Bush addresses the nation on the economy and the stock market tanks. Irony

[sdnativeson]

Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.

Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.

fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.

The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.

[speedingpullet]

I’m with Keith Olbermann on the Prez – every single thing he’s assured us is true has turned out to be false.

So, no suprise then, a couple of days after he pronounced “The American economy is the envy of the world”, everything went to hell in a handbasket.
Complete and utter irony.

[speedingpullet]

I’m with Keith Olbermann on the Prez – every single thing he’s assured us is true has turned out to be false.

So, no suprise then, a couple of days after he pronounced “The American economy is the envy of the world”, everything went to hell in a handbasket.
Complete and utter irony.

[speedingpullet]

I’m with Keith Olbermann on the Prez – every single thing he’s assured us is true has turned out to be false.

So, no suprise then, a couple of days after he pronounced “The American economy is the envy of the world”, everything went to hell in a handbasket.
Complete and utter irony.

[Arraya]

“Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.
Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.
fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.
The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.”

Thinking that the Bush administration is a complete, utter disgrace and simultaneously appreciating Clinton and Gore does not equal political bigotry.

Also does not sycophantic imply that someone is seeking to win favor from the person that they are flattering? Like someone is sycophantic towards their boss. How would that be possible with Clinton/Gore?

[Arraya]

“Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.
Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.
fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.
The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.”

Thinking that the Bush administration is a complete, utter disgrace and simultaneously appreciating Clinton and Gore does not equal political bigotry.

Also does not sycophantic imply that someone is seeking to win favor from the person that they are flattering? Like someone is sycophantic towards their boss. How would that be possible with Clinton/Gore?

[Arraya]

“Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.
Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.
fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.
The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.”

Thinking that the Bush administration is a complete, utter disgrace and simultaneously appreciating Clinton and Gore does not equal political bigotry.

Also does not sycophantic imply that someone is seeking to win favor from the person that they are flattering? Like someone is sycophantic towards their boss. How would that be possible with Clinton/Gore?

[sdnativeson]

I think it does arraya, IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism.

As I said to Alex if you’re going to bash Bush, be relevant, and (unsaid) get your facts straight and verified. Dealing in generalizations is what a lazy person does or a person who knows that the specifics or details call their opinions into question which they don’t want,or a stupid person or, a bigoted person take your pick.

The mentality exhibited by many here is that ” the coin has only one side”. To exercise (or attempt) critical thought you have to look at the other side and even the edges (and absorb information that you find personally distasteful)to get as much information as possible to then form an opinion/theory. I won’t go into trying to be objective about it.

I stand corrected (I should have qualified the context I intended to use from the term) upon my choice of words with the term “sycophantic”. I could have been more precise in my wording. My intent was to convey some of the attributes listed below, (condensed from Mirram Webster). I feel however than beyond the “literal” definition the action behind the word is accurate

synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker . LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one’s own advantage. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger.

[sdnativeson]

I think it does arraya, IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism.

As I said to Alex if you’re going to bash Bush, be relevant, and (unsaid) get your facts straight and verified. Dealing in generalizations is what a lazy person does or a person who knows that the specifics or details call their opinions into question which they don’t want,or a stupid person or, a bigoted person take your pick.

The mentality exhibited by many here is that ” the coin has only one side”. To exercise (or attempt) critical thought you have to look at the other side and even the edges (and absorb information that you find personally distasteful)to get as much information as possible to then form an opinion/theory. I won’t go into trying to be objective about it.

I stand corrected (I should have qualified the context I intended to use from the term) upon my choice of words with the term “sycophantic”. I could have been more precise in my wording. My intent was to convey some of the attributes listed below, (condensed from Mirram Webster). I feel however than beyond the “literal” definition the action behind the word is accurate

synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker . LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one’s own advantage. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger.

[sdnativeson]

I think it does arraya, IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism.

As I said to Alex if you’re going to bash Bush, be relevant, and (unsaid) get your facts straight and verified. Dealing in generalizations is what a lazy person does or a person who knows that the specifics or details call their opinions into question which they don’t want,or a stupid person or, a bigoted person take your pick.

The mentality exhibited by many here is that ” the coin has only one side”. To exercise (or attempt) critical thought you have to look at the other side and even the edges (and absorb information that you find personally distasteful)to get as much information as possible to then form an opinion/theory. I won’t go into trying to be objective about it.

I stand corrected (I should have qualified the context I intended to use from the term) upon my choice of words with the term “sycophantic”. I could have been more precise in my wording. My intent was to convey some of the attributes listed below, (condensed from Mirram Webster). I feel however than beyond the “literal” definition the action behind the word is accurate

synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker . LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one’s own advantage. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger.

[CostaMesa]

(Quote = “sdnativeson”: If you need to bad mouth Bush just do it and try to do it in a relevant manner. /Quote)

(Quote – “sdnativeson”: IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism. /Quote)

Nice…

Typical talk-radio-conservative crap. Slam others for precisely what you’re doing – insist that they’re the ones with the problem as a way to distract attention from your own activities.

Example: The phrase “Leftwing Media Bias” Conservatives seem to believe that any information that runs contrary to their talking points is inherently biased. Well, duh!

I have a saying that many years of engineering work has taught me. “There are glass-half-full people and glass-half-empty people. Some of these people will argue about who’s more correct. The only correct answer to that question is BOTH. Anyone arguing that their tiny part of the big picture is an adequate explanation for the entire picture is almost always already fooled and is trying to convince others to share in their foolishness.”

I don’t suggest that anyone has all the answers, and don’t see where I’ve put words in anyone else’s mouth to that effect. SDN, can you please have the common decently not to put those words in my mouth, or anyone else’s for that matter?

[CostaMesa]

(Quote = “sdnativeson”: If you need to bad mouth Bush just do it and try to do it in a relevant manner. /Quote)

(Quote – “sdnativeson”: IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism. /Quote)

Nice…

Typical talk-radio-conservative crap. Slam others for precisely what you’re doing – insist that they’re the ones with the problem as a way to distract attention from your own activities.

Example: The phrase “Leftwing Media Bias” Conservatives seem to believe that any information that runs contrary to their talking points is inherently biased. Well, duh!

I have a saying that many years of engineering work has taught me. “There are glass-half-full people and glass-half-empty people. Some of these people will argue about who’s more correct. The only correct answer to that question is BOTH. Anyone arguing that their tiny part of the big picture is an adequate explanation for the entire picture is almost always already fooled and is trying to convince others to share in their foolishness.”

I don’t suggest that anyone has all the answers, and don’t see where I’ve put words in anyone else’s mouth to that effect. SDN, can you please have the common decently not to put those words in my mouth, or anyone else’s for that matter?

[CostaMesa]

(Quote = “sdnativeson”: If you need to bad mouth Bush just do it and try to do it in a relevant manner. /Quote)

(Quote – “sdnativeson”: IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism. /Quote)

Nice…

Typical talk-radio-conservative crap. Slam others for precisely what you’re doing – insist that they’re the ones with the problem as a way to distract attention from your own activities.

Example: The phrase “Leftwing Media Bias” Conservatives seem to believe that any information that runs contrary to their talking points is inherently biased. Well, duh!

I have a saying that many years of engineering work has taught me. “There are glass-half-full people and glass-half-empty people. Some of these people will argue about who’s more correct. The only correct answer to that question is BOTH. Anyone arguing that their tiny part of the big picture is an adequate explanation for the entire picture is almost always already fooled and is trying to convince others to share in their foolishness.”

I don’t suggest that anyone has all the answers, and don’t see where I’ve put words in anyone else’s mouth to that effect. SDN, can you please have the common decently not to put those words in my mouth, or anyone else’s for that matter?

[sdnativeson]

The only thing typical CostaMesa is your response. It’s typical of someone who hates being questioned.
I expressed neither preference nor affilitation toward any type of political/social group, party, organization. But you start tossing out labels when there isn’t really anywhere to be tossing them.

I suggested early on that you know how things work (the context was the structure and responsibilites of the various branches of the federal government) before you start making statements (adds validity to your position not necessarily a bad thing is it?).
I then stated that unless you seek information from another perspective (the other side of the coin or edges and giving the concession of forgoing objectivity) that the your reasoning and therefore any conclusion is faulty.

Why does that threaten you?

That is “slamming” someone? If you think this is “slamming” someone then you must live a very sheltered life. Your response actually adds validity to the point I was pursuing.

[sdnativeson]

The only thing typical CostaMesa is your response. It’s typical of someone who hates being questioned.
I expressed neither preference nor affilitation toward any type of political/social group, party, organization. But you start tossing out labels when there isn’t really anywhere to be tossing them.

I suggested early on that you know how things work (the context was the structure and responsibilites of the various branches of the federal government) before you start making statements (adds validity to your position not necessarily a bad thing is it?).
I then stated that unless you seek information from another perspective (the other side of the coin or edges and giving the concession of forgoing objectivity) that the your reasoning and therefore any conclusion is faulty.

Why does that threaten you?

That is “slamming” someone? If you think this is “slamming” someone then you must live a very sheltered life. Your response actually adds validity to the point I was pursuing.

[Author]

Posts