Threadjack
 

Whoa, whooaa, whoa there horsey. :)

Let me get this straight...

If a political ally has commitment, that's a good thing, but if an opponent has commitment, that's a bad thing?

Please tell me that you're NOT reducing things to this level - I have more respect for you than that.

No. I respect people with conviction regardless of ideology. I also respect debate regarding different approaches to achieve a common goal. It is very easy for me to work with those of different ideologies or with different approaches to for example over-come "evil".

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

I am not the one calling for a change in "tone". If that is your goal, it is up to you to act, isn't it? If it is not your goal, why have we been discussing this?

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

In responding to your post, I was also summarizing many comments from many posts and sources. My point was to illustrate the absurdity in the desire from some to change the "tone".

I guess then the question is "what is your definition of "evil?"

Conviction isn't exactly a rare trait. You're going to have to be more specific.

My dog has conviction.

I know ace, like I said before, it's everyone else never you, it's up to everyone else, never up to you, you're immaturity is everyone else's fault, never yours, Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Let's see how many time you can say 'change the tone' or use 'tone' in a sentence on this page, my guess is you'll shatter last page's record quite easily.

I am not on any missions from God. I say, live and let live. It is pretty simple.

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

That is why I am a dog person. Dogs have conviction, cats don't. Hope that makes it clear.

No, actually, it doesn't. My two cats have strong convictions. In some ways stronger than my dog's, now that I think of it.

Ahh yes, but cats have convictions that ace doesn't agree with, therefore no convictions, much like Obama, ace doesn't agree with his convictions, therefore he has none, ace agrees with Palins convictions, therefore she has strong convictions. Seems if ace doesn't agree with it or with something, it doesn't exist.

I expressly told you what my problem is.

I don't blame anyone for who I am.


You focus on the negative because we are not friends. On the bright side of my personality type, if we were friends - I would be the guy who when the world is dumping on you, I would go into the sh*t and pull you out (or at least get you an umbrella), no questions, no conditions, no qualification - I would just do it as if I were doing it for me.

Actually, if you folks changed your "tone" I would get bored and leave. Try it and see what happens.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

My wife has a cat, and I have to disagree. When a dog focuses on something that focus is unshakable unless you do something very dramatic. When I observe cats they will be focused intently for a very short period of time, get bored and be indifferent or go to sleep.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

Not fair. I often, as I have done with Obama, asked for help in understanding what he does and why he does it. I am among the first to say I don't understand, when I don't get it.

I agree that it is very possible that I don't understand cats.

Ace, your definition of evil is "live and let live?" How is that a definition of evil? Doesn't even make any sense to me.

No, I focus on the negative because not much positive come from you, it's always the same, it's always up to someone else, never up to you, you take responsibility for something your immaturity for example , then say it's up to everyone else what they'll do with it, like we're suddenly supposed to cater to a 50 year old man who can't have big boy conversations because he happens to have the menatlity of a 10 year old and wants to take his ball and go home, it has nothing to do with not being 'friends' or not being 'friends', I'm really not interested in your personality type, it's just more aceisms to me.
Promises, promises
Oh, it's fair, you've said in the past Obama has no convictions, which is why you don't like him, didn't see much qustion asking going on there, just that he has none, yet your girl Palin has supposed strong convictions, why, because you agree with her and disagree with Obama.
No idea, I hate cats, just find it amusing you seem to think things or people you don't agree with have no convictions

so long as people like ace remain a quaint minority who cultivate the garden of neo-fascism in a blissful state of unknowing immediacy, the tendencies to substitute self-congratulation for argument and to draw validation from the fact of confrontation rather than from argument (either at the level of internal coherence or at that of descriptive power with respect to the world) are just funny.

but if people who think this way manage somehow to get power, useful tools for some corporate oligarchs (which is now the case) or not, then they'll be every bit as dangerous.

consider this new ace-ism about purity of belief and how it wards off "evil"----why lots of fine blonde boys from germany thought much the same way in the 1930s. that kind of thinking helped motivate the extermination of the left and homosexuals and the physically infirm. then it really started to unfold its special magic.

this thread is an even stronger argument than is the sarah palin (tm) show that the ultra right should never be allowed anywhere near power.

Well, I'm fully ready to have a debate with ace, it's just that he doesn't tend to engage with arguments. He instead prefers to debate the validity of premises, using such tools as red herrings, false equivalences, and straightforward confusion.

And so everything becomes a false start, or it devolves into an argument about something unrelated, such as the differences between the behaviour patterns of cats and dogs.

It's not exactly the same mode that Palin operates in, but I can see the parallel. I'm just surprised he hasn't gone on about "time-tested truths" while neglecting to elaborate on just what that might mean.

or cats, apparently.

For example, if you try to enslave people, even if it is not me, I consider that evil. If you murder people, you would be considered evil in my view. You see - live and let live.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

You see this is how I know you don't read what is written. I don't agree with Kusinich, he has conviction and I respect him. I think Hilery Clinton has 100 times more conviction than John McCain. The thing about conviction is that you know what you are gonna get. If you have read what I wrote you would know this, yet you come to conclusions either on purpose or in ignorance in error.

People are killing each other all the time. I think the murder rate for the US is higher then most developed nations. Not really sure what you do about that. Any ideas?

Who in the US is trying to enslave other people?

Is there anything you consider evil, if so what and why?

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

On the subject of this thread, my premise is that the english language is a living language and the use of the term blood libel was used correctly and in context by Palin. The premise that I found invalid is that Palin is ignorant. Aside from the tangents here and there what I argue is very solid.

Like I brought that up???? You said your dog had convictions, then you followed up with a musing about the convictions of your cats. I would love for a real impartial person to read this thread and comment on it, it would be enlightening.

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

I love you guys, I am literally laughing out loud.

Did you know cats are evil.

http://www.thefunnyjunks.com/wp-cont.../scary-cat.jpg

---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

Law enforcement.

Cats. I ask my wife all the time what reward she gets from having a cat.

Seriously, I have never called anyone in the US evil. However I did consider Saddam Hussein evil and I supported Bush's efforts in removing him from power.

But it turned out that way because you failed to understand that people with convictions are a dime a dozen. Almost everyone has convictions. That's not worth arguing. What's worth arguing about are people's specific convictions within the context of their careers and daily lives.

Well, we could very well unpack this and talk about it, but will you at least accept the premise that Obama has strong convictions just as Palin does? He even wrote a damn book full of them.

Okay, so let's assume that Palin isn't ignorant (I don't think she is on this particular matter). We can look at your "living language" argument. I don't buy it though. I think the term blood libel still carries around much of its history. I don't hear it used very often, and it's still used quite readily in actual blood libels carried out in recent times against Jews.

Palin could have used the term false accusations. There are false accusations regarding murders all the time. "Blood libel" need not be conjured. Why? Because of the confusion of actual blood libels against Jews. They still happen from time to time.

Now assuming that Palin isn't ignorant about it (I don't think she is): I think she used the term in a calculating way to goad liberals into another round of criticisms about her and her own mode of rhetoric. Plus the use of the word blood suits her own rhetoric just fine.

She wants liberals on the attack. It's an important part of her energy and high public status. You admit as much yourself. But she just so happens to encourage it on purpose. She criticizes the "lamestream" media of "manufacturing a blood libel." If you ask me, she's manufacturing her own confrontational political environment to help her leverage her reactionary politics. She wants to paint liberals—and by association, liberalism—as an unjust and destructive force in America, and she can't very well do it if they don't play her game.

Oh, I read what is written ace, you just use so many different aceisms it's kind of hard to keep track of which way you're going. That's nice, you respect Kisinich and think Clinton has 100 times more conviction than McCain, still doesn't change the fact you've stated Obama has no convictions while giving no examples to back it up, so you were basically, talking out your ass, but please continue ducking and dodging and changing the subject with your aceisms, it's quite amusing

Law enforcement is used to deal with evil after it happens usually. Seems like there should be things a civilized society could to do stop more "evil."

As for the last two parts of your comment-

If you agree with the Iraq war... do you agree with the way we borrowed money to pay for it?

Are you saying that you disagree with things like calling parts of the health care law "death panels?"

You made that assumption. The context of most of our discussions involving the concept of conviction is politics. Conviction in the political arena is rare in my opinion. Making the connections with other threads, most seem to agree with the proposition that the best politicians are the ones that are most willing to compromise. I have gone around and around on this issue with DC and he geneally believes my view on this is impractical, extreme and out of touch with pragmatism. I don't recall anyone supporting my point of view, or one that would indicate that having conviction in the area of politics is like a dime a dozen.

It is clear to me that I don't understand your point of view and you don't understand mine. I don't know what to add until you give some specifics. I do think it is a point worth discussing. As you might say - I don't accept the premise - with that as a given we are at a dead-end or you would consider any response as unresponsive.


I already agreed that she purposefully choose the term. her intent was to be provocative, her intent was to insult, her intent was to attack, her intent was to stir emotion. with all that as a given, I still support her, and I believe it was the proper context. I might not have used the term and it very may well prove to be an error, but I doubt it.

I agree.

She is "scrappy", she likes a good fight. Again, I agree. I even tried to explain the personality type, which I share with her. If there was no "fight", she would get bored, and go away. For example with me - I get love, friendship, kindness, civility, hugs and kisses at home. To satisfy my needs for "combat" I have other out-lets including TFP. If Palin wasn't fighting liberals, she'd be out hunting caribou or something.

Again, I agree. And my question was, given the above - what do liberals want to do? Do they (you) want to be doing the same thing next month? do you want to risk Palin stumbling on a fight that can carry her into the WH? Now she has a small hard-core support group, that has been made as solid as granit, she can not go lower in popularity, the next moves are up.

She's has about a 35-40% approval in the polls, I'd be careful in saying she couldn't get lower.

I'm like that movie, Inception (best movie of 2010, you gotta see it if you haven't) - and remember the line where the girl says: "Now, whose dream are we in...? I loved it, but I digress...oops, sorry...did it again.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I heard 20% somewhere, may have been MSNBC.

Saw it, it was utter shit, so if you're like the movie.... are you channelling Brittney Spears now? 'Opps I did it again....' Shall we expect a picture of ace in a schoolgirl uniform to be posted soon?

You sure do think you're a complicated person, but in reality, you're quite simple, you duck and dodge, change subjects, anything to actually avoid debate or the topic at hand, anyone can see that based on your posts here, anytime you get stuck, you just go off with some more aceisms and try to get the topic off track, not complicated to see that at all.

I will give you one thing though, you are like Palin in one way, neither of you know when to zip the lip.

Perhaps the part that is missing is that it is a choice between rational and democratic use of resources to best meet the health care needs of the people vs the rich buying the best healthcare and the poor making do with what they can get.

But this is also a digression.

Gallup has her at 38%. Do you have a source from MSNBC. Actually it doesn't matter I wouldn't trust them any more then I would FOX.

I read somewhere that socialism has an approval rating somewhere near 40% in the United States. So that's kinda interesting.

Getting back to the blood libel issue, I can't imagine, in conversation, using the term to refer to anything other than its dictionary definition.

This may be related to the fact that you are the sort of person who CAN find your ass with both hands and a mirror...

I'd never heard the term Blood Libel before this... Even if I had known what it meant, I would never have used it because I don't think the vast majority of people to whom I'd be speak would know what it was. I believe strongly that when making a speech, one should speak simply.

I have a feeling (just a feeling) that Ms. Palin was speaking someone else's words and was using a term that she didn't understand.

On the whole, I think Ms. Pailn is attempting to punch above her weight. American's love an underdog. They also love "the common man". I think many see Ms. Pailn as a latter day Mr. Smith, and she's ready to talk some plain sense to Washington. I would buy into that if I didn't get the feeling that everything she does is a calculated opportunity to increase her bank account (the fancy clothes during the campaign, leaving her governor seat so she could strike while the iron was hot and hit the speaking circuit).

I might be wrong on all of this, but from where I am sitting, the optics on Ms. Palin are not good.

Every morning! :thumbsup:

I think this may be the only time (that I can recall) I have agreed with your post 100%

And all you ever do is attack people for what they write. Never once have I seen you debate anyone without personal attacks.

Pan comes back after his 'perfect leaving post' (they always come back when they make a big show about leaving don't they?) to pick up right where he left off, complaining about apparent 'personal attacks'. Hear that pan, the world's smallest violin is playing the world's saddest song just for you. As I've stated before, don't like what I post, report it, don't want to report it, oh well, that's your problem. Remember before you 'left' because no one 'got it' but you apparently did, you said I was on ignore, try that again, but if you did that, you wouldn't get the attention you so desperately crave.

I agree with the kicking in all aspects. It has been proven here time and again, myself included. I will never be the first "kicker" but I will not be the last to be kicked either.... (I think it's an ego thing.) Even wild animals when they fight, hey usually fight to the death and the loser will usually be the one fighting the hardest at the end. It's nature, it's how those of us who accept and see we are just intelligent mammals with opposing thumbs, but we still have our forebearers instincts of survival, aggression and so on within all of us. some can control it more easily than others.

I disagree here. I think Palin is an attention whore out to profit in anyway she can on her name. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The GOP are trying to build this woman up and come 2012 whe will eithr implode on herwelf or destroy the GOP chances of winning the presidency in 2012.

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

Then let's debate without any name calling or hostility. You can even pick the topic. I made this offer before with you and yet, you came back telling me how I was seeking attention and blah blah blah... so prove me wrong, take the challenge. we'll get an unbiased ref who can judge the tones we use towards each other.

Pan, I'm not going to get into this childish thing with you, you've never made the offer before, that I can remember anyways, but I may be mistaken, maybe you can direct me to this apparent offer. You don't like what I say or the way I say it, ignore me, I really could care less what you think of me, or what you think of the 'tone' I use here.

Considering the number of mods who posted in this thread or other threads you've complained about the apparent 'personal attacks' I've made and not one of them has PM'd me, warned me, or complained about the information or the 'tone' of my posts, all this seems like is another one of your look at me moments. You say you aren't seeking attention, but, well, to me that's all it looks like to be perfectly honest, and that isn't hostility, or name calling, that's my opinion of the way your posts look.

I don't need to be bothered with an 'unbiased ref' judging the 'tone' of my posts, the unbiased refs to me are the mods of this forum, and as long as they don't see fit to warn me for this apparent 'name calling' you seem to see which obviously isn't there, and 'hostility' which isn't there, I don't get hostile here, I can't be bothered to get worked up over words of people I've never met, I'm not the one who feels compelled to go on rants about basketball players, calling their mothers whores, simply because they decided to sign with another team, and make posts in obscenely large fonts, so please, don't come and talk to me about apparent hostility, until you've looked at yourself in the mirror.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- This entire conversation needs to get back on topic and off the personal attacks and hostile posts. Jay, the simple fact no moderator has yet to post anything does not mean your comment was alright or even allowed. In the future stick to the topic at hand and refain from hostile negitive comments directed at other posters. Understand?

Salon's Justin Elliot wrote this article last week about the historical context of the term.

Blood libel: A historical view - War Room - Salon.com

Go running to my ex and tell her what I'm posting like you always have... and yeah... like I said you can dish out but can't take it or even try to accept a legit challenge. You're right you KNOW NOTHING about me other than what the ex may have told you. Wonder how did I know you 2 were or are talking...hmmmm.... lol

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Hey Pan, What part of "This entire conversation needs to get back on topic and off the personal attacks and hostile posts" are you not understanding? That moderation comment applies to everyone. Keep your posts on topic. Last warning folks.

I think one question that has yet to be addressed would be what Sarah Palin might have intended with the usage of such a term. If she did use it intentionally, it was probably a ploy to gain attention, but it may also have been an attempt to quiet her dissenters with an accusation of significant weight.

Recently, there have been a lot of critical voices over the behavior of the Israeli government, and one of the responses by officials and supporters of the government has been to call the dissenters anti-Semetic. This is clearly, imho, an incorrect use of the term, but it's intention is to falsely accuse someone of something generally considered horrific in order to bully them into silence. Could there be a similar motive behind the use of blood libel? I still think Palin herself was ignorant of the term, but it's possible (probable?) that whoever wrote the speech is a seasoned political mind.