Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So why wasn't it empty rhetoric when he was saying nice things about Kerry, but is emply rhetoric when he later changes his mind?

I wasn't pointing out that your post was unclear, I am asking whether your logic is clear.

It's empty rhetoric when he isn't saying good things about Kerry. Don't you know that?

Look, the guy is SICK of the Democratic party and what it has turned into. He isn't the only one.

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:

Miller's speech was empty rhetoric designed to attract empty heads.

Perhaps.

I mean, that's why the Dems chose a pompous windbag like John Kerry so I guess the GOP could do it too.

It's hard to say what Millers motivations are. Maybe in his remarks about Kerry he was just toeing the party line, maybe he meant it and is lying now. Really makes no difference to me because I cannot vote for him for anything.

Point is that he struck a chord with me with every single point he made except the religious crap. (I'm an atheist) He pounded home what many people feel and he did it with passion that you don't hear much from politicians anymore.

The lefties are just mad because Miller told the truth about Kerry's voting record onTV in front of EVERYONE.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
The lefties are just mad because Miller told the truth about Kerry's voting record onTV in front of EVERYONE.

Indeed.

chris v · Sep 2, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't think you'll have to worry about that.

I love it when "christians" pass judgement on their fellow men. Isn't your diety the only one who's supposed to do that?

Sorry 'bout the derail. Zell Miller losing it on Hardball was pretty telling, though. WHO's angry??

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
I just got a new pair of shoes for the Rapture.

I heard it's coming on the next plane from Jerusalem

Anyway, I haven't heard Zell's speech yet, but I've seen some of the text. He did seem mischaracterize Kerry's voting record, par for the course I guess.

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Look, the guy is SICK of the Democratic party and what it has turned into. He isn't the only one.

Likewise some Republicans and the Republican party.

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
Zell Miller losing it on Hardball was pretty telling, though. WHO's angry??

What the f*ck is wrong with being angry??

The left wing has been angry and hateful since Gore LOST Florida.

Besides, Matthews was being an outright ass.

MindFad · Sep 2, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
Zell Miller losing it on Hardball was pretty telling, though. WHO's angry??

Yeah, did you see that?

Boy, defense mechanism on overload. It was funny to see him caught in all the tripe he spewed on that stage.

Looked borderline psychotic, I'd say.

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
Sorry 'bout the derail. Zell Miller losing it on Hardball was pretty telling, though. WHO's angry??

Well, both Zell Miller and Chris Matthews are Democrats, so have a guess.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
I love it when "christians" pass judgement on their fellow men. Isn't your diety the only one who's supposed to do that?

Excuse me, I believed you were being funny. So was I.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, both Zell Miller and Chris Matthews are Democrats, so have a guess.

Ahahhah.

KaBlooey · Sep 2, 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's empty rhetoric when he isn't saying good things about Kerry. Don't you know that?
[...]

Look at who Miller is. If you saw him with Chris Matthews later on last night, you might begin to get a sense. He's angry and belligerent to the point of getting physical with someone he disagrees with or perceives as a threat. It really amuses me that some of you take him (and Ahnold) seriously. Ahnold was a sideshow and Miller was a freakshow.

First Miller praises Kerry in a 2001 speech and last night he lambastes him. If Kerry did the same thing, some of you would be screaming like girlymen about his flip-flopping.

Why not hold Miller to the same standard? Because it's not convenient to do so at the moment.

KaBlooey · Sep 2, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
What the f*ck is wrong with being angry??

The left wing has been angry and hateful since Gore LOST Florida.

Besides, Matthews was being an outright ass.

Granted, Matthews was talking over Miller as he always does with his guests. But the fireworks started when Miller misunderstood a question Matthews asked. From there, Miller took offense at everything and apparently perceived he was being attacked by Matthews, which he wasn't.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Look at who Miller is. If you saw him with Chris Matthews later on last night, you might begin to get a sense. He's angry and belligerent to the point of getting physical with someone he disagrees with or perceives as a threat.

You mean like most people when they are angry? Do you know what he is angry about? He is angry that the liberals have taken over the party he dearly loved. I'd be upset too.

It really amuses me that some of you take him (and Ahnold) seriously. Ahnold was a sideshow and Miller was a freakshow.

If that makes you feel better by saying that. Go right ahead.

First Miller praises Kerry in a 2001 speech and last night he lambastes him. If Kerry did the same thing, some of you would be screaming like girlymen about his flip-flopping.

Why not hold Miller to the same standard? Because it's not convenient to do so at the moment.

Miller isn't running for President. Miller Was talking about SPECIFIC things about Kerry.

Miller also SLAMMED Bush Sr in 1992.

Now that he has seen where things are going, and Kerry's TRUE nature, he feels differently.

For example. Back in 92 I was for Clinton. But he fooled me. In 96 I was not.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Granted, Matthews was talking over Miller as he always does with his guests. But the fireworks started when Miller misunderstood a question Matthews asked. From there, Miller took offense at everything and apparently perceived he was being attacked by Matthews, which he wasn't.

One sided painted pic. I saw it. They BOTH were being asses.

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Granted, Matthews was talking over Miller as he always does with his guests. But the fireworks started when Miller misunderstood a question Matthews asked. From there, Miller took offense at everything and apparently perceived he was being attacked by Matthews, which he wasn't.

"Do you really believe that John Kerry want to fight wars with spitballs?" or some such question. That was just ignorant. He wasn't just talking over him, he was being a prick.

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
He's angry and belligerent to the point of getting physical with someone he disagrees with or perceives as a threat.

Sounds like Al Franken.

chris v · Sep 2, 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, both Zell Miller and Chris Matthews are Democrats, so have a guess.

This is why Zell Miller has been trotted out as the Republican attack dog. He can stand up there and say all the things that a Republican can't say (but wish they could) without charges of foaming at the mouth, and when anyone remarks "Wow, why so angry, fellas?" they can answer back, "Whaddya mean? he's angry because he's a Democrat, and the Democrats are all foaming-at-the-mouth angry people."

Perfect.

KaBlooey · Sep 2, 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
"Do you really believe that John Kerry want to fight wars with spitballs?" or some such question. That was just ignorant. He wasn't just talking over him, he was being a prick.

No. I don't recall the exact question, but it was something like "how would you feel if conservatives said they weren't going to feed the children..." Miller thought Matthews was accusing HIM of not feeding the children (or whatever it was)...

chris v · Sep 2, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
What the f*ck is wrong with being angry??

The left wing has been angry and hateful since Gore LOST Florida.

Besides, Matthews was being an outright ass.

So, if Miller was justified, how do you feel about THK telling a reporter to "shove it?" Was that a-ok, or is she a screeching b!tch because she's a Democrat?

chris v · Sep 2, 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Excuse me, I believed you were being funny. So was I.

No offense taken, Zimmy. I just like waving my poking stick at you

because it's good clean fun.

Besides, I assumed that you were passing judgment against Falwell and co, anyway. you know, Eye of the Needle, and all that.

(I know I know, never assume...)

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
So, if Miller was justified, how do you feel about THK telling a reporter to "shove it?" Was that a-ok, or is she a screeching b!tch because she's a Democrat?

What a stupid question. I can't believe that story even made the news.

KaBlooey · Sep 2, 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Now that he has seen where things are going, and Kerry's TRUE nature, he feels differently.

And Kerry saw "where things were going" with Iraq and saw Bush's "TRUE nature" and now he "feels differently".

Yes, I can do that too, just change the names.

The republicans have a smart gambit going on...just keep repeating the same empty rhetoric over and over and some people lap it up. "kerry's a flip-flopper". Well, if they keep saying it, it MUST be true. Kerry has changed his mind many times about many things and so has Bush. Personally, I would rather vote for someone who reflects on their decisions and change if need be rather than pursuing a stubborn, reckless, arrogant course.

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Personally, I would rather vote for someone who reflects on their decisions and change if need be rather than pursuing a stubborn, reckless, arrogant course.

. . . unless, of course, that person who changes his mind is named Zell Miller.

chris v · Sep 2, 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
What a stupid question. I can't believe that story even made the news.

Well, it sure got trotted out around here by the conservatives as proof that Dems were angry people.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
No offense taken, Zimmy. I just like waving my poking stick at you because it's good clean fun.

Then we have no problem.

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 02:23 PM

Miller can change his mind, and I don't see why I should give a crap. Am I supposed to believe he's some kind of star just because the Republicans trotted him out? To me it just highlights the hypocrisy of calling Kerry a flip-flopper.

deedar · Sep 2, 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He is angry that the liberals have taken over the party he dearly loved. I'd be upset too.

Barf. In reality, conservatives have taken over the democratic party. He's just pissed because they aren't dixiecrats.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
And Kerry saw "where things were going" with Iraq and saw Bush's "TRUE nature" and now he "feels differently".

Yes, I can do that too, just change the names.

Kerry has flip flopped what 3 times on it?

There is a big difference between flip flopping about a person's agenda, and flip flopping on serious political issues.

Esp when it shows Kerry only flopped when the polls told him to.

It's not that people are claiming Kerry has just changed his mind alot. There is nothing wrong with that.

People are complaining that Kerry has changed his mind a lot when the Polls change.

When he sees America is for something, he is for it. He he sees they are against something HE is against it. He doesn't have a stance. He is just trying to be "popular"

While Bush has changed his mind, he USUALLY doesn't let opinions of others effect that. For example the war on IRaq was not a popular idea at the time. Bush felt it was needed anyhow. And STOOD BY THAT.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by deedar:
Barf. In reality, conservatives have taken over the democratic party.

It's the liberals that have taken it over. The Democratic party was once a bit more conservative than it used to be.

I would be a Democrat 40 years ago. Today I am somewhere in the middle.

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
When he sees America is for something, he is for it. He he sees they are against something HE is against it. He doesn't have a stance. He is just trying to be "popular."

While Bush has changed his mind, he USUALLY doesn't let opinions of others effect that. For example the war on IRaq was not a popular idea at the time. Bush felt it was needed anyhow. And STOOD BY THAT.

As I recall, most Americans were still in favor of the war in Iraq when he voted against Bush's spending bill. Don't let that stop you, though. It's a value judgement overall -- I would say that Kerry does probably watch polls more than I'd like him too, I'd also say that Bush is stubborn more than I'd like him to be. To me, the former case is the lesser of two evils, you obviously prefer the latter.

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
Am I supposed to believe he's some kind of star just because the Republicans trotted him out?

He could have been anyone as far as I'm concerned, it was the speech and the fire behind it that has people excited.

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
He could have been anyone as far as I'm concerned, it was the speech and the fire behind it that has people excited.

Exactly. And it's just not the Right that felt that fire obviously.

Some feel it right under their own butts.

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Exactly. And it's just not the Right that felt that fire obviously.

Some feel it right under their own butts.

If that weren't true they wouldn't be all over the place whining about it!

PacHead · Sep 2, 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:

If that weren't true they wouldn't be all over the place whining about it!

Zell gave them hell ! His speech was angry, stinging, devestating and worst of all for the dems - - - It was the truth !

I can't wait to post JPGS of Michael Mooreon making the "Loser" sign with his hands, when the campaign he contributed to bringing down finally does lose for real.

KaBlooey · Sep 2, 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People are complaining that Kerry has changed his mind a lot when the Polls change.

When he sees America is for something, he is for it. He he sees they are against something HE is against it. He doesn't have a stance. He is just trying to be "popular"

While Bush has changed his mind, he USUALLY doesn't let opinions of others effect that. For example the war on IRaq was not a popular idea at the time. Bush felt it was needed anyhow. And STOOD BY THAT.

And Bush HASN'T changed his mind in response to polls or public pressure? First he was against the 9/11 probe, then he was for it. First he said he would not testify, then said he would (with Cheney holding his hand, for one hour only). Said Rice would not testify, then again bowed to pressure. Was against Homeland Security dept., then was for it when it was perceived as the popular thing to do.

For example the war on IRaq was not a popular idea at the time. Bush felt it was needed anyhow. And STOOD BY THAT.

Uh, yeah...I know he stood by that. You see that as something noble and I don't. How noble is it to "stand by" something when the course of action you are standing by is reckless and arrogant?

Do you think Bush has made the US/world a "safer place"? Or has the world become a more dangerous place...but hey, that's the cost of doing business? Most of us would like to see bin laden's head on the end of a stick, but there are many of us who understand that Saddam had NOTHING to do with that. It is the wrong war at the wrong time and it will cost us dearly in the long run. This is not being soft on "terror", it's pointing out that there is not an iota of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, yet 50% of Fox News viewers still believe he was involved. Don't you think that's sick? Where did they get that idea....could it be....SATAN? No, it was Bush/Cheney.

I'm getting seriously off-topic, but I guess it led here. I need to do errands; I'll check back later.

smacintush · Sep 2, 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Do you think Bush has made the US/world a "safer place"? Or has the world become a more dangerous place...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040829_1690.html

Zimphire · Sep 2, 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
And Bush HASN'T changed his mind in response to polls or public pressure?

Please show me where I have said that. I said USUALLY.

First he was against the 9/11 probe, then he was for it.

Can you prove that public pressure made him change his mind?

First he said he would not testify, then said he would (with Cheney holding his hand, for one hour only). Said Rice would not testify, then again bowed to pressure.

That was him caving into pressure from the DEMOCRATS. BTW that above again isn't the same.

Was against Homeland Security dept., then was for it when it was perceived as the popular thing to do.

When was Homeland Security ever popular?

Do you think Bush has made the US/world a "safer place"? Or has the world become a more dangerous place...

Bush isn't the President of the World. I think he has made the US a safer place.

but hey, that's the cost of doing business? Most of us would like to see bin laden's head on the end of a stick, but there are many of us who understand that Saddam had NOTHING to do with that. It is the wrong war at the wrong time and it will cost us dearly in the long run. This is not being soft on "terror", it's pointing out that there is not an iota of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11,

This tired old argument again. I don't think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 either. And let me repeat this for the 100th time for those who still haven't got it. Or refuse to.

THIS WASN'T JUST A WAR ON 9/11. THIS WAS A WAR ON ALL TERRORISTS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEM.

Got it? Somehow I am betting I'll see he same tired argument coming from you again in here for some reason.

yet 50% of Fox News viewers still believe he was involved. Don't you think that's sick? Where did they get that idea....could it be....SATAN? No, it was Bush/Cheney.

Can you show me where they specifically said that? I bet you can't.

From now on when a lefty makes comments about how we shouldn't have went after Saddam because he had no part in 9/11 I am just going to point and laugh.

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, both Zell Miller and Chris Matthews are Democrats, so have a guess.

I thought his performance on the CNN interview was bad enough. But give me a break, Miller challenged Matthews to a duel!

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I thought his performance on the CNN interview was bad enough. But give me a break, Miller challenged Matthews to a duel!

So a Democrat lost his temper, as opposed to the other choice: a Democrat lost his temper. Either way . . .

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So a Democrat lost his temper, as opposed to the other choice: a Democrat lost his temper. Either way . . .

. . . you'd like to have your cake and eat it too? Unfortunately I didn't see Hardball, so I don't how Matthews behaved.

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
. . . you'd like to have your cake and eat it too? Unfortunately I didn't see Hardball, so I don't how Matthews behaved.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether Matthews lost his temper, or Miller did, or they both did. The only people involved were Democrats. Miller is an elected Democrat, and Matthews is a former staffer to Tip O'Neill. That fight was an intra-party spat.

BoomStick · Sep 2, 2004, 03:31 PM

I guess Gore's screaming incoherrantly was poetry?

heh

Zell shows dissent because his party circling the commode so he's criticized for it. They don't take it as a wakeup call.

Liberals flip flop like a grounded fish.

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether Matthews lost his temper, or Miller did, or they both did. The only people involved were Democrats. Miller is an elected Democrat, and Matthews is a former staffer to Tip O'Neill. That fight was an intra-party spat.

I think I just don't consider Zell Miller a Democrat.

davesimondotcom · Sep 2, 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I think I just don't consider Zell Miller a Democrat.

So much for a Big Tent.

deedar · Sep 2, 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

It's the liberals that have taken it over. The Democratic party was once a bit more conservative than it used to be.

I would be a Democrat 40 years ago. Today I am somewhere in the middle. [/B]

Is english your second language?

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
So much for a Big Tent.

Is our tent supposed to include Republicans? Miller is a Democrat in name only, he's for all intents and purposes a Republican now.

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I think I just don't consider Zell Miller a Democrat.

That makes as much sense and is as tolerant as some Republicans who don't consider the Log Cabin Republicans to be Republicans, or who don't consider other Republican dissidents like McCain to be Republicans.

They insultingly call those people RINOs -- Republican in Name Only. I guess you would call Miller a DINO -- Democrat in Name Only. Either way, it is an intolerant attitude and politically dumb. Neither party can command a majority by alienating people with different views. You have to reach out and build coalitions.

itai195 · Sep 2, 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They insultingly call those people RINOs -- Republican in Name Only. I guess you would call Miller a DINO -- Democrat in Name Only. Either way, it is an intolerant attitude and politically dumb. Neither party can command a majority by alienating people with different views. You have to reach out and build coalitions.

I understand that, but what kind of Democrat co-sponsors Bush's tax bill in the Senate and votes with Bush on virtually every bill that comes through the Senate for the last 2-3 years? The Log Cabin Republicans disagree with the Republicans on one policy, Zell Miller hasn't demonstrated any agreement with the Democrats in years. Inclusiveness only goes so far.

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 2, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I understand that, but what kind of Democrat co-sponsors Bush's tax bill in the Senate and votes with Bush on virtually every bill that comes through the Senate for the last 2-3 years? The Log Cabin Republicans disagree with the Republicans on one policy, Zell Miller hasn't demonstrated any agreement with the Democrats in years.

That is the same complaint that social conservatives level at people like McCain. Zealous persuit of ideological purity is a surefire way to permanent minority status. But be my guest if you want to alienate voters in that way.