Bill Frist Continues to Subvert the American Way!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
If that's true...you need to read the story behind the story. You didn't get it!

He was all about Freedom.

Eerily true today as it was then...
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/ess...okingback1.htm

Jesus! I am not reading all that again! Orwell is an interesting dude fraught with little ironies. He was a democratic socialist. Yet...

But I read that he wrote 'Animal Farm' because he was wounded after being shot in the throat while fighting with a unit of Russian 'Trotskyists' (represented by Snowball the pig). An oversimplification, but you get the idea.

When he returned to this unit, most of it's members had been 'disappeared' or executed in a Stalinist purge by their own side (Napoleon) after Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico City. He became very critical of Communism and used an animal 'fairy tale' because he feared reprisals from the NKVD.

[Betty Bush III]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No it doesn't cut both ways in this case. There is nothing unusual about a Presidential candidate, on either side of the isle, making essentially campaign stops/public appearances in churches at small gatherings. The difference here is what Frist basically said, that those that oppose us are the enemies of God! This was not just a photo- op to show religious inclinations, it was a ludicrous attempt to preach policy and dictate from the pulpit.

And that big screen appears a bit Orweillian!

OK, we know Frist is a hardliner and you hate him. The Dems may as well let it go to a vote because Cheney will end up going nuclear if they keep pushing his hand by ending the fillibuster.

This whole situation really sucks for the Dems. I don't blame them for fillibustering. These judicial positions are infinately effective at pushing us down the right path. The conservative one.

DON'T PUSH VADER'S HAND MY FRIEND.

And remember..

"You mess with the bull young man, you'll get the horns."

[DrMaddVibe]

If you have the votes to call the vote that's just political decorum. Calling them to the table to vote is what they're there for!

We've outlived the New Deal. FDR didn't set it up for cradle-grave. The social programs have become entitlements and are costing us as a nation. Money other nations use for research and development are spent on welfare and food stamps!

All they want is to appoint judges to the bench to do their J-O-B! Once appointed they're not sworn to uphold some promise they made. They act from the bench and will uphold the law but they have to get there. To the victor go the spoils. Its been that way before and it will be that way in the future!

Ramming an agenda? Just how do you do that when you're not in a position to mandate law?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Betty Bush III
OK, we know Frist is a hardliner and you hate him. The Dems may as well let it go to a vote because Cheney will end up going nuclear if they keep pushing his hand by ending the fillibuster.

This whole situation really sucks for the Dems. I don't blame them for fillibustering. These judicial positions are infinately effective at pushing us down the right path. The conservative one.

DON'T PUSH VADER'S HAND MY FRIEND.

And remember..

"You mess with the bull young man, you'll get the horns."

Did you know that the judge that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube pulled was a Republican appointed hard-right 'Conservative' Baptist? I think you are in for a lot of disappointment if you really think abortion will be overturned.

It would be funny if 70% of the Federal Gov't is essentially declared illegal though, since it's Republican controlled!

And if these judges are more Libertarian radical than Republican, they probably could give a shit about abortion.

[DrMaddVibe]

If It's 'Orwellian,' It's Probably Not
by Geoffrey Nunberg
New York Times, 25 June 2003

On George Orwell's centenary (he was born June 25, 1903) the most telling sign of his influence is the words he left us with: not just "thought police," "doublethink" and "unperson," but also "Orwellian" itself, the most widely used adjective derived from the name of a modern writer. In the press and on the Internet, it's more common than "Kafkaesque," "Hemingwayesque" and "Dickensian" put together. It even noses out the rival political reproach "Machiavellian," which had a 500-year head start.

Eponyms are always the narrowest sort of tribute, though. "Orwellian" doesn't have anything to do with Orwell as a socialist thinker, or for that matter, as a human being. People are always talking about Orwell's decency, but "Orwellian decency" would be an odd phrase indeed. And the adjective commemorates Orwell the writer only for three of his best-known works: the novels "Animal Farm" and "1984" and the essay "Politics and the English Language."

"Orwellian" reduces Orwell's palette to a single shade of noir. It brings to mind only sordid regimes of surveillance and thought control and the distortions of language that make them possible. Orwell's views on language may outlive his political ideas. At least they seem to require no updating or apology, whereas his partisans feel the need to justify the continuing relevance of his politics. He wasn't the first writer to condemn political euphemisms. Edmund Burke was making the same points 150 years earlier about the language used by apologists for the French Revolution: "Things are never called by their common names. Massacre is sometimes agitation, sometimes effervescence, sometimes excess."

But Orwell is the writer most responsible for diffusing the modern view of political language as an active accomplice of tyranny. As he wrote in "Politics and the English Language," "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

That was an appealing notion to an age that had learned to be suspicious of ideologies, and critics on all sides have found it useful to cite "Politics and the English Language" in condemning the equivocations of their opponents.

Critics on the left hear Orwellian resonances in phrase like "weapons of mass protection," for nonlethal arms, or in names like the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Department's Operation Liberty Shield, which authorizes indefinite detention of asylum-seekers from certain nations. Critics on the right hear them in phrases like "reproductive health services," "Office of Equality Assurance" and "English Plus," for bilingual education.

And just about everyone discerned an Orwellian note in the name of the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness project, which was aimed at mining a vast centralized database of personal information for patterns that might reveal terrorist activities. (The name was changed last month to the Terrorist Information Awareness program, in an effort to reassure Americans who have nothing to hide.)

Which of those terms are deceptive packaging and which are merely effective branding is a matter of debate. But there's something troubling in the easy use of the label "Orwellian," as if these phrases committed the same sorts of linguistic abuses that led to the gulags and the death camps.

The specters that "Orwellian" conjures aren't really the ones we have to worry about. Newspeak may have been a plausible invention in 1948, when totalitarian thought control still seemed an imminent possibility. But the collapse of communism revealed the bankruptcy not just of the Stalinist social experiment, but of its linguistic experiments as well. After 75 years of incessant propaganda, "socialist man" turned out to be a cynic who didn't even believe the train schedules.

Political language is still something to be wary of, but it doesn't work as Orwell feared. In fact the modern language of control is more effective than Soviet Newspeak precisely because it's less bleak and intimidating.

Think of the way business has been re-engineering the language of ordinary interaction in the interest of creating "high-performance corporate cultures." To a reanimated Winston Smith, there would be something wholly familiar in being told that he had to file an annual vision statement or that he should henceforth eliminate "problems" from his vocabulary in favor of "issues."

But the hero of "1984" would find the whole exercise much more convivial than the Two Minute Hate at the Ministry of Truth. And he'd be astonished that management allowed employees to post "Dilbert" strips on the walls of their cubicles.

For Orwell, the success of political jargon and euphemism required an uncritical or even unthinking audience: a "reduced state of consciousness," as he put it, was "favorable to political conformity." As things turned out, though, the political manipulation of language seems to thrive on the critical skepticism that Orwell encouraged.

In fact, there has never been an age that was so well-schooled in the perils of deceptive language or in decoding political and commercial messages, as seen in the official canonization of Orwell himself. Thanks to the schools, "1984" is probably the best-selling political novel of modern times, and "Politics and the English Language" is the most widely read essay about the English language and very likely in it as well.

But as advertisers have known for a long time, no audience is easier to beguile than one that is smugly confident of its own sophistication. The word "Orwellian" contributes to that impression. Like "propaganda," it implies an aesthetic judgment more than a moral one. Calling an expression Orwellian means not that it's deceptive but that it's crudely deceptive. Today, the real damage isn't done by the euphemisms and circumlocutions that we're likely to describe as Orwellian. "Ethnic cleansing," "revenue enhancement," "voluntary regulation," "tree-density reduction," "faith-based initiatives," "extra affirmative action," "single-payer plans" - these terms may be oblique, but at least they wear their obliquity on their sleeves.

Rather, the words that do the most political work are simple ones - "jobs and growth," "family values" and "color-blind" not to mention "life" and "choice." But concrete words like these are the hardest ones to see through. They're opaque when you hold them up to the light.

Orwell knew that, of course. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" - not what you'd call an Orwellian sentiment, but very like the man.


- The writer, a linguist at Stanford University, is heard regularly on National Public Radio's "Fresh Air" and is the author of "The Way We Talk Now."

[Betty Bush III]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Did you know that the judge that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube pulled was a Republican appointed hard-right 'Conservative' Baptist? I think you are in for a lot of disappointment if you really think abortion will be overturned.

It would be funny if 70% of the Federal Gov't is essentially declared illegal though, since it's Republican controlled!

And if these judges are more Libertarian radical than Republican, they probably could give a shit about abortion.

Hello, I'm pro-choice with certain restrictions. When did I ever mention wanting abortion overturned? Abortion isn't a primary issue for me. I don't believe it will be overturned unless a judge goes completely renegade. Most people are probably pro-choice. We do need libertarian / small c conservative judges to remove the communism out of our system. Most people who WORK for a living don't use the majority of these government programs. They are fucking useless, let Europe fool around with this nonsense, while we lead.

Just remember... Don't push Cheney's hand my friend, he'll do to the Dems what he did to John "the boy" Edwards in the debates. CRUSH THEM!!!

"You mess with the bull young man, you'll get the horns."

[FORD]

Fuck Dick Cheney in the ass with Ann Coulter's dick! I ain't afraid of that plastic hearted fuckface.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
If It's 'Orwellian,' It's Probably Not
by Geoffrey Nunberg
New York Times, 25 June 2003

On George Orwell's centenary (he was born June 25, 1903) the most telling sign of his influence is the words he left us with: not just "thought police," "doublethink" and "unperson," but also "Orwellian" itself, the most widely used adjective derived from the name of a modern writer. In the press and on the Internet, it's more common than "Kafkaesque"...

Well I'll give you kudos for that article. I like the word "Kafkaesque" better.

[Betty Bush III]

Originally posted by FORD
Fuck Dick Cheney in the ass with Ann Coulter's dick! I ain't afraid of that plastic hearted fuckface.

You don't want to piss off Cheney, I'm telling you. He's the last guy. You saw how he dismantled John Boy Edwards! The rest of the Dem Senators are in line for their whupping.

Sure you're not afraid of Cheney from behind your keyboard while you surf "Al Gore's internet." Try debating him. You would wet your pants while he intellectually bitch slaps you one end of the room to the other. HE IS TOUGH AND HE IS SMART. Gotta give him that.

And besides they may as well vote, I mean when is the last time a Democratic Senator showed up for work?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Betty Bush III
You don't want to piss off Cheney, I'm telling you. He's the last guy. You saw how he dismantled John Boy Edwards! The rest of the Dem Senators are in line for their whupping. ....

Uh-huh...Did you actually watch the debate? It was a draw at best, because Edwards pussed out and didn't call him on his Halliburton shit! But he is pretty scary alright!

[Warham]

I hope they put this to a vote real soon.

[Betty Bush III]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Uh-huh...Did you actually watch the debate? It was a draw at best, because Edwards pussed out and didn't call him on his Halliburton shit! But he is pretty scary alright!

A DRAW!!!!!!! You've got to be joking. Were you watching the edited version on Al- Jezera network!? You've got to be more reasonable than that. For heavens sake man remove the blinders and let some reality in.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Betty Bush III
A DRAW!!!!!!! You've got to be joking. Were you watching the edited version on Al- Jezera network!? You've got to be more reasonable than that. For heavens sake man remove the blinders and let some reality in.

Oh, you're one of those people that thinks if you say something enough times, it makes it true?

ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

CHENEY Edwards

CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/06/politics/main647649.shtml

EDWARDS Cheney

CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.main/

(Polls are bullshit)
Debate was a wash!

Believe whatever you want through your partisan binculors!

[DrMaddVibe]

CBS?

ABC?

CNN?


Wake up! Guess who won the election! That's right biaa-tches!

SUCK IT!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
CBS?

ABC?

CNN?


Wake up! Guess who won the election! That's right biaa-tches!

SUCK IT!

WTF does that have to do with anything ASSVIBE? We were talking about the VP debate. And something tells me that YOU really didn't when bush "won!" I love it when you guys celebrate a shitty economy, higher gas prices, bigger government....etc...etc...LMAO