Holy Crap!

[Asso]

Remember that in France a "Quarter pound with cheese" is a "Royale with cheese"

There's Hoshi, luckily!

[CX]

My biggest problem is that they don't MEAN anything anymore. "conservatives" want to spend billions on wars, "liberals" want to spend billions on domestic programs. "Conservatives" have lots of kids because they often don't believe in birth control or abortion. "Liberals" are most commonly found in professional urban households with fewer children. How does that simple little word describe that? It doesn't.

It might not be entirely accurate, since like I said, no one really fits into a neat little box that describes them perfectly, but one can still get a pretty decent idea about someone based on the description of being conservative or liberal. Someone the other day observed that in general conservatives will either proudly bear that lable, or shrug and not care, whereas liberals tend not to like being called liberal. This little upset by you and Alelou kind of reminds me of that observation.

In any case, when we're having a discussion about this "baby-gate" and the like, and someone brings up something involving "liberals", and how their hopes that this would distance them from the "conservative" vote, it's both amusing and upsetting that anyone would ignore what the comment is actually about and be upset by the fact the term "liberal" was used to describe a group of people. Either they don't belong to that group of people, in which case the term does not apply to them, or dare I say a nerve has been struck if they do belong to that group of people.

[Elessar]

My biggest problem is that they don't MEAN anything anymore. "conservatives" want to spend billions on wars, "liberals" want to spend billions on domestic programs. "Conservatives" have lots of kids because they often don't believe in birth control or abortion. "Liberals" are most commonly found in professional urban households with fewer children. How does that simple little word describe that? It doesn't.

It might not be entirely accurate, since like I said, no one really fits into a neat little box that describes them perfectly, but one can still get a pretty decent idea about someone based on the description of being conservative or liberal. Someone the other day observed that in general conservatives will either proudly bear that lable, or shrug and not care, whereas liberals tend not to like being called liberal. This little upset by you and Alelou kind of reminds me of that observation.

In any case, when we're having a discussion about this "baby-gate" and the like, and someone brings up something involving "liberals", and how their hopes that this would distance them from the "conservative" vote, it's both amusing and upsetting that anyone would ignore what the comment is actually about and be upset by the fact the term "liberal" was used to describe a group of people. Either they don't belong to that group of people, in which case the term does not apply to them, or dare I say a nerve has been struck if they do belong to that group of people.

I disagreed with the use of the phrase "the liberals were hoping it would distance them from the conservative vote" because there was an implied accusation that ALL people who define themselves as liberals were chasing the ambulance in this case and foaming at the mouth at the taste of this scandal. That's a gross generalization, THAT was my problem with it.

When have I ever argued about being identified as a liberal...? I am TOTALLY and completely a liberal and I know it. I would explain how and why I'm glad I'm a liberal but it wouldn't be appropriate.

[CX]

I think the problem lies with the fact that you tend to see a somewhat specific generalization, and then generalize it even further in order to derive insult from it. You're not the only one to do it, but it is quite annoying.

[Elessar]

I think the problem lies with the fact that you tend to see a somewhat specific generalization, and then generalize it even further in order to derive insult from it. You're not the only one to do it, but it is quite annoying.

I don't think it's hard to see where the generalization is when a person says they bet the liberals were hoping this would drive a wedge between her and the conservatives. It implies 2 things actually. First it implies that all liberals familiar with this situation were primarily focused on the political outcome and not on the human interest of the story (that they're all heartless). I'm drawing a total blank on the second thing it implies but I'm trying to remember...

OH! And it implies that there's no such thing as a liberal thinking it should distance her from the conservative vote (as a matter of principle), and just categorizes all of it as like political self-serving scandal-mongering instead of a principled opinion. We're all ready and willing to accept principled opinions on the matter as such from neutral parties, like foreigners or people we believe truly have no political affiliation, but a person of the opposite affiliation can also have a truly principled position on the matter that isn't simply there because the end result would fit their ends.

That was a complicated explanation so I'm gonna give an example. For example if I'm sleeping with my neighbor's wife and my neighbor shoots the mailman and he's put in prison - I can think it was "the right thing" that my neighbor was put in prison for his actions, even if the end result - him going to prison, does happen to benefit me in the long run because I can keep sleeping with his wife.

[CX]

The thing is, it's really more like taking "you people" and twisting it to mean something else - something that gets done a lot on sitcoms to get a laugh out of people. In this instance and inothers I've seen you do, you take something that's referring to a set group of people and take it to mean something much broader. In this instance it's being focused specifically on the people who have been getting all excited at the prospect that McCain/Palin might be aliened from their own supporters because of this pregnancy issue, and the people who dug it up to begin with toward that end. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those people are liberals, which is a pretty safe assumption to make since the only people I personally have witnessed do that have been liberals, yourself included. If someone does not belong to that group of people, they are not being referenced.

[Elessar]

The thing is, it's really more like taking "you people" and twisting it to mean something else - something that gets done a lot on sitcoms to get a laugh out of people. In this instance and inothers I've seen you do, you take something that's referring to a set group of people and take it to mean something much broader. In this instance it's being focused specifically on the people who have been getting all excited at the prospect that McCain/Palin might be aliened from their own supporters because of this pregnancy issue, and the people who dug it up to begin with toward that end. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those people are liberals, which is a pretty safe assumption to make since the only people I personally have witnessed do that have been liberals, yourself included. If someone does not belong to that group of people, they are not being referenced.

Right, I understand all that now. You're right - I'm sure all the people who have been chasing down the details of this story are mostly liberals.

What I took issue with was the way I interpreted the order of it, and this is what I mean. It's the difference between "all elephants have tusks" and "if you see tusks on an animal, it's an elephant", the difference between those two statements is what trait is shared by what group. YOU were saying that all the people interested in this story (and maybe you specifically meant for nefarious reasons) were liberals. I thought you meant all liberals were interested in this story for nefarious reasons.

But I stand by the thing about it implying that I (we) don't care because of principle. I still think it DOES matter as a VP candidate. I didn't want to know simply b/c it stood to benefit my candidate, but because as a political phenomena, it interested me, and I thought it had merit, that as a commentary to the ongoing campaign, it had merit. If for no other reason, it entertains suggestions as to the depth of the vetting that went on. But the NYT has already routed out that idea far more than I ever could... and gotten themselves in the McCain Campaign's sights for doing it.

[blacknblue]

You know, I resent you lumping all liberals into the same class as a few rumor-mongerers, and I resent your assumption that we'd all think this is bad news for Palin with the base. (Do I assume that just because you're conservative you're convinced Obama is a Muslim? No, you just think he's a racist liberal pig, but hey, that's your opinion.) It makes perfect sense that right-to-life Evangelicals will celebrate a 17-year-old getting pregnant and marrying the father.

However, I don't think that this news is necessarily going to help with the general electorate, or change any decisions they might make about whether Palin is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, based on her resume.

Is it absolutely necessary to make this personal? BTW, you said just a few posts ago that you were a moderate. Now you identify yourself as a liberal. Which is it?

(Do I assume that just because you're conservative you're convinced Obama is a Muslim? No, you just think he's a racist liberal pig, but hey, that's your opinion.)

I did NOT say that he was a racist liberal pig, and I will politely thank you not to put words in my mouth. I said that as a WASP, I am deeply disquieted by the writings of his mentor. I also said that I find it impossible to believe that Obama could have been unaware that his mentor held these attitudes and opinions for the past twenty years. And that is ALL I said. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. If you are going to spew venom at me every time I say something that irritates you, i will withdraw from this discussion. I would prefer not to do that, since I prefer to believe that we are all capable of discussing this like civilized adults. But I am not going to become anyone's whipping boy.

You know, I resent you lumping all liberals into the same class as a few rumor-mongerers, and I resent your assumption that we'd all think this is bad news for Palin with the base.

I did not say ALL liberals. I said "liberals". Were the bloggers that broke this not liberal? Was I mistaken?

It makes perfect sense that right-to-life Evangelicals will celebrate a 17-year-old getting pregnant and marrying the father.

I may be misinterpreting your words, but that sounded a bit snippish. Do you have some objection to the girl keeping the baby and marrying the father? I strongly suspect that you already realize this, but the evangelicals are not celebrating the girl getting pregnant. They are celebrating the fact that she plans to keep the baby and raise it, along with the baby's father in a traditional marriage. Do you have some objection to them following the traditional path?

I did not start this thread to make enemies. Nor do I have any desire to put down anyone, or anyone else's opinions. Why do you feel the need to put me down?

[Asso]

It's not airy, all that.

[CX]

Right, I understand all that now. You're right - I'm sure all the people who have been chasing down the details of this story are mostly liberals.

What I took issue with was the way I interpreted the order of it, and this is what I mean. It's the difference between "all elephants have tusks" and "if you see tusks on an animal, it's an elephant", the difference between those two statements is what trait is shared by what group. YOU were saying that all the people interested in this story (and maybe you specifically meant for nefarious reasons) were liberals. I thought you meant all liberals were interested in this story for nefarious reasons.

Well, at least we have a partial understanding now, I guess it's just a matter of how one's brain works, kind of like how German and Lakota place the subject after the verb I suppose.

[Elessar]

Right, I understand all that now. You're right - I'm sure all the people who have been chasing down the details of this story are mostly liberals.

What I took issue with was the way I interpreted the order of it, and this is what I mean. It's the difference between "all elephants have tusks" and "if you see tusks on an animal, it's an elephant", the difference between those two statements is what trait is shared by what group. YOU were saying that all the people interested in this story (and maybe you specifically meant for nefarious reasons) were liberals. I thought you meant all liberals were interested in this story for nefarious reasons.

Well, at least we have a partial understanding now, I guess it's just a matter of how one's brain works, kind of like how German and Lakota place the subject after the verb I suppose.

Yeah, spanish puts the adjective after the noun. That messes with my head.

Hey in Russian you can put a sentence together in almost random order half the time!

Hey BnB, I do know that some Conservative blogs were talking about it... but... I mean they were basically rebutting the liberal blogs that were breaking the story. They were still kind of propagating the story though by talking about it and refuting each point about the photos and the mono and all that.

By the way there's a really funny one out there, I don't have the link anymore so I can't link to it, showing a picture of Levi Johnston, the father, saying something "Holy crap, Obama, you're in trouble" sort of tongue-in-cheek because he's like a hunk. Saying they were going to nail down the "cougar vote" and the "Jamie Lynn Spears" vote with this one

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Well, this thread certainly reminds me of why I don't participate (and really don't like) online political debates.

On a lighter note, as for nailing voters, I read somewhere that Sarah Palin would be able to nail the Maxim Magazine vote... Yeah, I can certainly see that! She's a PILF!

[CX]

It'd almost be amusing if she did a spread or at least an interview in that magazine.

[Distracted]

I'm marginally disturbed by the fact that I know what that acronym means, KTR.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

^ Heh! Since a colleague of mine once thought it up, I assume you derived the meaning from the original acronym...

The biggest PILF out there is Ukrainian Prime Minister Julia Tymoshenko though.