On Apr 17, 1:54*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:44:31 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:







"HK" wrote in message
...

Most of the "righty rights" here are as dumb as a doorknob. Loogy is a
lefty; he's also dumb as a doorknob. You're a moderate righty, and I don't
think you have been accused of being dumb.

You would be pleased to know that in another newsgroup that I infrequently
visit *I am considered to be very much to the left. * And dumb.

It's all relative.
I admit though, *Olbermann personifies the elitist attitude to which I was
referring.
He's not helping unite anybody, that's for sure.

Eisboch

Olbermann is making money, same as O'Reilly -- they're both pompous
asses at their worst and sensible at their best. *Glenn Beck is insane
and Sean Hannity is a liar.

What's the other newsgroup, rec.welovehannity, rec.colddeadhands,
alt.armeggeddonnow?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SNIP
1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.


Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal
with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives,
qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks,
mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under
consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but
they should not serve to avoid the real issues.
Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!

4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they
also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo
propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent
occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They
tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the
significance of information that confirms their beliefs while
derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to
be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist
rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful
and fearful thinking.
/SNIP

Harry and JPS should read the whole article.. It would make them
explode...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:15:22 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..


"Disgust" is your sensationalized version of what's happening. On
the left, we consider it discourse, dissent, a challenge to do the
right thing.

On the right it's considered unpatriotic, sedition or appeasement.




Thanks for bringing this subject up. I don't agree with you.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If the right were upset with Obama about following the course of Bush
on wiretapping, the left wouldn't jump up and claim the right is
guilty of being unpatriotic or guilty of sedition, bringing comfort to
the enemy.

This is exactly what we experienced when questioning Bush/Cheney
policies and decisions.

Think about pre-emptive war and how the left was berated for not
buying into this stupid tactic that's going to smell a lot like ****
when it hits our face.

We're already experiencing other countries spitting at us when we
attempt to temper their inhumane actions. "Who are you to tell us
what to do, you've occupied a country and tortured its citizens."


Sorry. Old news, over and over. The left continues to dismiss the fact
that most of them were also trumpeting the call for war, many even to
Clinton before Georgie boy even came upon the scene. You know, it's the "I
was against it after I was for it" routine.

But seriously, it sure seems like President Obama is quite different than
Candidate Obama in some significant ways. He's still addressing campaign
promises (politically good for him and the party) but the details of his
policies, particularly in non-domestic areas are becoming surprisingly more
like those of Bush and Co.

There's a backlash brewing. The "TEA" party joke does have one lasting
thread to it.
The public does not appreciate the secret manner in which bailouts are being
handled by his administration. Too much money being forced into the wrong
hands, in their opinion.
I think this may come back to bite him in the rear in 2010 and then possibly
2012 unless he changes course a bit, listens to the natives, or gives one
humdinger of a speech explaining why the banks and Wall Street deserve all
the tax payer's money he is giving them. Oh, and one other bite.
Money gained by federal tax relief being bantered about so much for 95
percent of taxpayers is becoming fairy tale as states scramble to increase
taxes on everything from gas to beer in an attempt to raise money. Whatever
the 95 percent gained on one hand is going out on the other.

People have a very practical way of evaluating things like this. If you
are going to hand banks their money, they deserve to know who needs it and
who doesn't. The secret manner in which it is being done is bothering a
lot of people, including some of the banks.

Eisboch

On Apr 17, 1:59*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:34:09 -0400, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:12 pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:45 -0700, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
No word yet on when they will start to be open and keep any of
the promises they made related to their own administration...
Well, of the 500 campaign promises Obama made, PolitiFact.com has him
breaking only six promises, and keeping 5 pages worth. *Not bad, IMO
considering he's only been in office 3 months.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

Well, I don't know how they are rating it, or how they are trimming
the info to make it look good, but the important promises such as
"reaching over party lines, bills having 5 days for study, openness
about admin officials and the waivers, no lobbiests in the admin.. the
list goes on, are being ignored...

"The important promises..."

According to who? You? An uneducated dum****?

Yes, when Obama made genuine attempts to embrace the Republicans, they
spit in his face. *Eric Cantor got them to agre to vote along party
lines before they even listened to Obama's pitch.

Bi-partisanship was rebuked by the R's. *Now they're feeling the same
sick feeling the D's felt - only the R's never invited the D's to
participate. *The R's said "**** 'em" as soon as they had the
majority.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sitting down, listening, and competely dismissing all ideas and
refusing debate or admendments by republicans is not reaching across
the isle... Just because Obama, Cobert, Stewart, Gibbs and Obermann
said it does not make it true. The repubs were completely shut out,
period..

SNIP
5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.
Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group
in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously,
and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They
would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand
proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of
themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special
status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage.

/SNIP

This guy wrote a book about you...

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:12 pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:45 -0700, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
No word yet on when they will start to be open and keep any of
the promises they made related to their own administration...
Well, of the 500 campaign promises Obama made, PolitiFact.com has him
breaking only six promises, and keeping 5 pages worth. Not bad, IMO
considering he's only been in office 3 months.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

Well, I don't know how they are rating it, or how they are trimming
the info to make it look good, but the important promises such as
"reaching over party lines, bills having 5 days for study, openness
about admin officials and the waivers, no lobbiests in the admin.. the
list goes on, are being ignored...


"The important promises..."

According to who? You? An uneducated dum****?

Oh, a lefty elitist.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:09:21 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:15:22 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...


"Disgust" is your sensationalized version of what's happening. On
the left, we consider it discourse, dissent, a challenge to do the
right thing.

On the right it's considered unpatriotic, sedition or appeasement.




Thanks for bringing this subject up. I don't agree with you.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If the right were upset with Obama about following the course of Bush
on wiretapping, the left wouldn't jump up and claim the right is
guilty of being unpatriotic or guilty of sedition, bringing comfort to
the enemy.

This is exactly what we experienced when questioning Bush/Cheney
policies and decisions.

Think about pre-emptive war and how the left was berated for not
buying into this stupid tactic that's going to smell a lot like ****
when it hits our face.

We're already experiencing other countries spitting at us when we
attempt to temper their inhumane actions. "Who are you to tell us
what to do, you've occupied a country and tortured its citizens."


Sorry. Old news, over and over. The left continues to dismiss the fact
that most of them were also trumpeting the call for war, many even to
Clinton before Georgie boy even came upon the scene. You know, it's the "I
was against it after I was for it" routine.

This isn't the royal we I'm referring to. I experienced it first
hand. Many of those discussions were right here in rec.boats.

I argued against it as did most on the left. We were told we were
unpatriotic, guilty of sedition and aiding and comforting the enemy by
voicing dissent.

Your attempt to depersonalize it won't work.

But seriously, it sure seems like President Obama is quite different than
Candidate Obama in some significant ways. He's still addressing campaign
promises (politically good for him and the party) but the details of his
policies, particularly in non-domestic areas are becoming surprisingly more
like those of Bush and Co.

Only those who saw him as an unmitigated liberal were under such
delusions. Those of us who understood who he was while campaigning
understood that he was and is a moderate. Those who didn't actually
pay attention and just listed to the rhetoric may now be surprised but
very few who were paying attention are surprised.

My support of him was based on the fact that he would be smart enough
to govern closer to the center, as Clinton had done. Those of us who
watched Clinton also watched some of our issues get trampled but
understood that, in getting things done, compromise was necessary.

You are apparently among the surprised.

There's a backlash brewing. The "TEA" party joke does have one lasting
thread to it.
The public does not appreciate the secret manner in which bailouts are being
handled by his administration. Too much money being forced into the wrong
hands, in their opinion.

That's just the message you picked up that resonated. There was a
whole host of themes the protesters fielded.

I think this may come back to bite him in the rear in 2010 and then possibly
2012 unless he changes course a bit, listens to the natives, or gives one
humdinger of a speech explaining why the banks and Wall Street deserve all
the tax payer's money he is giving them. Oh, and one other bite.
Money gained by federal tax relief being bantered about so much for 95
percent of taxpayers is becoming fairy tale as states scramble to increase
taxes on everything from gas to beer in an attempt to raise money. Whatever
the 95 percent gained on one hand is going out on the other.

Everyone who gets a paycheck as seen their take home pay go up. Every
state, county and city is having to belt tighten which isn't being
chalked up to Obama. It's being chalked up to Bush, deregulation and
greedy assholes on Wall Street.

That Obama has to prop these whores up to ensure recovery is the
downside of having won the election.

People have a very practical way of evaluating things like this. If you
are going to hand banks their money, they deserve to know who needs it and
who doesn't. The secret manner in which it is being done is bothering a
lot of people, including some of the banks.

It's now coming out how Paulson pulled a fast one with the initial
funds the Bush Admin put into place.

The controls have stiffened significantly since and more are going
into effect now. Once the investments start coming back, Obama may be
seen as a savior in 2010 and 2012.

The R's are still the party of no, haven't any ideas beyond sustaining
tax cuts for the wealthy.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:04:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:00:41 -0500, Vic Smith

Your main choice is whether or not to show up for the games.

--Vic

If you don't show up, you're just another spectator.

Everybody here is a spectator. The only game is election day.
But the real fans can argue off-season.
Of course there may be some political activists here who actually
participate in politics when they're not boating.
Personally, I find their boats more interesting.
Most can talk real nuts and bolts about boat, but they're just nuts
when talking politics.

--Vic

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:12 pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:45 -0700, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
No word yet on when they will start to be open and keep any of
the promises they made related to their own administration...
Well, of the 500 campaign promises Obama made, PolitiFact.com has him
breaking only six promises, and keeping 5 pages worth. Not bad, IMO
considering he's only been in office 3 months.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

Well, I don't know how they are rating it, or how they are trimming
the info to make it look good, but the important promises such as
"reaching over party lines, bills having 5 days for study, openness
about admin officials and the waivers, no lobbiests in the admin.. the
list goes on, are being ignored...


"The important promises..."

According to who? You? An uneducated dum****?

Now there's important promises and unimportant promises. You really are
a trip. Sheesh!

wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:54 pm, wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:50 pm, HK wrote:





Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Most of the "righty rights" here are as dumb as a doorknob. Loogy is a
lefty; he's also dumb as a doorknob. You're a moderate righty, and I
don't think you have been accused of being dumb.
You would be pleased to know that in another newsgroup that I
infrequently visit I am considered to be very much to the left. And
dumb.
It's all relative.
I admit though, Olbermann personifies the elitist attitude to which I
was referring.
He's not helping unite anybody, that's for sure.
Eisboch
I prefer Rachel. More cerebral than Keith, and she answers emails. But I
do watch Keith once or twice a week.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"More cerebral"? LOL... Just because she toes the party line.. Both
are babbling idiots...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh man, now Harry is trying to get people to believe that he's
corresponding with her!!!!!!
WAFA!!!!!!

Maybe he's looking for a new landlady.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:34:13 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:04:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:00:41 -0500, Vic Smith

Your main choice is whether or not to show up for the games.

--Vic

If you don't show up, you're just another spectator.

Everybody here is a spectator. The only game is election day.
But the real fans can argue off-season.
Of course there may be some political activists here who actually
participate in politics when they're not boating.
Personally, I find their boats more interesting.
Most can talk real nuts and bolts about boat, but they're just nuts
when talking politics.

--Vic

Present company excepted I'm sure.

wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:50 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Most of the "righty rights" here are as dumb as a doorknob. Loogy is a
lefty; he's also dumb as a doorknob. You're a moderate righty, and I
don't think you have been accused of being dumb.
You would be pleased to know that in another newsgroup that I
infrequently visit I am considered to be very much to the left. And
dumb.
It's all relative.
I admit though, Olbermann personifies the elitist attitude to which I
was referring.
He's not helping unite anybody, that's for sure.
Eisboch
I prefer Rachel. More cerebral than Keith, and she answers emails. But I
do watch Keith once or twice a week.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"More cerebral"? LOL... Just because she toes the party line.. Both
are babbling idiots...


The idea of you discussing cerebral in connection with anything other
than your hemorrhage is ludicrous. Rachel is a very bright young woman.
She was a Rhodes scholar and holds a DPhil from the University of
Oxford. *You* couldn't get a job cleaning toilets there.