The difference is my "own political self-interest" is concern about your rights and freedoms as well as my own. :eyebrow:

The vast majority of hams are great people. Check out our celebration of the 100th anniversary of voice on radio.

Well, that's the self-righteous flag you're wrapping yourself in...and it's a standard collectivist pitch.

My concerns over issues are driven by my own assessment of which are important, and how to interpret the platforms of various competeing candidates and parties relative to those issues..

Your fundamental thesis seems to be that the Democrats have more respect for "rights and freedoms" than their opposition, and I just don't buy the assertion. I've seen them in action, and my opinion is the performance doesn't live up to the advertising.

Not at all. My fundamental thesis is that all politicians are scum and should be watched carefully because they will screw me for their own benefit in a heartbeat. The ones in power are always my biggest enemy at the moment, hence Bush & Co are the threat and I will never accept the loyal opposition would have been worse. That's the lamest excuse possible for accepting oppression from the party in power.:(

Well, that's where we disagree. When the "loyal opposition" had control they pushed as hard as *they* could for exactly the same kinds of powers. and I don't think they used them as effectively when they had them.

But then I don't think we even agree on what "worse" is. Where we agree is that all pols should be watched.

But criticism that's shrill or overreaching doesn't enhance credibility of those who deliver it, and so much of the anti-Bush stuff that's so trendy and considers itself so clever strikes me at the same time as vacuous. It may have a shallow popular appeal, but I think it's devoid of any real content.

Shrill doesn't make it untrue and overreaching is your opinion. If you think Bush & Co are on your side, you're delusional. :headshake

I like you maggie but Bush is the antichrist.

Yes I am a socialist democrate who will probably vote for McCain if he runs.

My perspective is I have never liked him and he gave me nothing to change my mind.

I see nothing redeeming. Here are the few of my reasons. He used the Christian right to get elected. He ran on the banner of 'compassionate conservative' He said we would not be the policemen of the world. He hasn't funded no child left behind. The states are either cutting classes or raising taxes or whatever to comply with the law. Your federal taxes went down but your social security taxes doubled. Mentally ill people are out in the streets. We didn't have to invade Iraq. Iran was always the threat. I don't even need to go into the corruption part of the mismanagement.

I don't think people are being unreasonable alarmists. We as a nation need to recognize the ripple effect. We should not do things 'just because we can'.

shallow? people are scared or frustrated

clever? I see lots of restraint. If I give you a rope and you hang yourself with it it isn't my fault.

devoid of real content? probably dumb struck. It isn't the time for rhetoric as usual. There's too much at stake.


I am curious. What do you think this administration has been good at? Where is the positive that you see because I am not seeing it.

Being American is about being extreme. And about being passionate about those extremes.

You're either Republican or Democrat -no middle ground.
You're either a civilian of the freeest country on Earth, or you've had all your freedoms stripped by anti-terrorist overreactions
You're either so fat you're wider than you are tall and need a scooter to get round Walmart, or so healthy you consider a soyburger in a whole wheat bun a once-a-year moment of gluttony
You either live in a cookie cutter neighborhood with perfect lawns and regimented petunias, or in a messy hillbilly cabin surrounded by a car graveyard
You either have perfect teeth or no teeth
You're either a regular church-goer or spawn of the devil

......


Seriously, though (well more seriously anyway) What it is to be American surely must depend on which cultures you are comparing it to. Apple Pie's Pretty popular in the UK too, you know!

I felt I had more personal freedom in the UK than I do here. But there's certainly a lot more freedom here than in Afghanistan, for example. At least by Western standards of freedom. Brits don't know you think they have bad teeth and bad hygeine. They think the French are pretty poor in that area.

America is so completely different from the UK, it's almost impossible to make comparisons/pick traits that belong uniquley to one nation, but the one thing that does strike me is that Americans do everything full force. Full commitment. Always.
.....Americans don't go to their kids' soccer games and just watch. They scream, yell, cheer, find a way to make a positive comment about a totally lost situation, make sure they have all the right equipment, take chairs, blankets, snacks, refuse to mention the score if they lose.......
Unfortunately, the same thing can we said about political situations where a quieter, more understated approach might be more effective.

So it's neither a good or a bad thing, but it is a very American thing, from the point of view of this Brit. Nothing American is done quietly, understatedly, half-heartedly and no admission of error is ever made.

good post oh wise monster

Well, that's the kind of closely-reasoned insightful criticisim I'm talking about. It's become trendy in the small very Blue-colored social spaces that cluster around the social-service ecological niches of Democratically-controlled urban centers to Bush-bash. But it consists basically of a lot of handwaving about how horrible Bush is and how much better things would be if the Democrats were in control. Everybody tacitly strokes each other about how much more hip and sophisticated and enlightened they are than those hateful selfish rednecks, and enjoys a warm fuzzy feeling for having struck another Blow Aginst the Empire. .

"What the Bush administration has been good at" is doing a better job of responding to the demanding times we're in than the Dems would have, given their track record.

As I've mentioned here before, I voted for Gore...but realized on 9/11 that I'm glad he didn't win. He doesn't have the chops to be commander-in-chief and certainly neither does Kerry. With the Cold War over a lot of us--me included--indulged in the wishful thinking that the CinC role had become a much less important part of the presidency.

We were wrong.

I think the Bush administrations policies suck on a number of issues, including among other things immigration and gay rights. Bush himself certainly doesn't come off well on TV. But...

That's pretty much how I feel about Bush. Appalling, but still better than any available alternative. People who hate his obvious whoring after the Christian Right might consider the possibility that he does it to counter the Democrats whoring after the Socialist Left.

Shrill may perhaps not make it untrue but it certainly severely damages its credibility...if the argument was actually convincing it wouldn't be necssary to scream it. And yes, overreaching is indeed my opinion. Obviously Bush isn't completely on my side. But the Dems are even less so.

Well, there's the Republican campaign strategy in a nutshell. "Sure, what you're saying may be true, but at least I can damage your credibility!"

What I said was "Being shrill doesn't make something untrue", agreeing with Bruce's point. But that's not a concession that it's true. Do you use logic like that in your everyday life? If so, how do you survive?

The problem with the shrillness is that it's annoying and counterproductive--unless you're only preaching to the choir, in which case it's merely pointless and self-congratulatory. It has nothing to do with the actual truth of the argument, except insofar as it projects that the speaker is breathless and hysterical...which in the case of the Dems can't be blamed on the GOP; the Dems are damaging their *own* credibility.

~ Shrill<>!true

~ !(shrill==true)

~ shrill=true or shrill<>true

How can you fail to follow Happy Monkey's logic? He paraphrased you and you confirmed it, what's unclear? His logic is sound.

Furthermore, his political observation is worthwhile too.

This current derailment is about the difference between shrillness and truthfulness. That is a discussion about the difference between form and content. And I agree that the grandstanding by the current political newsmakers is vastly more about form than content. And that's a stance that practically begs to substitute "Sure, what you're saying may be true, but at least I can damage your credibility!" for dialog.

Shrill and true are disjoint. His logic is bogus. So is yours.