions."

You're right about this, but it only strengthens my position. That's why propoganda and pithy sound bites and ad hominems work and reasoned debate doesn't (for a large number of people). Reasoned debate takes time, thought and critical thinking skills, by your own admission, these are things most people don't possess enough of, maybe because their busy, maybe because the system exists that make the possession of these things less likely. Again, TV is where these busy people get their information, not through rational debate. How do you suppose these people can be informed rationally then?

"While we may believe we have more subjective knowledge than Joe Sixpack from Omaha, for us to play the elitism card is not only hypocritical to our ideas about society being democratic, but a real political stinker if i can be blunt."

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not playing any elitism card at all. This sounds like a right wing talking point if I can be blunt.

"Also, i dont understand how you can rationalize name calling being the best way to achieve change toward rational debate especially since it doesnt eliminate (although it may stall) the advancement of conservative beliefs."

Please point out where I said or implied any such thing. I never said name calling is a way to achieve a change towards rational debate and I challenge you to point out where I did. I merely said name calling works as a propoganda technique as evidenced by the success of Fox news and certain prevailing public attitudes such as "Bush is a great leader", "Liberals are Weenies", "SH was behind 9/11" and "Invading Iraq was the right thing to do". The evidence of the success of propoganda is clear and Ad Hominems are a part of that.

To claim we're being hypocritical by calling Bush whistleass is just totally besides any relevant point whatsoever. If you want to call people hypocrites, fine. But you're picking a meaningless nit here as far as I'm concerned. If I said "I think Bush is an asshole because he's a serial liar and here's a list of 100 of his most egregious lies" does the fact that I called him an asshole somehow diminish his lies? No. But I'll tell you what, the fact that I called him an asshole might make people pay attention to what follows, which would be 100 lies that they would now be more likely to be aware of.

[Bertrand]

57. lots of stuff to get to

one reason i dont like starting threads here is they incorporate too much time :)

You really do misconstrue and mis-represent my arguments. I use things as examples, such as global warming, which by the way as the single largest user of fossil fuels, the US is certainly the biggest contributor to. We also pulled out of Kyoto much to the chagrin of the rest of the world.

Im sorry if that's the case. Ill try to deconstruct your argument more on a point by point basis so that it will reduce the chances of this happening.

I agree with you that the US is the biggest contributer to the global warming on a human scale, but i think Kyoto offered little substance on the issue except more to the idea of a global framework for working on the issue.

I beg to differ. The Nazi's and Stalin didn't have television, just imagine if they did. Think about it for a moment.

I agree that if Stalin and Hitler had a population with a greater access to television they would have had a great propaganda influence, but i still dont see how Bush presents greater "dire prospects" than them. Maybe you could elaborate more so i know where you are coming from here, because i think that while Bush presents a problem, The Neoconservative ideology isnt a drastic change from the US position on foreign relations. The US govt hasnt really held with high regard foreign diplomatic institutions unless they conformed to their belief, and for the last one 100 years has engaged in colonialism and neocolonialism.

As far as comparing the admin. to Nazi's and calling them fascist, too bad. The Nazi's didn't emerge full fledged you know, they built themselves up to that point and the paralells I see now, as one who has studied propoganda techniques, are frightening. Again, imagine what they could have accomplished had TV been as ubiquitous then as it is now. TV is the main medium of information for most people these days. Theoretically what the admin. is doing isn't new, however, the tools at their disposal are new and far more deadly than what others with similar goals had at their disposal.

Your argument is founded on vague hypotheticals which can be easily parallelled into an argument against Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. All Presidents have lied and all presidents have engaged in propaganda to work through their positions in congress, so while i agree with you that if you agree with this then we agree(*catches breath*), and while Bush may have extended the same techniques moreso than his immediate predecessors, to compare that with a band of thugs that tried to overthrow the govt forcibly and physically intimidate himself through a countrys democratic institutions which were green and weak is a little hyperbolic, i believe.

You're entitled to your opinion as well, unfortunately the evidence backs up my opinion. When 70% of people believe SH was behind 9/11 you've got a serious lack of critical thinking in the populace. You can chalk that up to the populace being misinformed, but that only strengthens my point. He who controls the medium controls the message. I'm sure you've heard that before, and it's never been more true. Thankfully, it seems people are becoming disabused of that notion, but the fact that it happened in the first place is frightening, and too many still hold that belief

I agree that propaganda does exist and is effective which results in the continuing cycle in politics of more power to the elite vs less power to the elite, but the overall trend (and not just since the enlightenment, but the establishment of civilization when we first domesticated animals and developed farms) has been that of a continuing decentralization of power toward the people which has resulted in an increase in both general intelligence and rational dialogue.

You're right about this, but it only strengthens my position. That's why propoganda and pithy sound bites and ad hominems work and reasoned debate doesn't (for a large number of people). Reasoned debate takes time, thought and critical thinking skills, by your own admission, these are things most people don't possess enough of, maybe because their busy, maybe because the system exists that make the possession of these things less likely. Again, TV is where these busy people get their information, not through rational debate. How do you suppose these people can be informed rationally then?

As ive said before, i agree that propaganda works and has worked for a long time, but my point was that over the course of time reason has been gaining ground over irrational force. As for what i think needs to be done to increase rational thought, the only solution i see which will result in a significant "general intelligence" boom will be when humanity achieves a post-materialist society. Unfortunatly, technology is a way from that (id say another 100 years or so), so in the short term i think the best way to promote our beliefs to to not be passive, but aggressively organize and inform people through rational debate on the grassroots level. Politicians only go so far as they think they would be allowed to by the people, and since people Rationally try to pick center candidates because they hate idealogues, we must try to move the idea of what the center is. Thats the fault with the DLC, they try to play to the Center which is currently being moved right by the conservative movement instead of organizing to move it away (although i suspect they dont want it to be moved)

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not playing any elitism card at all. This sounds like a right wing talking point if I can be blunt

By elitism card im referring to when you said "...For a non-thinking, non-rational populace..."

Please point out where I said or implied any such thing. I never said name calling is a way to achieve a change towards rational debate and I challenge you to point out where I did. I merely said name calling works as a propoganda technique as evidenced by the success of Fox news and certain prevailing public attitudes such as "Bush is a great leader", "Liberals are Weenies", "SH was behind 9/11" and "Invading Iraq was the right thing to do". The evidence of the success of propoganda is clear and Ad Hominems are a part of that.

I was afraid that this would be understood as a strawman, and im sorry if it appears to be the case (although in retrospect i shouldnt have used "best", although i could probably split hairs in trying to find an argument for that one :-). I believe your argument to be that we need to engage in ad hominem attacks because you said this:

"That being said, if the Left finds an Ad Hominem that sticks, and works to our advantage, I say, go for it, as long as the also continue to concurrently lay down the truth and the facts...For a non-thinking, non-rational populace, the best way to get your point across just might be a soundbite. If it's an Ad Hominem, so be it. Personally, I prefer rational debate, because I'll always win, but for the most part, rational debate doesn't reach the lowest common denominators."

I also believed that you agree with me that the goal of society is to achieve as high a standard as possible for rational debate. I then thought as to how you could agree with the idea of rational debate if you were promoting the use of a logical fallacy as a necessarry instrument in debating conservatives, since if you are arguing against rational debate by the use of a fallacy, it doesnt promote the idea of a society progressing toward rational debate being more and more a tool for developing ideas and opinions on issues.

As for your last paragraph, i dont think that the average person will listen to somebody that calls another person an "asshole" more than someone thats imparting what they believe to be non-biased (or fair) evidence as to why they came across to their opinion. The right-wing didnt win over the public to the idea that Clinton had one of the worst characters of any president not because they kept calling him names or because of Clintons various legitimate problems like misleading the public about his affair with monica, but because they kept up the daily idea of it through their great organizational outlets until people believed it. For the left to compete it must organize and promote its ideas better to people. If the commerical media is against the ideas that the left believes in, it must find other means and be persistent. The Right wing came to prominence after its ideology was rejected by the cultural revolution of the 60s, and as a result started then building a grassroots movement and conservative popularism.


And with this im going to bed. If you wish to continue the conversation (although i wouldnt because it involveds too much time :-) ) ill see you tomorrow.

[Beetwasher]

63. Ah, Here's the Crux of the Matter

"I believe your argument to be that we need to engage in ad hominem attacks because you said this:"

See that's the problem. That's most assuredly NOT my argument. I never said we NEEDED to engage in ad hominem in attacks. Where do you get this? This is what I said: "That being said, if the Left finds an Ad Hominem that sticks, and works to our advantage, I say, go for it, as long as the also continue to concurrently lay down the truth and the facts

The two ideas are NOT mutually exclusive. You can do both if you wanted to. Now you may say an Ad Hominem would undercut the rational portion of the argument and that's debatable. I'll debate that point if you wish, but you can see my argument is NOT how you describe it.

Quite the contrary, I've said repeatedly I'm all for rational debate. What the rightwing does is pretty much ONLY spew Ad Hominems and rote talking points though, while it seems to me, most people on this sight, whom you chide, will call Bush and asshole and list 100 vile lies he's spewed to back it up. There's a big difference in those two approaches. I'm sorry you don't see it.

You see, here's where I'm disagreeing w/ the premise of your original post. You're chiding this group as a whole for using Ad Hominems because many propogate the term "whistleass", among others. I have no trouble w/ them doing so. Personally, I'm guilty of this myself, often referring to Bush as "the Chimp". However, I see your "beef" as rather petty in the scheme of things. We're not the Democratic party or any official representative thereof. We're a silly (or not:shrug:) discussion board of anonymous posters on the net. And at least we're not mindlessly spewing Ad Hominems by rote, we're backing it up w/ facts, for the most part, and doing our best to spread the truth (as we see it at any rate). If it were the Democratic party or representatives of it engaging in this type of thing (the wistleass part that is, I'm all for spreading the truth!);-), then I'd probably have a problem w/ it. Personally though, that being said, if the term caught on w/ the general populace, I think that would be a good thing. :shrug: Maybe it's my background in marketing...

You see, the Rightwing has people who are, officially or not, spewing the most egregious, hateful, vindictive and vicious propoganda that I've ever heard (I wasn't around during McCarthy, but I've read about and it's at least comparable). When Liberals and dissenters are labelled as traitors and unpatriotic by the Republican leadership, you can't possibly compare that to Clinton's propoganda on the Universal Healthcare Initiative. Sorry, but there's propoganda and there's Propoganda and if you're ethically unable to see the difference that's your own ethical dillema. Call me hyperbolic, but I'm not going to wait until Gitmo is brimming over before I show a little concern.

[theemu]

62. Godwin's Law

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

[thebigidea]

31. at least try and stay consistent

in another thread, you seemingly praise FOX for getting good ratings. Do they use ad hominem attacks?

Did they work?

ERROR - REBOOT/RETRY/IGNORE

[thebigidea]

9. sure, but I'll still call him an asshole

what with that whole war crimes bit, invading a country based on a lie, killing thousands of people with his bullshit policies, ruining the last tattered fragments of the so-called American Dream(TM), etc...

all in all, it seems darn petty to quibble over people calling him names instead of concentrating on the Bush-beast himself.

[mermaid]

25. Props To This Guy!!

I Agree...ASSHOLE is much better!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. And

Major League Asshole is even better. :evilgrin:

[snippy]

61. I call him a Bush League Asshole sometimes. It seems to annoy his fans.

Referring to his policies as being Bush League also seems to annoy them. For example, the Bush League tax cut for the few, the Bush League national security, the Bush League invasion of Iraq, the Bush League assault on environmental protections, and so on. Drives some of them nuts.

[rock]

8. If you want a rational argument

try an area other than politics.

[Bertrand]

22. I agree that politics is charged with emotion

but i think that doesnt equate to a justification for emotional appeals to substitute for rational debate.

[mac56]

10. Who says we can't do both?

Another poster got it right - a little name calling among our ranks toward * is good for morale. I think you should lighten up, friend.

[joanski01]

12. Geeze, whistleass*

is one of the kinder names that I have called him*.

[skypilot]

16. Didn't Bush's own mommy...

...call Hilary Clinton a bitch?

[TKP]

21. That was Newt Gringich's mom

np

[thebigidea]

23. nope

Barbara Bush called Geraldine Ferraro a bitch, I think.

Gotta get those "they"s straight, right?

[salin]

26. both are correct

babs refered to jerry as a bitch.

newts mom, in a tv interview i believe, refered to Hillary in the same terms.

[thebigidea]

28. we all win when we play the ad hominem game!

of course, the Alan Colmes Appreciation Society would prefer us to overlook these minor transgressions and never, not even on internet boards, use an insult coined by a dead grannie.

[Spazito]

17. If "whistleass" was okay with Sally Baron, it is just fine with me!

Remember, it was a feisty lady who first used "whistleass" to describe Bush and it fits soooo nicely!

[jmcgowanjm]

18. What about "Mister Bush"-ABC Sunday n/t

[rocktivity]

30. When I feel I can catch more flies with civility than with name-calling

I say "Mister" instead of "President" and "Bush White House" instead of "Bush Administration". And since I've been doing so since 2000 (instead of "since the 2000 election"), I think ABC owes me a royalty!


rocknation

[RetroLounge]

24. Yes, of course, because taking the moral high-road

has worked so well so far.

Hate to upset Coulter, Hannity, etc.

Well, you kow what.

FUCK THEM ALL!

Let the candidates take the high road, while we play in the trenches.

[Bertrand]

27. Im not advocating rolling over

Nor am i talking about the political validity of it being used by the Dem candidates for president, the argument im referring to is about this board using it.

Edit: i should ammend this to say that not only people on this board, but people in general (including candidates), although it's a deviation from the intent of the original question which was implicitly commenting on this board specifically.

[rasputin1952]

36. Call it like you see it, is my advice...

If bush can call people 'major league assholes', I see no reason not to call him anything I feel like it at any particular moment. Who caresa? The only thing I won't call him, is 'my president'.

'Whistleass' seems to fit. So does moron, idiot, cretin, asshole, shithead, scumbag, douchebag, jerk, pinhead, jughead or any other thing that comes up.

Funny how honest, sincere, compassionate, moral, peacemaker and diplomatic never show up when discussing this individual. Even the freepers are afraid to call him nice things. They prefer such things as 'the president', 'commander in chief' and 'patriot', none of those fit either.

Whistleass is fine by me.

:bounce: :kick:

[Bertrand]

40. My argument is how people are seeing it

And from a politcal perspective, calling bush "whistleass" is a much harder conversion sell than people who try to be objective towards all POVs.

[rasputin1952]

44. Point is simple...

I didn't start the name calling, and I am perfectly capable of keeping to the 'high road'. However, I am tired of being called a 'traitor', and a myriad of other things the RW has come up with that describes a Progressive as anything but what the are, i.e. Americans that love their country and want it returned to the people.

The RWnuts do not have a corner on name calling; if it is their interest to call me something, or my candidates something, I see no reason why I should not retaliate in kind. Besides, bush IS
a 'whistleass', there is nothing of subsatance in the man, he is a hollow shell, that was thrust into another situation he cannot handle.

He is, by ALL accounts, a complete and utter failure at everything he does. Therefore, I believe 'whistleass' is appropriate in this instance. Besides, it sounds more demeaning than, 'loser, 'failure' or 'dud'; all which describe him as well.

:kick:

edited: spelling

[Bertrand]

45. Im not asking people to capitulate to RW attacks

but to be rational, and calling someone "whistleass" isnt that. The fight isnt between Democrats and Republicans but for the advancement of society and civilization as a whole. I see zero reason why people here, supposed members of the political class, cant show up those that make these types of arguments with an aggressive, rational argument that shows where they're wrong. Im not asking people to not be emotional about politics or hide their emotions, but dont substitute them for thinking.

[rasputin1952]

54. I know where you are coming from...

however, I see no reason why I should remain dignified here at DU, where the vast majority see bush as a fool, while the RWnuts jump around blasting away with both barrels.

"Whistleass" seems to describe bush as well as anythiing else.

If I have to listen to RWnuts espousing their degrading material, I see no reason why they shouldn't have to listenb to me.

I think I'm being nice calling bush a whistleass, I'm sure if he met me, he'd find all kinds of things to call me. To be honest, I don't care what the RWnuts think of me, after all, I'm fighting for THEM as well. Sooner or later, they will realize this.

:kick:

[RetroLounge]

50. "Im not advocating rolling over"

Yes, I think you are...

[Bertrand]

52. Maybe you could

back up your opinion in a rational manner with a few reasons as to why you came to that conclusion.

[RetroLounge]

56. So please don't upset the poor Republicans...

"I cringe whenever i hear people call Bush this. All it does is lend to the propaganda of Ann Coulters hypocritical charge that "all" Liberals do is call names, not to mention it being a substitute for actual rational debate. "

so instead roll over and play nice?

Whatever...

[Bertrand]

58. you didnt specify

as to how i was rolling over and playing nice or how i was trying to not upset Republicans. You just copied and pasted my response to you by asking you the question im referring to in this post and added whatever.

[bpilgrim]

35. --------------------------------------------- BUMPER STICKER

more...
http://mall.globalfreepress.com/foundation.cgi/00075.html

download and print out ;->

peace

[joanski01]

37. Way to go,

bpilgrim. I love it.

[amazona]

48. a fine term, which should be used more often

This wonderful term seems to sum up two ideas in a nifty little phrase:
1)the idea that he's blowing smoke up our ass
2)the idea that he's whistling in the dark and doesn't know what the hell he's doing while he's blowing said smoke up our ass

I like it, can dance to it, it has a nice beat...I give it a ten.


i'm abw...anybody but whistleass

[Hep]

49. And you lend Coulter credibility

when you act like you care what she says.

[Bertrand]

53. Define "caring"

if you mean listening and debating all points of view, even if they come from a hypocrite like her, then yes. Personally i try not to hold any biases against what people say regardless of their political philosophy.

Im just pointing out that while she is wrong to label liberals as only offering ad hominem attacks, those that offer ad hominem attacks lend her the credibility, not me.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. Ann Coulter has no business being critical of the name-calling of others.

[snippy]

60. I see no difference between Whistle Ass and Honest Abe, the Gipper or W.

They are just nicknames. Using a nickname is not an ad hominem attack.

It is not an ad hominem attack when I criticize Honest Abe for not condemning slavery in his first inaugural address.

It is not an ad hominem attack when I criticize the Gipper for cutting and running following the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut.

It is not an ad hominem attack when I criticize either W or Whistle Ass for endangering Americans by launching an unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on lies.

An ad hominem attack attacks the person or the person's circumstances rather than the assertion or proposittion being debated.