Rob's House Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/bush_derangement_syndrome_vs_t.html Some perspective regarding all the rhetoric about the civility of rhetoric over the last week... •"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" -- Al Gore •"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda." -- Hillary Clinton •"President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country." -- Harry Reid •"The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." -- Nancy Pelosi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/bush_derangement_syndrome_vs_t.html Some perspective regarding all the rhetoric about the civility of rhetoric over the last week... I think it's best to separate the message from the messenger. We need more civility, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 I think it's best to separate the message from the messenger. We need more civility, period. I don't necessarily disagree, but it does kind of rub me the wrong way when the crowd that's been denouncing everyone who doesn't believe in their feel-good, politcally correct, screw reality if it offends my sensibilities mindset, as pieces of ****, now turns around and pulls this. I now know how Bill Maher felt when G-dub came out after several years of global warming hysteria, and gave a speech about how important it is for us to address the issue, as if to imply it was some other a-hole in the White House doing nothing about the issue for the last x years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 •"The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." -- Nancy Pelosi When did Nancy turn against Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 http://www.americant...drome_vs_t.html Some perspective regarding all the rhetoric about the civility of rhetoric over the last week... So your stance is 2 wrongs make 1 right? So where does.. when does it ever end? I guess the notion that we should expect people to improve, to take the high road, to just be better is kinda out the window. Because the Bush bashers say they were justified because of all the Clinton bashing and in a few years the next guy bashers will say they're justifed because of all the current bashing. I know there will always be some level of discourse. But, does it have to come every day from every news station, outlet, blogger, pundit and politician that has a chance to speak? Really no need to answer, because I pretty well know the answer and any "discussion" we might have would be futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Look the left misses the days when CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS where the only news sources, and where essentially their unpaid mouthpieces. I Frankly don't believe they care all that much about a lone AZ gunman, it's just their dismay over losing the media monopoly. Of course the discourse is civil when everyone loves you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I think it's best to separate the message from the messenger. We need more civility, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 So your stance is 2 wrongs make 1 right? Actually, I think his point was to highlight the incredible hypocrisy of the left. Who is at the forefront of the Obama Hate Machine? Radio talk show hosts and a pseudo-celebrity former Governor who has almost no chance of ever holding elected office again? Who is at the forefront of Bush Derangement Syndrome? His list of quotes provided is a who's who of the very top of the Democratic pecking order. Now maybe there is a list of equally vile quotes about Obama from senior GOP Senators, former Presidential candidates and Congressional leaders, but I haven't seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 So your stance is 2 wrongs make 1 right? So where does.. when does it ever end? I guess the notion that we should expect people to improve, to take the high road, to just be better is kinda out the window. Because the Bush bashers say they were justified because of all the Clinton bashing and in a few years the next guy bashers will say they're justifed because of all the current bashing. I know there will always be some level of discourse. But, does it have to come every day from every news station, outlet, blogger, pundit and politician that has a chance to speak? Really no need to answer, because I pretty well know the answer and any "discussion" we might have would be futile. No. His stance, and mine is: isn't it CONVENIENT, that now that your side just got shellacked, you suddenly want to adopt pacifism? The Democrats had the opportunity, since 2006, to change the political tone. They chose do do nothing. Where was your concern about it ending, in 2005-today? Nowhere to be found. Now that your Obama vote looks dumb, you want to make the bad man stop? Nope. You have to sit here, and take your medicine, no different than when you insisted that Bush people take theirs. Tough schit, pal! Now, as far as a solution to the problem? ALL of us need to focus on results. Most of the rhetoric is about distracting us from results. Also, most of the results are boring/difficult to understand. In what I do, we have an old concept called a "balanced score card". It's intended to give a relatively quick look at how an enterprise is performing, without getting into every gory detail. I have always wanted to create an objective score card for a President, based purely on the #s/results. I think that would refocus people on the data, and therefore, reality. I think this would help put an end to this horrible "branding" concept in politics, which pretends that every politician is the same. The marketing people, as per normal, are part of the problem, not the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 What about Clinton... How does he/they figure into all this. That is where the rhetoric all got started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 What about Clinton... How does he/they figure into all this. That is where the rhetoric all got started. She, actually. My recollection is that the rhetoric started specifically with HillaryCare, hence to Whitewater and then completely downhill from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 She, actually. My recollection is that the rhetoric started specifically with HillaryCare, hence to Whitewater and then completely downhill from there. where have you gone Vince Foster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Where was your concern about it ending, in 2005-today? Nowhere to be found. Now that your Obama vote looks dumb, you want to make the bad man stop? Nope. You have to sit here, and take your medicine, no different than when you insisted that Bush people take theirs. Tough schit, pal! I would suggest that you assume quite a bit. She, actually. My recollection is that the rhetoric started specifically with HillaryCare, hence to Whitewater and then completely downhill from there. Interesting to see you say that. I've often said that the vitriolic rhetoric really escalated in the early Clinton years and has gone downhill since - getting worse with each successive administration. Of course, being the age I am, I didn't really pay too much attention to pilloried prior to the 90's. So I really couldn't say if that really is a turning point or if it's just an awareness point, on my part. Edited January 16, 2011 by Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Interesting to see you say that. Why? I loathe the Clintons...on policy grounds. But even I can recall the tone of the HillaryCare argument shifting from policy to ad hominem, and I've routinely criticized here the ridiculous witch hunts (e.g. anything Kenneth Starr did) surrounding Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Why? I loathe the Clintons...on policy grounds. But even I can recall the tone of the HillaryCare argument shifting from policy to ad hominem, and I've routinely criticized here the ridiculous witch hunts (e.g. anything Kenneth Starr did) surrounding Clinton. Just because it's something I've long thought, but never really seen anyone else make such a claim. So, I've long wondered did things really start to go down hill in the 90's or did I just become aware of things in the 90's. I agree, I'm not referring to anything policy related; just the manner in which people talk about the policies. Each side's comments have become increasingly polarized, increasingly extreme, and increasingly bitter, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Just because it's something I've long thought, but never really seen anyone else make such a claim. So, I've long wondered did things really start to go down hill in the 90's or did I just become aware of things in the 90's. I agree, I'm not referring to anything policy related; just the manner in which people talk about the policies. Each side's comments have become increasingly polarized, increasingly extreme, and increasingly bitter, IMO. And here I thought you were surprised because you thought I was a raving right-wing shill... I do recall some vitrol thrown Bush's way over defending Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...but as I was in college then, on a campus populated largely by lunatic hippies (people at my school actually celebrated the end of the war in Nicaragua - no, they weren't Nicaraguans celebrating), my perception of that period is seriously skewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) I would suggest that you assume quite a bit. Oh, look: a non-denial denial! Interesting to see you say that. I've often said that the vitriolic rhetoric really escalated in the early Clinton years and has gone downhill since - getting worse with each successive administration. Of course, being the age I am, I didn't really pay too much attention to pilloried prior to the 90's. So I really couldn't say if that really is a turning point or if it's just an awareness point, on my part. You didn't see the Ronald Reagan, etc. puppet show that ran on network TV? You didn't see all the music videos from 1986-88, may of them using those same puppets? One in particular showing the Reagan puppet drooling like an invalid? Hell, how about you google Thomas Nast's one man campaign against Tammany Hall? Or, his approach to supporting for the South in the Civil war? A lot of the time he ended up being proved historically right, but, his methods certainly were nothing short of horrific for the people of the time. He was the Hannity/Limbaugh/Beck of his time. No, this has been around for a very loooong time, ever since the "Dusky Sally"(or something like this) scandal that almost caused Jefferson to lose the Presidency. Ultimately, we don't settle things with duels anymore. So, we are left with this stuff. Imagine if Paul Krugman, or Rush Limbaugh, suddenly faced the potential of being challenged to a duel, and being compelled to answer the call. He'd be done smearing people tomorrow. Hmmm. That gives me an idea.... Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Oh, look: a non-denial denial! You didn't see the Ronald Reagan, etc. puppet show that ran on network TV? You didn't see all the music videos from 1986-88, may of them using those same puppets? One in particular showing the Reagan puppet drooling like an invalid? Hell, how about you google Thomas Nast's one man campaign against Tammany Hall? Or, his approach to supporting for the South in the Civil war? A lot of the time he ended up being proved historically right, but, his methods certainly were nothing short of horrific for the people of the time. He was the Hannity/Limbaugh/Beck of his time. No, this has been around for a very loooong time, ever since the "Dusky Sally"(or something like this) scandal that almost caused Jefferson to lose the Presidency. Ultimately, we don't settle things with duels anymore. So, we are left with this stuff. Imagine if Paul Krugman suddenly faced the potential of being challenged to a duel, and being compelled to answer the call. He'd be done smearing people tomorrow. Hmmm. That gives me an idea.... As much as I support the return of duelling...Krugman's too much of a chickenshit to show up for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Oh, look: a non-denial denial! You didn't see the Ronald Reagan, etc. puppet show that ran on network TV? You didn't see all the music videos from 1986-88, may of them using those same puppets? One in particular showing the Reagan puppet drooling like an invalid? Hell, how about you google Thomas Nast's one man campaign against Tammany Hall? Or, his approach to supporting for the South in the Civil war? A lot of the time he ended up being proved historically right, but, his methods certainly were nothing short of horrific for the people of the time. He was the Hannity/Limbaugh/Beck of his time. No, this has been around for a very loooong time, ever since the "Dusky Sally"(or something like this) scandal that almost caused Jefferson to lose the Presidency. Ultimately, we don't settle things with duels anymore. So, we are left with this stuff. Imagine if Paul Krugman, or Rush Limbaugh, suddenly faced the potential of being challenged to a duel, and being compelled to answer the call. He'd be done smearing people tomorrow. Hmmm. That gives me an idea.... I don't pretend that there as been NO hate-filled discord between the parties prior to the Clinton administration. I'm well aware that there's a long history of it in this country. Perhaps none as severe as the 20 years or so leading up to the Civil War. What I'm saying is that it seems, in the last 20 years, to have become much more prevalent, such that it's far more common to have people slinging mud than it is respectful disagreement. And are you seriously drawing a comparison to a Genesis video showing Reagan as a puppet and someone showing Bush with a noose around his neck or some of the imagery thrown at Obama? Come on. I'm not referring to Chevy Chase making fun of Ford tripping and falling down. I'm referring to a Congress so determined to undermine a presidency that they launch a 6 or 7 year , non stop investigation just to eventually prove the guy got a blow job. Huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 This is what happens when politics is commercialized. Instead of taking time to examine issues, find common ground, and working out a compromise, it's easier to make a 30 second commercial with a snappy sound byte. Politics has devolved into Tastes Great/Less Filling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts