And by none other than SKBubba, founder of the RTB!
What could he possibly have objected to?
All I did was the same thing he says he does, point out the distortions, misdirections and lies the other side uses to try and sell their side to the most people possible. Isn't that part of what blogging is all about?
Apparently, it's OK for him to call all conservatives either manipulative liars or ignorant fools, but it's not OK for me to point out the liberties he's taken with the truth, or inconsistencies in his own behavior.
The part that saddens me is I really enjoyed Bubba's company the few times we got together; he's intelligent, articulate, passionate, and funny. But he's changed over the past couple of years, and the guy I knew seems to have disappeared behind a wall of anger and hate.
The de-linking part is nothing; what bugs me is the pattern behind it. If we all listen only to the voices we agree with, if none of us seek out new perspectives, then none of us learn anything new. Even worse, we deepen an already too deep chasm in our national character, a chasm once bridged by force, and at the cost of too many American lives in the deadliest war ever fought by Americans.
I know, I know; It's quite a stretch from de-linking a guy who pisses you off to another Civil War, but the similarities are there.
For my part, I'll keep criticizing John Kerry, based on his own words and actions, and I'll continue to question the philosophical and logical underpinnings of liberalism, as I am convinced there are serious flaws there. Any of you who disagree are encouraged to do so. I'll answer your comments in the same manner they are left. Attack me and I'll either return fire, or ignore you, depending on how my day went. Challenge me with a sound argument, and I'll counter with another, or delve deeper to find the root difference in our world pictures. In either case, I'm not interested in running an echo chamber, but in establishing a dialogue.
Reasonable people cannot allow unreasonable people to frame the debate; that way lies irrational hatred.
Posted by Rich at April 3, 2004 6:10 PM | TrackBackYeah, and he got all over me for delinking RushLimbaugtomy, but that was after he'd closed up his blog.
Posted by: Barry on April 4, 2004 10:56 PMIt is a shame because you both seem to have similar writing techniques. Although, they are from totally different perspectives. However, attacking bubba for changing seems a bit unfair. You both used to be a bit more of centrists when first starting out your blogs. Now you both have taken totally different directions. You seem to be more and more focused on attacking democrats and everything they are about. Bubba is the same way about republicans. What did you think would happen when you both are attacking idealogies that are important to the other? What ever happened to blogging both sides of the issues? I now have to read both your blogs to get both spins on the issues. Then I take what I have read and find some sort of middle ground. I wouldn't count either of your blogs to the point of being liberal or conservative propoganda yet, but they are getting damn close. How about we become a little less focused on attacking the other and become a little more focused on the important issues at hand?
Old people these days...No wonder why us kids are going crazy!(joke for those who dont notice)
Posted by: Isaac on April 4, 2004 11:18 PMOh, I appologize if I came off a little angry. I just don't want to see a pissing contest start up.
Posted by: Isaac on April 4, 2004 11:20 PMIt is a shame because you both seem to have similar writing techniques.
I beg to differ. While we both do use sarcasm, I do believe there is a qualitative difference between what we write, and that, simply put, is honesty.
Where I've called SKB out is when he distorts the truth, or leaves out pertinent information in order to advance his argument.
Another key difference: I welcome a contrary opinion, particularly if it's accompanied by facts, and even more so if those facts are some I was unaware of. It's how I grow.
But, I understand your worries about a pissing contest (BTW, where did a son of mind learn such language? Is that what they're teaching you up in that Yankee school?), and you don't need to worry. I'm not going to start a crusade against SKB; in fact, the only reason I brought the matter up is it provided a nice frame for my observations regarding the similarities between now and, say, 1855-1860.
But, just for the sake of argument, consider a scenario where you get a strong left POV from Bubba, and a centrist POV from me. Wouldn't any compromise then be skewed to the left? If my interest is maintaining a strong center, shouldn't I lean to the right to counter that skew?
And for that crack about "old people," I just may force you to listen to my music all the way back from Massachusetts! And not the good stuff either; I'm talking "Terry Jacks," "Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods," "Henry Gross," and (shudder) "Starland Vocal Band."
That'll teach you some respect!
Posted by: rich on April 5, 2004 12:11 AMHa! I wasn't being disrespectful at all and I don't think the psychological torture of that music will have the desired effects.
Anyway, personally I wouldn't consider your writing as centrist as you would seem to believe... Now this is just from my point of view but your writing does lean to the right quite a bit. No wrong there but it just isn't centrist.
Now the following is just for the sake of arguement and an attempt to point the spotlight at a desired location. I can't seem to recall you ever writing any criticism for what Bush's shortcomings and lately it has all been criticism of Kerry. You may like Bush and the things he does, but a centrist point of view will also point out the flaws in some of the things he has done.
Anyway, I need to go to bed and we can argue about this more tomorrow if you want...
Posted by: Isaac on April 5, 2004 12:44 AMShow me where I clam to be centrist?
I don't and never have. I just claim to be honest.
As for criticism of Bush, search the site for the Patriot act, or gay marrige, two examples where I disagreed with the President.
And in general, check out where I stood on Trent Lott.
Yes, recently, I've been down on Kerry, mainly because I think he's a horrible choice for President. Had the dems gone with a saner choice, like Lieberman, I wouldn't be doing nearly this amount of political writing.
Posted by: rich on April 5, 2004 1:14 PMLieberman's endless moralizing about every single game I like to play is proof enough that he's a Republican in Dem's clothing, sorry. He's like Jewish Falwell Junior.
Posted by: scarshapedstar on April 6, 2004 1:30 PMWhat games did Lierberman "moralize" about? And don't we want a moral president/ Would you rather have an immoral one? Does being moral necessarily make you a fundamentalist far right winger?
Oh, and Rich - judging from Bubba's response to your response to Bubba's delinking - he sees personal attacks like someone with the DT's sees bugs...
Posted by: Barry on April 6, 2004 1:58 PMLieberman does have a point about our culture of violence, which resembles the decadent last days of Rome to me, but that's a relatively minor position in my book. He's strong on defense, strong on US sovereignty, fiscally responsible and socially liberal.
That's the kind of Democrat I could support. There are many issues on which I disagree with him, just as there are many on which I disagree with President Bush, but as a compromise candidate, he's not bad at all.
Unfortunately, our primary system virtually guarantees that the candidates will be chosen by the activists in the party, rather than the centrists, so he was doomed from the beginning.
Posted by: rich on April 6, 2004 2:26 PMHa ha, Bubba's link in his thing about delinking you actually got me to drop by here for the first time. Given that, I have no basis on which to judge your claims about honesty and factualness. But maybe I'll check back from time to time to see.
As for all you Republican/conservative types who keep going on about how you might vote for a Democrat like Lieberman -- hey, I might vote Republican if they'd nominate something like, uh, an Olympia Snowe/Lincoln Chafee ticket. Capiche?
As for this -- "don't we want a moral president?" -- I believe the complaint about Lieberman was "moralizing," not moral. Surely we all know that the former does not necessarily mean the latter.
And as for this -- "Does being moral necessarily make you a fundamentalist far right winger?" -- certainly not. Nor does being a fundamentalist far right winger necessarily make you moral. Believe it or not, most of my friends and family are liberals who somehow manage to not lie, steal, cheat, kill, covet each other's assets (or asses), raise their children in loving families and help little old ladies across the street. The pretense that any point on the political spectrum has some sort of monopoly on personal morality is as specious as it is offensive.
"The pretense that any point on the political spectrum has some sort of monopoly on personal morality is as specious as it is offensive."
Agreed, but I'm certain that's not what Barry was trying to say. He made the leap from "moralizing" to "moral", then posed the question.
As for the rest of your comment, it's obvious that in a sane world, most folks will vote for the guy who aligns closest with their personal beliefs, and I believe that accurately describes you and me both. However, there are some folks who vote the party line, regardless of the individual merits of the candidate.
For example, during the primaries, Howard Dean roasted John Kerry over the hottest coals he could find, yet now, vocally supports him. While there is certainly a pragmatic element to his flip-flop, it leads to real problems for the voters.
As I mentioned earlier, in the general election, we are left with candidates chosen largely by party loyalists, and wind up voting, not for our candidate, but for the lesser of two evils. In the 2000 election, I did not like Bush as a candidate and did not vote for him in the primaries. But come November, it was Bush or Gore, and my vote was more against Gore than for Bush. Had Lieberman been leading the ticket, maybe I would have voted differently. As a further example, barring any major changes, I fully plan on voting for Bredesen as governor of Tennessee, even though he's a democrat. He's done an outstanding job so far, and deserves another term.
Anyway, thanks for reading, and I hope you come back often to lend a liberal perspective to my occasional rants
Posted by: rich on April 6, 2004 5:17 PMBubba apparently blocked me from visiting his site - I've been getting a "forbidden" message for weeks now. I check it once a day just to see if I'm still Banned by Bubba but the reality is my life is better for not wasting time reading and responding to his very average drivel. And the less I read him and waste time commenting and responding to comments from his wacko commenters, the more I have to write good stuff for my intelligent readers. Readers who prefer facts, logic, and temperate langauge over the foul-mouthed jerks that infest that Kos wannabe's crappy site.
There are smart liberal bloggers, like Michael Totten and Roger L. Simon. And then there are jerks and dumbasses. I took Bubba's link down from my site a long time ago. I refer my readers to sites worth reading and felt guilty wasting their time.