IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New "Betray" was necessary to make it rhyme.
It's an elementary schoolyard name calling thing. It's one of the counterproductive aspects of the ad. Anyone who was ever been subjected to name calling based on their last name, (and who hasn't?), will be repulsed by it and will not read the message.
Alex

Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
New *Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
New schoolyard name-calling
Quite so, although that's a small enough nugget of actual mass to have been spun into this cumulonimbus-size volume of brouhaha. As to juvenile name-calling*, though, I seem to remember our brethren on the right just busting a gut, back in the day, over "Ellen Degenerate." Michael Kinsley has put it nicely:
Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document.

The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.

It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence \ufffd or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.

The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They're turning politics into a game of "Mother, May I?" Did you say "Here is my plan for health-care reform"? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say "I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform."

All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness...
[link|http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1663424,00.html|There's more]. Beep and his co-religionists are being disingenuous, as usual.

cordially,

*Reminds me of jocularly addressing a college acquaintance, Tim Arndt, with a hearty "Arndt you Tim?" He fixed me for a long moment with an obviously well-practiced icy stare and then said "Oh. I get it." (beat) "Think of that all by yourself, did you?"
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
New There you go again
inventing a position for me by assuming I am in lockstep with a group that I am not.

Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged.

1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want.
2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit.
3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US.
4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words.

Now on to the WISDOM OF SILENCE among presidential candidates.

These are people aspiring to the job of CIC, they should dam well be able to take a position. As it turns out, most of them did.

2) It would do well for them to show support to these gentleman in face of >this type of attack. Take out the juvie name calling that easily translates to traitor and THERE IS NO ISSUE. To that point, I have stated I have NO ISSUE with >civil< disagreements such as those by Hillary stating that the facts presented are difficult to believe..putting me directly at odds with the posted article where Rudy uses this to slam her.

In other words, don't pretend that you know my position because you obviously do not.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Ok, so I lied.
I'm back in this thread - I hope you don't mind.

Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged.

1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want.
2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit.
3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US.
4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words.


What about the 800 pound gorilla in the room?

5) Is it appropriate for [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01585:|HR 1585] to be changed with [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02934:|S.AMND.2934] or [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02947:|S.AMND.2947] at all? Why should the Senate be involved at all in commenting on MoveOn's newspaper ad?

Given some of your [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=289548|earlier] [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=278682|comments] (as examples), I would think you wouldn't be all that enamored of the Congress wasting time and passing symbolic legislation. Why aren't you upset with Sen. Cornyn and his 6 co-sponsors (all Republicans, BTW) for wasting the Senate's time? Where's the indignation toward the "other" side? Your political "pessimism" seems to be highly directional.

Maybe the Senate leadership or Rules Committee should have refused to let Cornyn bring his amendment to the floor, instead. I'm sure that would have gone over really well with the "conservatives", huh.

Just curious. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who hopes to return to lurking on this thread.)
New Short answer (and no biggie, welcome back)
No.

You need to go to even earlier statements where it is my express belief that items need to be legislated 1 at a time and that tacking things (especially bs items like this) on to bills is not in our best interest.

One only need to drive up the I78 corridor in WV to understand what pork can be attached by those in charge of appropriations. There is a reason why Bird will be elected even after he's embalmed.

And just so you are aware, my comments here have been directed at candidates for POTUS, not at Congress. I don't think we have nearly enough time to get into that. It is simply, imo, imperative to the democratic candidates to not allow themselves to painted as weak on defense. While the country may not like the current situation we are in, being viewed as weak and unsupportive of the military has in the past and will continue to cost them elections.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New To me it is just as important a candidate support
free speech and fight the bullshit partisan politics of trying to tar the democratic candidates with the moveon.org ad as it is to be strong on defense.

Seamus
New That hasn't panned out historically
but hey, things could change.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New 2008 is not 1988.
Thanks. WV and NJ are examples of party politics that have gone too far. The present administration is another. ;-)

While history sometimes seems to repeat itself, it's more often the case that Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Dukakis isn't running. The Soviet Union isn't imploding with a Republican in office. Etc.

Comparing the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the turnout, it seems to me that much of the electorate is becoming less receptive to sloganeering. There are too many examples of disasters under Bush for people to take superficially appealing slogans at face value. The web is making it possible for small outfits like [link|http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus|Rockridge Institute] to have an [link|http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/07/at_a_loss_for_words.html|impact] on the debate and illustrate the importance of language in framing the issues (something that Rove and the late Lee Atwater have known for a while). IOW, the Republicans no longer have a monopoly on "Morning in America".

Of course it ultimately comes down to the candidates and the circumstances around the election, but I really don't think that much of anyone is going to care about who voted for the two amendments. Does anyone care that Hillary never really "apologized" for her Iraq AUMF vote, even though it was a talking-point for several weeks? By November 2008 the MoveOn ad will be ancient history.

I think people realize that being "strong on defense" is more than symbolism and empty slogans, and there's more than enough [link|http://the-filibuster.blogspot.com/2006/01/republicans-weak-on-defence.html|ammunition on the other side] if they want to play that game. Remember that even though Kerry was attacked mercilessly on his defense policies, he nearly won. The trends is even more in the Democrat's favor this time.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Just for Beep: Achenblog on the attacks on Hillary. - (Another Scott) - (83)
         She can't distance herself from her money - (bepatient) - (82)
             I don't think she should - (jake123) - (23)
                 I don't really care if they were right or not - (bepatient) - (22)
                     *COUGH* -NT - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                         Maybe I should be more clear - (bepatient) - (6)
                             But its quite OK to endorse a personal insult - (jb4) - (1)
                                 I don't believe I've ever said that. - (bepatient)
                             > Would that 11th Commandment include Colin Powell, then? < - (Ashton) - (3)
                                 Many good points. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                 I don't understand you. - (bepatient)
                                 I almost brought up the Truman-McDouglas issue - (Simon_Jester)
                     So the dems should bend over and take it - (crazy) - (10)
                         What? - (bepatient) - (9)
                             Damn close - (crazy) - (8)
                                 Indeed. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     "Betray us", just quoting the troops. -NT - (Silverlock)
                                     2 completely different things. -NT - (bepatient)
                                 FWIW - Cindy Sheehan's response re MoveOn ad - (Ashton) - (4)
                                     This reminds me of what Keith Olbermann had to say - (Seamus) - (3)
                                         I find it surprising that Olbermann is still on.. - (Ashton) - (2)
                                             He is signed until 2011 according to Wikipedia - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                 Hmm, there's a thought - - (Ashton)
                     Petraeus is a big boy - I'm sure he's been called worse. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         I'm sure he is and I'm sure he doesn't care. - (bepatient)
                     1.5 minutes of Hannity, Rush et al == 50 of this - (Ashton)
             Why should she say anything? - (hnick) - (57)
                 Someone here put forth - (bepatient) - (56)
                     She voted no to this strawman. -NT - (Silverlock)
                     Re: Someone here put forth - (Seamus)
                     I was thinking more in terms olf Another Scott's post - (hnick)
                     Let's hear from the professionals, beep, shall we? - (rcareaga) - (52)
                         No problem with that at all - (bepatient) - (51)
                             Re: No problem with that at all - (Seamus) - (50)
                                 Re: No problem with that at all - (bepatient) - (49)
                                     I'm beginning to think you read a different ad. - (Another Scott) - (32)
                                         Huh? - (bepatient) - (31)
                                             Read the links... -NT - (Another Scott) - (30)
                                                 Re: Read the links... - (bepatient) - (29)
                                                     We'll have to agree to disagree. - (Another Scott) - (25)
                                                         You linked to the definition - (bepatient) - (24)
                                                             Please read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (14)
                                                                 What has he NOT "fallen for the Republican spin machine" on? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                                     Quite a bit. But what do you know. -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                         Quite a bit - I've known you for over ten years now. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                             Thats funny - (bepatient)
                                                                 You told me to read the link. - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                     Oh, bullpucky! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                         BS - straight up. (new thread) - (bepatient)
                                                                     The definition you quoted from was used to explain - (Seamus) - (6)
                                                                         Go to the dictionary. -NT - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                             You are just playing with the context - (Seamus) - (4)
                                                                                 Give me a break - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                     It is absurd for you not to admit that there are different - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                                                         Not worth it - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                             It just may do that - (Seamus)
                                                             "Betray" was necessary to make it rhyme. - (a6l6e6x) - (8)
                                                                 *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                 schoolyard name-calling - (rcareaga) - (6)
                                                                     There you go again - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                         Ok, so I lied. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                             Short answer (and no biggie, welcome back) - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                 To me it is just as important a candidate support - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                                                     That hasn't panned out historically - (bepatient)
                                                                                 2008 is not 1988. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Well, by that definition, MoveOn.org is right - (jb4) - (2)
                                                         Thanks for the affirmation - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                             NO...but it does happen - (jb4)
                                     Re: No problem with that at all - (Seamus) - (4)
                                         Re: No problem with that at all - (bepatient) - (3)
                                             Stupid, but they still, IMO, were not calling Gen. Peatrus - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                 Well then petition Webster to change the definition - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     I don't have to petition Websters - (Seamus)
                                     You seem to be ignoring a major point. - (hnick) - (10)
                                         No I'm not - (bepatient) - (6)
                                             But you also said that - (Seamus) - (5)
                                                 What I'd seen - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                     Just curious, where did you see that? -NT - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                         Gonna have to get my laptop back - (bepatient)
                                                     Are you KIDDING me? - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                         She hasn't yet. - (bepatient)
                                         Actually he's not - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                                             All right. Difference of opinion is all. - (hnick) - (1)
                                                 Nor can I - (Simon_Jester)

I know this because my t-shirt tells me so.
231 ms