Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 28, 2004.
So why not just come out and say he is a liar? I do it all the time. Call a spade a spade, already!
zim, thanks for the post, although it sickens me as I read it. I hope other media will come to the same conclusion, but I'm afraid that many buy into the Rush Limbaugh view of the world that this is only harmless, frat house hijinks. Murder and Rape as fun and in our name, but it is nobody's fault. My god, I can't wait for November!
Can you say spade? Isn't that a racist reference?
Good for the Post. And for all those who see the Abu Ghraib photos as the sum total of prisoner abuse, this is the tip of the iceberg. How would you be reacting if American soldiers had been detained and killed? Oh wait, you probably were outraged to hear that the Iraqis probably shot a prisoner taken during the initial push to Baghdad! Heck the Army's even conducting a war crimes investigation into the event. I guess American lives are worth more than Iraqi ones, huh?
Or Afghani ones. Guantanamo Bay seems to have fallen off the scope lately.
"to call a spade a spade" is NOT an ethnic slur.
It derives from an ancient Greek expression: _ta syka syka, te:n
skaphe:n de skaphe:n onomasein_ = "to call a fig a fig, a trough a
trough". This is first recorded in Aristophanes' play _The Clouds_
(423 B.C.), was used by Menander and Plutarch, and is still current
in modern Greek. There has been a slight shift in meaning: in
ancient times the phrase was often used pejoratively, to denote a
rude person who spoke his mind tactlessly; but it now, like the
English phrase, has an exclusively positive connotation. It is
possible that both the fig and the trough were originally sexual
Call A Spade A Spade
Speak plainly, don't use euphemisms
This phrase has been traced as far back as ancient Greece. The playwright Menander (approx 342-292 b.c.) is quoted as saying: "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade"
Some people attribute this saying to Aristophanes (approx 450-385 b.c.)
I was just jokin' around, of course. It's my dry Scotch humor. (Or is it humor derived from Scotch?)
Must be the latter, otherwise it would be Scots or Scottish.
From the WaPo:
From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity
Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks
By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A01
It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.
Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."
On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.
Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate . . .
About time one of the major papers called a spade a spade, so to speak.
So do you think the Bush supporters will bother reading this or will they just take what Bush has to say at face value?
Pardon the well worn geek expression but, Don't understimate the powers of the dark side! Not all Bush supporters are necessarily stoopid.
This side of the pond we just hope those particular supporters find better things to do come voting day!
I guess it depends on if we are talk past tense or present tense I wouldn't use "stupid" but I have problems understanding how anyone could support Bush considering what is going on right now.
You've heard it here. Some people actually approve of his actions.
I find that many people find it hard to admit making a mistake.
Why do that when you can just blame it all on the liberal media? I mean, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have to hear about any of this stuff.
Very good point.
Another interesting column by Slyhunter's favorite columnist (not):
Dooh Nibor Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 1, 2004
. . . It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election.
That agenda is to impose Dooh Nibor economics Robin Hood in reverse. The end result of current policies will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent, in which about 80 percent of the population will lose and the bulk of the gains will go to people with incomes of more than $200,000 per year . . .
. . . This year, the average tax reduction per family due to Bush-era cuts was $1,448. But this average reflects huge cuts for a few affluent families, with most families receiving much less (which helps explain why most people, according to polls, don't believe their taxes have been cut). In fact, the 257,000 taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million received a bigger combined tax cut than the 85 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 60 percent of the population.
Still, won't most families gain something? No because the tax cuts must eventually be offset with spending cuts . . .
. . . Does Mr. Bush understand that the end result of his policies will be to make most Americans worse off, while enriching the already affluent? Who knows? But the ideologues and political operatives behind his agenda know exactly what they're doing.
Of course, voters would never support this agenda if they understood it. That's why dishonesty as illustrated by the administration's consistent reliance on phony accounting, and now by the business with the budget cut memo is such a central feature of the White House political strategy.
Right now, it seems that the 2004 election will be a referendum on Mr. Bush's calamitous foreign policy. But something else is at stake: whether he and his party can lock in the unassailable political position they need to proceed with their pro-rich, anti-middle-class economic strategy. And no, I'm not engaging in class warfare. They are.*
While I generally agree with Krugman's diagnoses, I have to say I don't agree with much enthusiasm. His proofs, like all proofs in this kind of debate, are slippery, and for every statistic of the kind he quotes, another contrary statistic can be shot back. The net effect of all this statistical noodling is zero -- the arguments tend to cancel each other out.
I probably don't need to provide any examples, but here's one: How many of the "85 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 60 percent of the population" pay any federal income taxes at all? I sure don't know, but given the nature of big incomes (fact: they are big), you don't have to give upper-income people much of a tax cut at all before you can start quoting statistics like this.
I'm yearning to hear someone talk about tax policy holistically, not in the piecemeal bracket-nudging terminology we hear all the time these days. In fact this just makes the game of feathering the nest of the already well-feathered much easier for their birds of a feather in Congress.