Pretty apt descriptions as far as I can see. 

Considering her RFK assasination comment the other day, not to mention all her other machinations throughout this primary, she has nobody to blame but herself for getting skewered in the media. 

Well her comments about RFK were deplorable, and Keith Olbermann gave the best "Special Comment" he has ever given on Friday night regarding her RKF comment and assasination. I think Tucker could of done without the "cat in box" comparision.

I think Tucker could of done without the "cat in box" comparision.

J, Tucker could do without alot of things, this is a man who has made a career on smarta*s remarks. 

Wow-- you mean Olbermann actually criticized Clinton? That's news!

Big deal. He'd find something wrong with her about the way she does her dry cleaning. Olbermann's a disgrace, an embarrassment these days. A pontificating blowhard, who likes to call young women tramps and sluts.

He also falsely padded her comments by splicing in another remark she made, to make it look as if she were pondering her words, which she was not. That was patently dishonest for MSNBC to do.

And in regards to the RFK comment, Hillary was right. Things happen. That's why it is absurd for anyone in her position to drop out before the convention. There is no historical precedent for it.

Unless, of course, you have the misfortune to run against the messiah. The annointed one, of which there shall be no criticism-- or else.

 

Messiah.

Annointed one.

Dude that's lame. You're pretty lame. You're projecting.

Who started this race as the inevitable one? Who started with such advantage that her husband is still called Mr. President?

In recent history, the only candidate more privileged than she is the one who still calls daddy Mr. President.

Take your medicine. Hillary has been bested by the grassroots candidate and her eliminationist rhetoric reaks of desperation.

What puerile crap, 'dude.'

FYI, all ex- presidents are addressed as "Mr. President," 'dude.' Where do you get your history from?

And Hillary was never the annointed one. Annointed by whom? A press that always hated her, that tried to destroy her from the very first debate, when even Bill Richardson said he wasn't going to be part of the abuse? 

Sorry, Obama fans. Hillary has lots more general support in the party-- which will be proven in November, when few of them will help bail out his sorry ass when he shows he's in over his head against the Republicans. Or when his wife sabotages his chances. Or when the media decides they are tired of him and want the GOP to win anyway, because it will be better for their bottom line.

I cannot believe the absolute ignorance and arrogant mean-spiritedness of so many Obama supporters. It's going to doom the Democrats.

I think the above post works better like this...

 

"I cannot believe the absolute ignorance and arrogant mean-spiritedness of so many Obama supporters. It's going to doom the Democrats.

Sorry, Obama fans. Hillary has lots more general support in the party-- which will be proven in November, when few of them will help bail out his sorry ass when he shows he's in over his head against the Republicans. Or when his wife sabotages his chances. Or when the media decides they are tired of him and want the GOP to win anyway, because it will be better for their bottom line."

• - carlileb5935 / Wednesday May 28, 2008 5:17:35 AM EDT

Guess what, buddy? No matter who the Democratic nominee is, if the Dems lose and the Repugnants win come November it won't be either Hillary or Obama's fault, or the fault of the media, or of Michelle Obama. No, it'll be the fault of each and every one of the stay-at-home/vote-for-McCain members of the 'other' camp (unless someone decides to run as an independent when she...ermm, I mean they...don't get the nomination and splits the D vote accordingly). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - it'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Nice work Bob, remind never to piss you off.

Thankee kindly, and apologies for the small font...:-o

"FYI, all ex- presidents are addressed as "Mr. President," 'dude.' Where do you get your history from?"

You missed the point. I hope you deliberately missed it.

All I'm saying is accept the fact that having a daddy or a hubby who just happens to be called Mr. President comes with monumental privileges of insider connections. You should accept it as a strength...like Hillary has...you know the whole I'm so experienced argument?

Anyway, I don't think you need to bother calling me nasty, people here know what I am by now. But if you're worried about nastiness check yourself.

Come November, if Hillary gets her death wish and Obama isn't in the race, I'll vote for her. Only an idiot would vote Republican, or worse, not at all.

What a surprise. Olbermann and Carlson are joined in their "Hillary Hatred" by Tommy and JLyons.

The bashing, unfair attacks, mindreading excursions, and wildly inappropriate analogies continue, all based on that horrible, UnAmerican trait Hillary has demonstrated that she will not give up until actually LOSING.

As of now, Obama is ahead, but has not acheived any measure by which he can claim to have WON, so the contest goes on.

And so must Hillary's detractors, insulting and belittleing, casting aspersions and speculating about the worst of motives on her part, all in an attempt to get Hillary to quit before she's been beaten.

The Obama camp, to be fair, is behaving with class and recognizing reality, so this drumbeat of negativism towards Hillary is coming from all those sources which should be IGNORED by Americans: Rightwing Partisans and the MEDIA (arguably the same thing). Who give a fig what Tucker Carleson has to say (even when he still had his own show)? It's PAP.

Tex- I support Olbermann on this one, get your facts straight. No where was I critical of Olbermann in his Special Comment about Hillary. Why are you such a jerk?

And just to broaden what you said, no where was I bashing Hillary or supporting Tucker Carlson.

JLYONS complains, "Tex- I support Olbermann on this one, get your facts straight."

RESPONSE: That's exactly what I said, that Olbermann was joined in his Hillary Hatred by you. That fact was as straight as can be.

JLYONS adds, "No where was I critical of Olbermann in his Special Comment about Hillary."

RESPONSE: Of course. You are both Hillary bashers.

JLYONS concludes with the ad hominem, "Why are you such a jerk?"

RESPONSE: It may seem that way to those with defective reading comprehension. You confirmed exactly what I said.

How am I a Hillary Hater when I think Tucker Carlson was way out of line?
Am I a Hillary Hater because I support Obama?

You are lost. Get a clue

I disagree Tex, I think the the right wing is doing everything in their power to keep Hillary in. The leapers want Hillary.

I don't know, I'm for Obama but I'm alright with Hillary staying in it to win it.

The protracted Dem keeps the focus off the McCain train wreck, it gives him less opportunity to ingratiate himself to voters.

...protracted Dem primary...

A drunk party guest.  With her recent comments, I guess I could see that analogy.

 What concerns me, though, is this depiction of Clinton as a feral cat.  For some reason, I associate cats and female dogs as a very negative label traditional males place on powerful females to demean them (e.g. "cat fight", "that b-word has claws!", etc.).  It's like comparing Obama, or any black man, to a monkey or a chimp.  It's just really insulting, plays on cultural stereotypes and fears, and should not be tolerated in any civilized discourse.  By the way, I am a white male.

What concerns me, though, is this depiction of Clinton as a feral cat. 

Billy

Great point.  Would Tucker have said that if Senator Clinton were a man?

Would Tucker have said that if Senator Clinton were a man?

That's really what this is about...and the answer is is "No!".

Exactly my friend.

Also,

Would (T)ucker have said anything like this about a re-puke-lican?

Would (T)ucker have said anything like this about a re-puke-lican?

Never.

Actually, the more accurate description for a Republican would be "feral pig".   :-)

I see them more as the domesticated variety...getting fat at the trough.  ;>)

Certainly not.  Carlson, describes the female Democratic candidate as "feral" and "a trapped animal", the male Democratic candidate is a "wuss" and "wimpy", and, as for the Republican candidate, Carlson likes him "very much as a man".

SPOILER ALERT!!   SPOILER ALERT!!   SPOILER ALERT !!

Again, in this Hillary-sympathetic article, almost none of the following posts have anything to do with the topic. 

This is a common occurence here at MMFA. Any time Hillary Clinton is defended by an MMFA article, the Obama maniacs go to work to evade the issue and throw the thread.

Hillary supporters-- you've been warned. Proceed at your own risk. It's pretty shameful-- Just what is up with these Obama fans?

Let the abuse rip.... 

Nice projection. You did in that short post everything you accuse others of doing.

Typical GOP tactic, now applied by those who claim to be Clinton supporters.

Your tactics give you away. The Democratic Party will have no problem coming together for either nominee after you GOP liars fail at splitting it apart. 

Does anyone really care what BB&C (Brzezinski, Barnickle and Carlson) think of anything, especially the one in his queer bow ties (or is it the queer one in his bow ties)?  These three stooge don't merit more than two sentences!

Well, I had a tough go of it "proving" that bitch is a sexist term on here, so I suspect a very vocal minor will INSIST that there's nothing sexist about it.  Though it most certainly is.

Gov.  On the Sexist portion I disagree - only because I have owned many male cats who when trapped (in the box) are totally uncontrolable, unpredictable, and will not sit still idly their current situation.  "Cats" to me have always had a male gender component to them.

So when you here the term 'cat fight', you see two men in your minds eye?

here=hear

what about the "Cat in the bag" the "Cat in a room full of rocking chairs" the "stray cat strut"  the "alley cat"  the "cat that ate the canary" and lets not forget "two cats in the yard, life used to be so hard".  Point is, doesn't have to be the cat from the cat fight.  I think (and I can't believe I'm sort of defending that putz, Tuck) maybe he was just trying to describe the tenacious and feral quality of Clinton's recent conduct.  Maybe a toddler in Chuck E Cheese being told it was time to go home.... better simile?  A tough stain that won't release from the edge of the bowl?  OK, that might go too far.  I dunno, but I wouldn't get a hairball over it.  It was just Tucker.  Who listens to that Jacka$$ anyway? 

Growing up inthe 60's - "cats" were guys - "chicks" were girls. 

I'm pretty sure Carlson's screeching feral moded cat in a box was female.

I'm not sure Carlson would have used this phrase for a man.  In theory it's gender-neutral, but I don't think Carlson has the best record regarding women.  If it is the case that he uses this sort of imagery only for women that would be sexist, because it suggests a woman has to do what people think she should or she's a wild, uncontrollable animal.

If there's a history of misogynistic remarks in his past, it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.  It's also hard to make a definitive declaration, since it requires some level of assumption.  It's suspect commentary though, and worth noting.

I think Tucker's comments go more to the Clintons, and ideology, than to gender.  If he also makes what some consider sexist comments towards conservative women, then a case could be made here, but I haven't heard it.

So the question remains do people who makes these comments limit them to those they disagree with ideologically and politically, or is that irrelevant?  And does that make them sexist, or just politically disrespectful, irrespective of gender?

Sorry for the double post (above) but to me, this is less about "the Clintons" and more about gender politics.  Carlson, describes the female Democratic candidate as "feral" and "a trapped animal", the male Democratic candidate is a "wuss" and "wimpy", and, as for the Republican candidate, Carlson likes him "very much as a man".  Female Dems are wild, male Dems are wimps, and the GOP – when they’re not exempt from his dime store punditry – are real men.

There is something to that, certainly.  The "gender role switch" message is very clearly sent out, so people who believe in traditional gender roles are more likely to reject the party as a whole.

It doesn't really matter if he treats conservative women the same way.  He can express sexism against women he disagrees with politically but not for others.  It would still be a sexist comment, even if there's a politically-based double standard attached to it.

If the question is whether he's such a raging sexist that he ignores his political allegiances, then I'd say he probably isn't. 

It may not matter to you, but it is relevant in whether of not a person is sexist.  I can see where this comment may be viewed by some as being sexist in nature, but considering Tucker has never liked anything "Clinton", then it's as much about that, their ideology and their liberal politics as some assumption that he discriminates or is prejudiced towards women.....when in fact, through his history of punditry he does not display the same snarkiness towards women he agrees with politically.  That cannot be discounted.

I am not excusing any of what he says, he is responsible for it - but to call him a sexist is an overreaching generalization. 

"It may not matter to you, but it is relevant in whether of not a person is sexist."

But he does have a reason to suppress that sort of comment about certain people.  I just can't imagine if Randi Rhodes made a racist comment about Clarance Thomas that anyone would buy the defense of "well you can't say she's a racist because she doesn't make these sort of comments about Sharpton or Jackson or Obama, etc".  The comment would still be racist at the very least.

"I can see where this comment may be viewed by some as being sexist in nature, but considering Tucker has never liked anything "Clinton", then it's as much about that, their ideology and their liberal politics as some assumption that he discriminates or is prejudiced towards women.....when in fact, through his history of punditry he does not display the same snarkiness towards women he agrees with politically.  That cannot be discounted."

It may be more about the Clintons than the gender, that's true.  But you can say that the comment is sexist (or at least has a sexist tone to it) without saying Carlson is a through-and-through sexist.  Maybe it's something that comes out just for her, and doesn't represent his views of women as a whole.  That is entirely possible.

"I am not excusing any of what he says, he is responsible for it - but to call him a sexist is an overreaching generalization."

I'm just saying the comment itself might be sexist, and it relies heavily on his history.  It's difficult to make the determination, as I said already.

Points noted and well said.

Thanks very much!

Tommy, Tucker Carlson has by his own history shown sexist and to some extent homophobic comments.  This was not the first time he has targeted Hillary Clinton and to use the word "cat" is pure sexist.

Regardless his remarks, Carlson always comes across like the proverbial (but sill closetted) "flaming fag."  From this perspective, he's always true to form and very comfortable with Republicans who talk the talk but swish the walk.

Bingo Irony 101.

 

BTW, there is an interesting article on the Nation website by Katrina VH that I have to wonder if she would have written the same story if the candidate was a man or the situation were reversed with Obama...  

or would she not risk being called a racist?

She also said that the women at the nation are the first to deplore the sexism in the campaign.

Seriously?

Are they doing it in the break room?

LOL 

 

Katrina VH? Dude. I dig Van Halen. David Lee Roth, of course, not Van Hagar.

I'd like to hear me some Katrina Van Halen. Maybe some Katrina and the Waves meets Van Halen.

Walkin on the Devil!...

Hot for Sunshine?

Definitely.

Of all the people whose comments are a big nothing, it would be Tucker Carlson.  You can KNOW how good his opinions are when he all the time talks about the Bush fine qualities.  I find NO good things to talk about when discussing Bush.  If you wonder about that, have a good read of the McClellan book when it is finally printed.  But even so, perhaps I would be tempted to drum up some NICE thing about Bush.  You know he is leaving office soon and that is a great thing.  Far too late to be sure, but still something for a huge nationwide celebration.  Tucker Carlso has no credibility when it comes to judging people.  Obama is the gentleman when he advised folks to stop harassing her.  If you knew of Hillary's  association with the Kennedys while she was in the White House, and before that, her long support of the Kennedys, you would know this came out as a terrible blunder but she is not a cat or a monster etc.   I do not intend to vote for her but this incessant destructive litany of garbage that folks on the right and some of the Obama folks are dishing makes Obama uncomfortable - to his credit.  When you folks get perfect, let me know, and I just might, then, decide your comments have any validity as an opinion.  If I were to hold my breath till that happened to you or me, I would keel over before it happened.  So grow up.

Those looking for some female bashing innuendo in feral cat will find it, no matter what.  I see it as a term for an untamed alley cat, irrespective of gender.  We view it differently.

On a separate matter, do you think Calson's 'Obama is a wuss' comments are irrespective of gender?

Separate matters derail the thread, sorry.

It was not off topic as it pertained to Carlson and his comments in relation to gender.  Nonetheless, I did not expect an answer to the question.

Then you got what you expected, you should be happy.

So did you. You again derailed the thread, as is your habit.

Exactly. That was my first thought: cat = catty = claws out =  vicious =  woman/women.

And there is Mika saying "aptly"

Can we make her apologize?

LOL

 

 

 

Hi Karl,

Lesson 1. Calling Hillary bitch (which no one did by the way) is descriptive, not demeaning like calling someone a monkey. How are things going with your subpoena.

Spot on Tommy. It is certainly a sad spectacle to watch this woman succomb to her own ego in the national spotlight. Her situation would be like Phil Mickelson refusing to believe he made double bogey at Oakmont in 06' and playing the hole over again so he can claim victory. Go home Hillary!!!! We all know you are trying to put yourself on the ticket as a VP candidiate anyway.

BTW, there was an interesting discussion on the "mediamatters" thread from Friday about how YOU are to blame for discouraging more progressives from participating at this site. Of all the nerve Tommy, what makes you think you should be able to voice an opposing opinion here? Also, please let me know what company you are working for.....you know....the one tha pays you to come here and disrupt the discussion board. Too funny :-)

I know Chris, and I am accused of derailing a thread when there are about 40 posts going on about the conservative posters and their worthiness (lol), and I don't believe Mr. Foser even mentioned any of our names in his comments?  No derailment there however.

It was entertaining to read, dripping in its own hysterical irony.

"...hysterical irony" ?

Leave me out of this...   ;>)

Leave me out of this...   ;>)

They were talking about "hysterical irony".  You, OTOH, are the sane, well-adjusted, level-headed irony.  :-)

 

You left out handsome...   ;>)

And modest.....  :-)

Yea, that too...in fact, it's almost my best trait.  ;>)

The hilarity of the posts was nearly too much to handle. How does it feel to know that you are able to pervade others thoughts so much? I mean really, it's not as if the ideas floated on that thread were spontaneous. there are people who put much thought into how you effect them on an emotional scale. You really get under some folks fingernails simply because you have the audacity to be a non participant in a circle jerk of agreement. What it boils down to is that the specific folks in that thread would like to have this site be nothing but a haven where like minded individuals exchange like minded ideas and dissent be damned. Of course if you think differently you are automatically incapable of logical thought or just plain "stoopid". Isn't it funny how some self proclaimed liberals are so incapable of being free from narrowness in ideas or doctrines? The idea of liberalism of which I came of age with is being perverted by some to the level of authoritarianism. A strange sight to behold, indeed.  

"What it boils down to is that the specific folks in that thread would like to have this site be nothing but a haven where like minded individuals exchange like minded ideas and dissent be damned."

Did you read that thread?  All of them expressed a willingness to discuss things with those who disagree.  You're putting words in their mouths where there are none.

I have disagreed with Tommy many times here, but I still respect him as a poster (most of the time ;))  The focus was not solely on Tommy, but on all of the more respected conservative posters who come here.  Mary may not care for Tommy, but Col. doesn't care for AA, and it's all relative anyway.  We respect dissent and as long as you are factually correct and logically sound, your opinion will be welcomed here.

DB,

The focus shouldn't have been on any of us, that is riduculous - talk about cluttering up a thread with derailing nonsense, good points or bad, complimentary or not, what was the point?  Was the thread by Mr. Foser about any of us?  No.

As for derailing threads, yes, I have gotten into silly irrelevant "cat fights" with certain posters and certainly accept my portion of the blame for that, it is tedious and cumbersome to read for sure.  But when a poster attempts to derail a thread and NOBODY responds, then it dies quickly.  So the fault for any thread derailment is as much the respondent's responsibility as the one who "started" it.

Speaking of logically sound and factually correct posts, do you afford the same level of scrutiny to those posters who only come to verbally assault the media person in question with no relevance to the topic except to let off steam and haul out an insult? Those posts are devoid of either of your benchmarks, but are rarely, if ever, questioned.

Thanks for the compliment, even through our disagreements, I respect your opinions and the way you convey them as well, most of the time :) 

I understand your sentiments, but I was only referring to that little bit in Achrispage's post about how they only want one way of thinking.  I agree it was unnecessary, but to me, there aren't really any unnecessary posts.  I try not to subscribe to the "let's stick to the topic please" that some here do, as I feel all opinions and voices have a right to be heard.  Just my MO, not saying anything about anyone else.  I hold this forum as a way to argue and deliberate on the topic at hand, but sometimes there's just not that much more to say, and when you're bored at work, I don't see the harm in going off on another topic.  It happens all the time, and more often than not it's more fun than whatever misinformation MMfA highlights at the time.

And as far as the posters who bash media figures, I have been guilty of that as well (as have you) yet those posts don't put forward any sort of argument, and unless I'm feeling snarky, I usually ignore them for brevity's sake.  I was merely speaking of when posters try to argue a point, rather than just saying "_____ is scum."  If someone is factually wrong or illogical IMO, I will call them out for it and a lively discussion can begin (hopefully.) 

"I’m saying the charming-Right here hunts by poisoning the waters.  They have damaged and continue damaging the ecosystem/environment for optimal progressive commentary and debate on this board.  I believe that absent them, over time, a snowball effect of positive growth would occur naturally as the board became easier to read and people were less inhibited, thereby energizing everyone.  Better and more honest commentary and debate would begin to fill the board which would invite more of the same, and so on.  This would also result in better insights and ideas, and eventually increased readership."

"This board is interactive and by its’ nature dependent on good group dynamics to spark ideas and insights.  As social animals our best thinking comes out of communication with others.  Perhaps this rubs against the grain of some rugged-individualist right-wingers, I don’t know.  Perhaps some need to work up their own courage to come to grips with what they are--- lowly humans dependent on others for their very survival and the full expression of their humanity.

DBEDEN,

Look, you can take the above comments and see them as you will. This was just a small snippet of the ridiculous conversation in which Tommy was called stoopid, narcissistic, and so on. All I'm saying is that those specific people have adopted the notion that an alternative point of view is not needed here but damaging to the site itself. There are folks like you and many others with whom I have agreed and disagreed numerous times with here. They seem to welcome discussions in which an alternative point of view is presented.  My interpretation of that thread stands. The difference between you and them is that you don't cling to locker room gossip about someone else in their absence. I knew you had  a lot of sense when you stood firm in your support of Obama and challanged the disgusting tactics of Hillary in this forum. Should ones overall political persuasion disqualify them from putting forth varying opinions here? Some obviously think so.

 

DB,

I just read the thread from the other day.

I find most of the posts fall into two categories:

1. To express personal views regarding the issues and defending those views. 

2. Flaming.

Sometimes both #1 and #2 happen in the same post.  Many times most of us try to ignore the flames but sometimes get caught up in it. It is my opinion that the threads always are dragged down when posters engage in #2.  

AnotherAmerican you are right on target. If we all engage in #2 , the threads get way out of hand. I have not been posting as much lately but I read as much as I can and I am seeing many engaging in attacks again. 

As far as this issue, this is yet another Tucker Carlson classic just like his gay bashing. Why did MSNBC not go one step further and give him the complete boot ?

Doris,

At last we agree on something! :-) 

ps. Oops. We agree on two things. Carlson's analogy in reference to Hillary is demeaning and misogynistic.  (I never watch Carlson so I don't really know of his past offensives. If they were listed here, I've already forgotten them.) 

We can agree and get along ;-)

I agree.  Being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory is harmful to any discourse here.  That being said I don't believe that any regular poster here is intentionally inflammatory, like say CopiousDissent was intentionally inflammatory, but in the exchange between the lefties and the righties, it does get heated on occasion, which is perfectly fine, as long as we all remember that we should remain civil at the end of the day ;)

DB,

Not to be demeaning or anything, but I think you need glasses. :-)  

Well, some of the more intelligent posters got the gist of the thread about the effect of constant pedantics. It's a bore. And it will chase away more substansive posters if it's out of control, which it has been lately. This forum isn't a tennis match.

I wasn't posting the other day although apparently we get confused with each other (which I find flattering, Julia ;-)

I think that whenever a few people start obsessing about someone else's bad grammar or spelling, or argue whether the thread should be here, it is as entertaining as watching paint dry.

As far as the "conservative/libertarian" vs liberal debate:  I'd welcome some reasoned arguments based upon factual information.  Unfortunately, as was said earlier, a lot of the righties that come here have their facts wrong and insist that a list of their misinformation be addressed.  This isn't what I have in mind as serious debate.

 

Insist it being addressed?  Well, if I have the power to insist on something around here, it has escaped me. Perhaps you can give an example of how anyone insists anything here?

I'll change insist to want, how about?  Just read any thread about global warming or Jimmy Carter and you find cons posting stuff from world nut daily or drudge triumphantly as if their studies and "facts" actually were true.

Sorry Mary, I was going from memory, I would have sworn I saw a post or two of yours from that thread, but I definitely could be mistaken.

Name these "more intelligent posters." The fact is that you sat at your computer and exchanged sophomoric gossip about Tommy, Jeter, AA, Bruce, Wesley, and SUEBOB in some halfwitted attempt at psychoanalysis while ascribing motive to Tommy. And that makes you above the fray....how?

I really wish they (MMFA) wouldn't have closed that thread for comments. It was just getting good. 

Bruce,

I read that thread this morning over my first cup of coffee & laughed my arse off.

Most Dem/Libs I've encountered here in are more than happy to welcome opposing views. That this handwringer Eddy & her motley crew carped on & on about us charming evil doers was actually amusing. And their lament about threads being pulled off-topic by certain Cons was even funnier as they ventured off-topic to discuss this.

File under: Paranoid Moonbats

Hey Jeter, you may have noticed that I did not agree with Eddy calling you charming or better. But I'm glad you laughed your arse off. Always proud to be of service. But your stubborn hardheadedness is not one of your most attractive qualities. And I don't care if you do look like George Clooney (not that I thinks he's good looking anyway) ;-0) Seriously, he doesn't float my boat, I lke a more quirky, non conventional type. A British accent helps some.  

My sweet Julia I was a tad sad that you didn't separate me from Eddy's list of evil doers, but hey I know you love me [most of the time] so I didn't take any of it too personally.

It's always funny to find yourself mentioned in a conversation you're not a part of...

Hardheaded? Moi? I beg to differ...but oh what the heck. If that's worst you can come up with, I'll take it ;-)

Jeter,

I called out your actions (posting while stubborn). I did not insult you personally. I AM glad to insult Tommy anytime. Not because he's special. He's decidedly not special.

But here's the rub. Even if you didn't like the posts, they had validity. And it's really kind of hard to gossip behind someone's back when they can read the thread on a public posting board. You and I have had discussions of posters who weren't there at the time.  

But you have been chaistened. Repent. If you are Catholic, you know you need to ;-). And Tommy is a derailer/post hog. That is a fact. I don't respect that behavior. I do hope some of the better posters come back. At least I learned from them.

Hi, Julia!

This is a post script thankyou for the New Yorker link in what appears to be turning into the infamous "media matters" line of demarcation thread.

Good read.

I first read it from a cut and paste here, http://www.thebigjob.org/ by a poster named sundog (I think it's the same sundog who used to write some good stuff here).

Anyway, I really wanted to say thanks and ask you to check out the big job.org. It's the progeny of Lakoff's former progressive think tank rockridge. It's a collection of rockridge participants taking up the call to carry on the job of framing issues in progressive language.

It may not float your boat but that's alright, I like the fact that the site is the quintessence of grassroots politics.

Jeter , I read that thread also and was glad they closed the comments, I could see it spiraling into WWII. I just do not get the strange behavior of a few to start calling out on people on a holiday weekend with strange accusations about posting under different names, being employed by a firm etc.  Very weird.  

I agree Doris. I'm not sure how it got started [I'd have to go back & peek] but like I just wrote to Julia, it's funny to read a thread you haven't posted on & find there's a conversation going on in which you're mentioned.

I think we're like a big happy [well usually] cyber family here, & just like any family we sometimes squabble.

I did think Eddy was out of line blaming every ill on this forum exclusively on the Cons that post here. Or suggesting this would be a better site if the Cons weren't here. Leaving out the fact that there are a handful of Dem/Lib trolls [like Gov] that are often the instigators of threads gone wild.

Doris you've always been fair & polite even when we don't agree.

You are one of my favorites here :-)

I'm glad to see you posting again. I was wondering where you went.

Thank you Jeter, I feel the same about you ;-) Thank you so much for the kind words.

I have been busy with my Grandkids , but I miss my free time with my laptop, ice tea and cable news stations and my MMFA. I hope to spend more time this summer reading and posting .

 

All of this love and kindness being thrown around makes one wonder if this is real MMFA....or is it a Rovian plot to bring civilty on-line? Say it ain't so.....let the disagreements return to a heated level. Do not let the FORCE take over. Turn back to the DARK SIDE.

Just a thought.....I'm saving this thread for future use, just so you all know.                Cynism and sarcasm don't really fit this line of thinking.

That is correct CYNISM..

They closed all the comments of all the threads from Friday. So what. It wasn't degenerating at all. That's your projection/perception.

The fact is that you sat at your computer and exchanged sophomoric gossip about Tommy, Jeter, AA, Bruce, Wesley, and SUEBOB in some halfwitted attempt at psychoanalysis while ascribing motive to Tommy. And that makes you above the fray....how?

Chris you make a valid point, I read that thread the other day and was floored at some of the charges.  I have been posting for awhile and Tommy, Jeter , AA are long time posters, I have disagreed with them are many issues but they make points and I think they have no motive other than they enjoy this site. To further inflame the board by saying Sueeld is Bob is just plain weird. Just because Sueeld is a strange bird( sorry Sueeld) does not mean she is Bob (who I really do not know). However Sueeld has been here for awhile I started posting in late 04 early 05, and she has positions that we agree and disagree with. To start fanning flames on a holiday weekend was odd. 

Just because Sueeld is a strange bird( sorry Sueeld)

It is ok Doris, I have been called worse on here ;-). I have given up on many posters here, they act all high and mighty with English lessons and try and be cute yet at any chance will turn the focus of the thread from the subject to a particular poster. I forget what thread it was last week but one poster started mentioning me and I was not even involved. I know I post alot , but am I that important? 

Keep fighting the good fight.  Obviously a few posters do not like you, i know some do not like me and will resort to things like saying you are a sockpuppet etc.  My advice is what I have given to others, just ignore it and stick to the topic and be civil.  The ones who are not will eventually leave or get banned. They usually lose tempers and such. 

Thanks ;-)

I was gone for the better part of 2 weeks but looked at some threads. I was really missing a lot I have to say. Sueld was being outed as Bobthep (Bob the pill, primate, perv?) and T and J and G were going at it in a pedantic manner with "what is the meaning of is" type of posts.

Obviously I am not above it all. I insult and trash talk with the best of them. But it gets to a ridiculous tipping point and I was not the only one to take notice. Sorry if that upsets anyone, especially you Crispy who has never had a kind word but has repeatedly made unprovoked attacks on me 'cause you would like it better if I stayed in my place.

No bother. I expected some flack. Carry on.

Oh and to use a Jeterism, I guess this caused you cons to go off your nut :-0) Ha.

 

especially you Crispy who has never had a kind word but has repeatedly made unprovoked attacks on me 'cause you would like it better if I stayed in my place.

You did what you did. If you want to justif that kind of behavior by transferring it and making it about me not being kind to you because I am some kind of sexist then fine. That is almost as strange as insinuating that Tommy works for some kind of firm and gets paid to post here. How do you expect me or anyone to take you serious when all we get is unsubstantiated assertions? Your memory is fading though, I have complemented you on occassion and have apologized to you for being wrong and boneheaded. Bottom line is that I found your diatribe about Tommy to be objectionable, gossipy, and sophomoric at best.

Crispy, I don't usually read your posts. That's because I don't have the time. They are too damn long. And I usually know what to expect. You have rarely surprised me. I am not the first nor will I be the last to say T works for such a firm. That's not off base considering his posting behavior which I do not respect. He is a derailer/post hog. No amount of saying otherwise refutes the daily proof here. He does seem to have contempt for this forum so one wonders why he bothers being here. You don't have the same opinion. But I and others have another opinion. Deal.

Considering you were the gossiper in chief in that thread of drivel, it's not surprising you would swoop here to defend its relevance, perhaps you should examine your own level of boredom or what your "job" is, when you can spend the better part of thread dissing other anonymous posters, when it's clearly transparent what it is that has you so irritated, an opinion that is different from yours.

But one thing we do agree on, our mutual disrespect.......so that's something.

Have a pedantic day...... 

One of the things that disturbs me the most is what really does upset people.  I mean, REALLY upsets people.  Getting upset about people talking on the internet is one thing,  but what about what the government is doing in our name?  You may disagree with our being in Iraq, but does it make you weep? 

When the post is about the post,

then unless we're all myopic

it's proof that we're way off thread

or certainly well off topic! 

-4.25 in both eyes, but I wear contacts ;)

In truth, I'm looking at this from a center-left position, and I can understand where you'd feel more slighted coming from the right persuasion, as there are not as many of the non-inflammatory Righties on here as I believe there should be.  Not anyone's fault really, just how it is.   Though Col and Mary and JJ and the others in that discussion are slightly more liberal than me, I do believe that they welcome open discussion of issues based on facts and analysis.  This coming from past experiences reading many threads on these boards.  They, and I, on occasion stand to be corrected, as does most everyone.  On a side note, could this be considered de-railing the thread? ;)

The problem with that DBEDEN is that none of that discussion was based on one single fact. It was nothing more than a sewing circle gossip session in which the opinions were at the very least peculiar.

That is purely your opinion. The posts had validity in the context in which we were speaking. You just don't agree. That's your problem. Others are concerned, if you aren't then good for you. You don't get to decide how other people should feel. I'd much rather have Solon and Tex back than have one more post from the ubiquitous WITHer Tommy. He's a time waster. That's MY opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Interesting interactions and non-interactions here today Julia.  You seem well immune to the trainers (ignoring fraternization with a certain C-R).  I’m very favorably impressed. 

But Julia, if you don’t mind, let me use this space to address some stuff from other commenters, etc.

I went to the thread in question last night and was disappointed to not be able to make a correction in my last post there.  I meant to say “intentionally superfluous posts”, not “intentional and superfluous posts”.

I’ve expressed at least twice in the past my admiration for the non-Charming Right which posts here like TruthJusticeUs and all those guys.  I like their straightforwardness.

In my first response to BruceAce on that thread I began explaining my theory by saying, “I think part of what’s happened is that…”   I didn’t wish to be taken as trying to explain the decline here as all resulting from this one single dynamic.  I’m aware of the Obama/Clinton election and race based friction.  I also think the dry story selection by MMFA (considering the material available on the radio) plays a part.  But I didn’t want to blunt by point by bringing any other possible factors up.

The decline I refer to is very real to me.  I used very much to enjoy Tex’s, Solon’s and Dan Grady’s posts.  I never got friendly with them—it’s not like that.  But I learned a lot from them.  I used to look forward to seeing a long Tex think-piece or a Solon insight that came out in furious reaction to one of the non-charming rights incredible assertions.  Dan Grady could always be counted on to make me wonder why I didn’t think of that.  Somebody, maybe Dorris, said it seemed in bad form to have this discussion on a Memorial Day weekend.  It was the nature of the holiday which put it into my mind in the first place.  I thought the topic fit the spirit of the holiday.

Before I forget, Julia took a lot of heat today for the thread but she was mainly replying in reaction to my comments and was not entirely in agreement with me either if you read it for yourself.  Obviously there are hard feelings between Julia and Tommy.  I don’t share any personal animosity towards him or any others of the charming Right or for that matter anyone here.  I try to keep it impersonal in my head as much as I can.

I am aware I treaded on Mr. Fosers’ article.  Not that he cares, but my apologies to him.  Guilty as charged there.  I felt strongly about what I had to say.  I’m aware of the incongruity.

I’m no expert but I do know there‘s a growing industry of companies which hirer people who are knowledgeable in various areas to blog about their clients as a form of marketing.  It seems reasonable to me that there are political bloggers for pay out there also.  If you put a gun to my head and said “yes or no”, I’d have to guess that there are GOP paid bloggers on this board.  Sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings---just one person’s guess.  There could also be paid Dem bloggers.  Now that I think of it, I would think one would take that accusation as a compliment, especially if you weren’t one. 

I was pleasantly surprised to see Tommy also decry the “tedious and cumbersome” ”catfights” as this was at the heart of my beef.

Contrary to how some took me, I agree with the following very last post on that thread---without getting into the motivations as I did.

-------------------------------------

 “I very seldom post on this site, but do try to read most of the threads.  I will admit that the tit-for-tat non-sense becomes laborious and I quickly move to another topic.  I feel most of the avid posters do try to stay away from the name calling and stick to the relevancy of the topic.  This site would be quite boring without valid counter-arguments.  However, I still think what is missing is just that; valid counter-arguments.  Instead of weeding through the WITH and word-parsing that goes on; actually post a valid argument countering the topic.  On the otherhand, I think some post simply because they like to see their handle in the threads.  Is there a prize for highest number of posts?”

  - DeminTX / Monday May 26, 2008 1:53:46 PM EDT

LMFAO

PAID BLOGGERS?  Gimme a freakin break man.  I've been reading this site for at least three years since migrating over from David Corn's page and I can assure you that NO ONE here is getting a dry nickel and if they are they aren't earning it.

Tommy has actually come a long way over the years, Christ, he may even vote Obama as long as he doesn't make the foolish error of taking Hillary "It's all about me" Clinton onto the ticket. I hate the WITH nonsense as much as anyone else but to suggest that Tommy is some paid blogger is BS, I mean really, who is he convincing to change sides?  If anything he blunts the impact of the trolls by sucking the wind out of their neocon talking points.  I'm slightly to the left of Michael Moore and I have battled with Tommy many times and have never found him anything but fair and civil.  Some of the cats taking potshots at him right now cannot say the same.

As for Jeter I am perplexed at his recent love affair with the Hillary Clinton he has disparaged for years.  That said I also feel Jeter is a fair and easy going person who usually adds something to the discourse that otherwise might not be there.

The garden variety trolls, Copius, Truth...they are all Jay Severin and clearly not getting paid, most of what they type is transcribed from talk radio with little sense of spelling, grammer or even basic logic.  If they are getting paid then someone is getting robbed, they are not converting anyone here to their views.

Solon, Grady and Tex may be on vacation, they may be otherwise occupied or they may be a little weary of the Neverending Primary, who knows?  I hope to see them back too.  Yes you too Tex.  In the meantime I suggest giving props to the Pearlenes, Roundhouses, Chrispages etc. (my memory is bad at 7am, didn't mean to leave anyone out) who have been fighting the good fight and taking a principled though unpopular stance against the Clinton campaign and it's repugnant tactics.  These posters are not getting paid either but did take a lot of personal abuse from so called friendly posters that were more interested in pants suits than 3 am fear mongering attack ads.  Cheers to you all...friendly cons, trolls, and Lib warriors...those present and those on vacation.

P.S.  I'm totally getting paid

EDENSCAPE:

Vacation AND changing out computers (daunting bringing the new one up to speed). Oh, and YES, weary of the Media having MONTHS with nothing new to report so making stuff up nonstop to fill time in this primary.

But I'm BAAAACK. Missed you guys.

We missed you Tex. Glad your computer is up and running.

Welcome back, Tex!

Thanks for the shout out, Edenscape!

Love ya, Mary59!

You're getting paid?..... as a blogger?....  Nice guesswork regards Tex BTW.