Not much science here. Just a bunch of he said/she said semantic nitpicking--the feel-good lefty equivalent of David Horowitz's "The Art of Political War."

Gomez 26 Aug 2004

oh for fucks sake! yeah, even thoughtful analysis is the wrong way to proceed in the world - liberals should just attack with the stupid, belligerent arrogance of the GOP.
Gomez, what you have in common with most of that list of assholes for Bush is that you're a bully. It's what you value most.

jpeg 26 Aug 2004

I'm a bully? I don't go around calling commentators names when their replies don't jibe with my worldview.

Did I say Lakoff was wrong? No. Did I say he was right? No. I just made the comment that his work does not amount to science but rather a grammar lesson.

If you read the article one can see that his point is that the Republicans have been much better at framing their arguments than the Democrats. His work is a rhetorical blueprint for Democrats on the front line of politics. It's the EXACT same thing that Horowitz's book did back in the 90s for Republicans. That book was to become the basis for Bush's "compassionate conservative" marketing message during 2000. Geesh.

Gomez 26 Aug 2004

'jpeg' is a classic liberal.

He leads with invective (use of the word "fuck" is the universal signal that a liberal is cornered), then argues that conservatives attack with stupid, belligerent arrogance. (Pot, meet the kettle; kettle, meet the pot)

He accuses "Gomez" of being a 'bully' and says (with no substantiation) that Gomez somehow 'values' this, and tosses in the obligatory 'Bush is dumb/evil/puppet/asshole' remark.

Brilliant. Are you a an Oxford fellow?

This is perfect.

I see liberals utterly cracking up at the constant amateur antics of their candidate. It's a beautiful thing.

John Kerry went to war with his 8mm camera and received dubious commendations. He managed to piss off just about everyone he came into contact with and fled (he did not, as he likes to say, serve a tour in 'Nam: he served 4 months. A tour was one year, and yes it matters to those who served)

Kerry came back and began his protest against the war (though he wasn't mad enough to throw his OWN medals back - he might need them someday, like, if he runs for president or something)

John Kerry's false testimony before the Senate - as to war atrocities- is then used to demoralize POWs. You should read their accounts of what was done to them based on Kerry's accounting.

Kerry then serves an unremarkable career in the Senate (19 years- which rated exactly 4 minutes of his 55 minute acceptance speech in Boston)

Now Kerry wants us to vote for him 'based on his record in Viet Nam'

Ha!

See you in November, pal.

Not.

Rich 27 Aug 2004