I was told this by a Bushie today

[Horse with no Name]

Can those of you who voted for Kerry not understand how this makes you look to those of us who voted for Bush? Regardless of whether you voted for Kerry or against Bush, these ceaseless attacks look more and more like sour grapes than anything resembling valid points.
This is how I responded.

As far as what we Kerry fans look like to Bush fans? I'm not really worried about that. Do you know what you die hard Bush fans look like to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world? You all look like you have been indoctrinated on talking points and repeat them over and over. You look like you can't make a decision without consulting Faux or sludge. You look like innocent lambs being led to the slaughter. How else can you attest for an approval rating of 44% on the day a president is inaugerated? I can tell you. It seems more people have snapped out of the trance they were put in by Bushco. Some just haven't woken up yet. I hope you do before you wake up to the realization that your support is enabling one of the worst genocides in the history of mankind and history will judge this group of Republicans as the Nazis of the 21st century and this war will be judged as a holocaust. Propaganda, lies, and spin which is leading to the slaughter of a country--all in the name of oil, power and greed.

[Karenca]

1. whoa!!! That was great!!!! nt

[Straight Shooter]

2. "Sour grapes" is the wrong analogy anyway.

It implies that because we didn't get something, we didn't want it anyway.

Also, ask this person, "If someone steals your wallet, does that mean they won your money?"

[skypilot]

7. You beat me to it, Straight Shooter.

I just posted about this very thing. This misuse of sour grapes is really getting out of hand. It's a perfect illustration of how people can say something and, in fact, have no idea what they are actually saying.

[gapower]

27. Misuse of words from the Bible at that!

Modus operandi of Bushco. Not sure I've ever quite understood the original anyway:

Jeremiah 31
29 No longer will anyone go around saying,
“Sour grapes eaten by parents
leave a sour taste in the mouths
of their children.”
30 When that day comes, only those who eat sour grapes will get the sour taste, and only those who sin will be put to death.

[NationalEnquirer]

3. This sounds like my brother.

Although he tells me its not "sour grapes" because that is a misuse of the term, friggin Mensa asshole that he can be sometimes.

The hubris of those people irks me to no end.

Problem is, I really can't argue with him.
First, he is my big brother, but I am physically bigger than him.
Mostly though he argues real well, he will agree with ALOT of what I say and then turn it around for his purposes.

You guys ever encounter that with Repukes?
I think these are the dangerous ones.

[CrispyQ]

10. The regressives are masters of language manipulation.

Read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Latkoff. Also visit http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/ a progressive think tank site that is helping progressives frame issues so that we can discuss issues within our frame, not within the regressives frames. It's worthwhile reading.

The Strategic Framing Overview:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/framing


snip...

Conservatives have realized that individual issues need to be linked to an overall moral and ethical perspective. They have seen how issues fit together and they have created a language of conservatism that reflects their values. In the process, they have appropriated fundamental American virtues, such as freedom and compassion, and have given them conservative definitions. They have trained their advocates, policymakers, and media spokespersons in the use of this language to move public discourse in a conservative direction. They have successfully reframed issue after issue to make their language the everyday language of much of America.

Meanwhile, progressives have been hampered by a focus on specific issues, rather than the overall moral and ethical perspective that justifies specific policy choices. Consequently, progressives have been unable to communicate how each issue fits into a coherent set of values, so they have lost the fight for a language that resonates with the American public.

On issue after issue, media framings have conservative implications. For example, the market is currently framed metaphorically as a force of nature, as something not to be "tinkering with" or "regulated." In the face of a force of nature, one can only be "flexible" and "adjust." But in reality, the market is a social institution with rules and regulating mechanisms that have been put in place by human beings. But this reality is hidden by the force-of-nature framing.

[tommcintyre]

51. Hmmm... Great concepts, but I have an idea (improvement?)

I think part of the problem is that people comprehend (relate to) concrete concepts more easily than abstract ones. A "force of nature" (organic - wind, rain, etc.) is much easier to understand (identify with) than a "social institution" (artificial - man-made organizations).

So why not "counter-frame" metaphorically with something like: "Just like in nature, a balance must be maintained - one "force of nature" must balance the other for a healthy environment to continue. For example, the population of one plant or animal often keeps the other in check (proper balance). If this balance is disturbed (one is diminished), the other will destructively grow out of control (like market forces (capitalism) do (does) without appropriate government regulation).

The metaphor is strong enough to stand on its own as a superior idea to the average person. Which would a "reasonable" person prefer, an unchecked, or naturally balanced force? <There is an additional strategic advantage of "one-upping" their own metaphor.>

Also, compelling and easy-to-understand examples of government regulation "saving" society from "out-of-control" market forces are available. For example, the great depression was caused by unregulated market forces. Government regulation (The New Deal) had to step in and "save the day".

[merh]

14. Post some of his "counters" here for us to help you with.

Nothing this admin has done is based on truth or facts, so their "counters" are just more distortions.

We will be glad to help you counter his counters. :evilgrin:

[NationalEnquirer]

50. Sounds like a good idea.

Next time I'll remember the specifics of what he says.

[underpants]

4. Ding Ding Ding

Great one

[skypilot]

5. Sour grapes

Tell him/her that invoking "sour grapes" when talking about people who are unhappy with the election is a misuse of the phrase. I am so tired of hearing sour grapes being misused in this way. Even some Democrats are doing it. Sour grapes doesn't entail any kind of "attacks". The wolf didn't "attack" when he didn't get the grapes. He simply gave up and claimed that the grapes were probably sour anyway. In other words, he supposedly didn't really want the grapes all that much. We did, in fact, want to win this election and we've never pretended otherwise.

[Sir Craig]

12. Thank you for that explanation...

I never understood what the term sour grapes meant or where it came from -- I had simply assumed it was another phrase that had been pulled out of someone's butt years ago, like "bitter lemons" or something.

[skypilot]

15. It's not explained completely in my post.

It's from one of Aesop's fables. A wolf is trying to get at a bunch of grapes that are out of his reach. He eventually gives up and slinks off while telling himself, "They were probably sour anyway".

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. Actually, I believe it's a fox

:) Not that it matters. I just like to point things out in a pompous way for no reason. :D

Personally, I think the Bushies are displaying a weird version of sour grapes themselves...they "won" it and are acting like they lost. I don't know what that would be...fox steals grapes and rants about how all of the other animals who wanted the grapes are in control of the grapes, even though the fox has them in his red little fist?

:shrug:

[skypilot]

23. That's right!!!

It is a fox. I don't know why I was thinking of a wolf. Thanks.

I think the scenario you describe with the Bushies is simply a combination of paranoia and greed. Same as it ever was.

[gapower]

28. Aesop vs God

Interesting! I've always thought of Jeremiah 31. Not sure I ever really got that version:

The fathers have eaten sour grapes
and the children's teeth are set on edge.

27 Someday, Israel and Judah will be my field where my people and their livestock will grow. 28 In the past, I took care to uproot them, to tear them down, and to destroy them. But when that day comes, I will take care to plant them and help them grow. 29 No longer will anyone go around saying,
“Sour grapes eaten by parents
leave a sour taste in the mouths
of their children.”

30 When that day comes, only those who eat sour grapes will get the sour taste, and only those who sin will be put to death.

[skypilot]

29. I don't know much about the Bible but...

...that passage sounds as though it's about the Jews returning to their homeland. Or something like that. I have no idea how the grapes figure into this. I scratch my head alot when I try to read the Bible.

[NickiWitch]

6. Sweet!

Good comeback!

[RobertSeattle]

8. Sour Grapes is RW code word for "democracy"

Or maybe even "facts".

[kris10ep]

9. well said

Being one who is constantly forced to justify my beliefs to walking zombies of the GOP, I've been looking fro some fresh new comebacks.

I may have to take some cues from this response to keep things lively.

[sepia_steel]

24. Welcome kris10ep :) eom

[Angry Girl]

11. Bravo!

Now whether the Neanderthal will actually understand what you said is another thing....

[Ganja Ninja]

13. They attacked Clinton for eight years over stuff that seems ..

trivial compared to what's going on today. They wailed over Clinton's intervention in Kosovo and called his strike on Afghanistan "Wagging the dog". But Clinton didn't get any American's killed in Kosovo. And they complain bitterly today that Clinton didn't go after bin Laden when he had the chance.
They pissed and moaned for years about deficit spending and labeled Democrats as tax and spenders. Yet with the budget in balance they couldn't wait to cut taxes for the rich when they got the chance. Today they are running the country into bankruptcy.
Their selective amnesia is only one manifestation of their hypocrisy.
They embarrassed the country with their partisan prosecution of Clinton when we were the envy of the world in the 90's. But today's Bush administration would have been impeached long ago if they did not control all three branches of the government.
They choose to ignore the connections the Bush administration has to big oil. Meanwhile they steadfastly support the war in Iraq as reason after reason for the war has melted away.
They are dragging America's reputation down to the level of Nazi Germany. They make me sick

[merh]

18. They still attack clinton,

during the debates on CR, they said clinto advised that SH had wmds, clinton, this and clinton that. I am sick of the snots!

[Helga Scow Stern]

20. That's because they have to have scapegoats...

they have become masterful at creating them. They're necessary for the groupthink they employ.

[buddysmellgood]

16. Bravo...because the grapes aren't sour, they are POISON. They got them

and now are shoving them down everyone's throats.

[dogindia]

17. kick.

[libertypirate]

19. Nice!

[Alizaryn]

21. Well said, thanks for sharing.

[mod mom]

25. great response! Let them know we can think for ourselves w/o

a rovian script! Free thinkers vs no thinkers.

[Darknyte7]

26. Very nice...

But did you really say all of that? The Kool-Aid swilling Bush supporters around my office wouldn't give me the chance to say half of that.

[Horse with no Name]

32. I typed and posted it--does that count? eom

[Darknyte7]

34. hmmm... I'm not sure.

I guess it counts...
;-)

[Horse with no Name]

35. Full text of my response

To an ongoing argument regarding Condi Rice

Yes I totally believe it. None of this is about racism--the fact that she is black is an issue that only you Repubs pay attention to because deep down in your heart of hearts most of you are all racist to the core and judge everyone by those standards. This issue has as much to do about race as WMD has to do with Iraq. It is strictly about competence, accredibility and accountability--of which Rice (regardless of the color of her skin) has none.
She lied repeatedly about the WMD--if you paid attention to the hearings yesterday then you heard a member of the Senate Arms Committee say that she deliberately misled them to war in a meeting that was held in her office. This meeting was top secret so we are not privy to the details--but for him to address a meeting that took place but is unable to disclose the specific lies she told--would have to make you wonder. She did not deny this. She also told everyone repeatedly that the aluminum cylinders intercepted were solely for the use of nuclear weapons--when in fact her advisors told her that was simply not true. Yet she continued to perpetuate the lie to promote war and the WMD. The blood of every civilian Iraqi and soldier lays directly on her hands. I wonder how she sleeps at night.
She also was not allowed to go under oath regarding 911--perhaps because she didn't want to go to jail for lying under oath, who knows.
Regardless of her outward color--this woman is not your typical black. She grew up affluent and with privelege and has snubbed the black culture her entire life, while taking advantage of Affirmative Action to further her career, now seeks to destroy the very program she boosted herself on. If you find that okay, then there is definitely something wrong. I don't understand how you say that if she were Democrat it would make a difference--if Clinton were sitting in George Bush's chair and made the same stupid choices that Bush and his evil regime had made--he would already be in front of Congress for impeachment and Rice as a Democrat would have been long gone. Your machine is that powerful.
If you want to look for a obvious lack of integrity, look no further than those who once proclaimed the need to go into Iraq (when it was politically advantageous to do so), but now nip at the heels of Rice. (his statement)
This is precisely the problem. She LIED to these people to get their votes to go to Iraq--if they had known the truth, they would not have given their approval and those are the words that are being uttered over and over. Hence the backlash. And seriously, your party has precipitated the outspokeness that is occurring while portraying Kerry as a flip flop. I highly doubt that anyone that has any political aspirations will simply go along with the flow anymore. Your portrayal of "voting for the war before he voted against it" is now causing major problems and will continue to do so. These people were lied to and they are not happy about the mess that has occurred from it.I can honestly say that Rovian tactic of spin won't work anymore. It will be a fight the next four years so that no Democrat with integrity will be accused of supporting this stain on our national integrity and nobody will wonder where they stand. They will not just go along with something because they repugs say that it is "good for the country".
As far as what we Kerry fans look like to Bush fans? I'm not really worried about that. Do you know what you die hard Bush fans look like to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world? You all look like you have been indoctrinated on talking points and repeat them over and over. You look like you can't make a decision without consulting Faux or sludge. You look like innocent lambs being led to the slaughter. How else can you attest for an approval rating of 44% on the day a president is innaugerated? I can tell you. It seems more people have snapped out of the trance they were put in by Bushco. Some just haven't woken up yet. I hope you do before you wake up to the realization that your support is enabling one of the worst genocides in the history of mankind and history will judge this group of Republicans as the Nazis of the 21st century and this war will be judged as a holocaust. Propaganda, lies, and spin which is leading to the slaughter of a country--all in the name of oil, power and greed.
The only way out of Iraq at this point in time is to just pack up and leave and pay the country reparations--we have no business over there and we have invaded and occupied a country for nothing but a pack of lies, in so doing have destroyed historical landmarks that have existed for generations.
I feel nothing but pity that you would want your daughters admiring someone of such little moral turpitude--there are many role models for young women out there who have actually struggled to make a difference...Rice is not one of them.

[LeahD]

30. Great response!

Did he/she walk away dumbfounded? Or come back at you?

[torque]

31. Excellent response! Divide them, B**h will soon stand alone n/t

[seabeyond]

33. and his response horse n/t

[Horse with no Name]

37. None yet--several hours later. :)

In fact none of the people on this predominantly Repug message board have touched it.

[seabeyond]

40. generally when a dem takes time to speak truth out loud

repug either goes in flames and tells person they are going to hell, or fall silent. this would encourage me to conversation of views, but not repugs. they walk away or scream and call names

[Horse with no Name]

41. Okay response #1(took awhile to research a way to trash me)

I find your reply one of the most amusing i've read here in a long time..You are wasting a true talent here - contact Maureen Dowd at the NYT - your mind set would be a valuable tool for her arsenal..

My honest opinion is race is a big part of what the DemoRATs are trying to accomplish with this attack on Rice..She is just one more prominent black person the DemoRATs can't control with their Plantation Mentality..You, in your 1st paragraph claim its not about race but in your 3rd paragraph you show anger with your "she is not your typical black"..So you are saying you have the same conventional thinking as the DemoRAT Party: "as a black she must keep in her place"..The Political Left needs to get some new material - the terms 'uncle tom' & 'aunt jemima' have lost their effect..

I believe Rice is capable of handling the job of Secretary of State..She is definitely knowledgeable & i have noticed she has the awareness to correct herself immeadiately if she misstates a word..The only problem i can foresee is she won't have that automatic respect that a Colin Powell commands when entering a room..

The hypocrisy of the DemoRATs calling the Bush Admins liars has went beyond comprehension..I've always seen the Iraq issues as bipartisan & what i was led to believe; that the DemoRATs were telling the truth..How else can we explain the following:
Bubba Clinton in '98-"Iraq is a rogue state with WMD's ready to provide them to terrorists"
HildaBEAST Clinton in '02-"Saddam is giving aid, comfort & sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Queda"
'Flipper' Kerry in '03<2 months before the Iraq war>-"Without question we need to disarm Saddam - the threat of Saddam with WMD's is real"
Klansman Byrd in "02-"We are confident Saddam has retained stockpiles of chemical & biological weapons"
X-Clinton Sec. of Defense, Cohen, 4/03 - "I'm absolutely convinced there are weapons...I saw evidence back in '98"
MADeline Halfbright in '98-"Saddam's goal is to enhance his WMD programs - we must not let him succeed"
****Barbara Boxer in '02- "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to dismantle all WMD's, unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement"****
Letter to Pres. Bush in '01, signed by Sen. Graham & other leading DemoRATs- "Saddam has invigorated his weapons programs - he is developing longer range missiles that will threaten the United States & our allies"
Al Gore in '02- "We know saddam has stored secret supplies of biological & chemical weapons throughout his country"

I believed what the DemoRATs were telling us..Did you ?. They were the Party in power 8 years before the Bush Admin..Do you think all them leading DemoRATs were lying to us ?.

[MadisonProgressive]

53. What a pleasant human being...

[Horse with no Name]

42. Response #2

You are not dealing on a factual basis. Ms. Rice did not grow up in an affluent family, that is simply not the truth. She achieved what she did through hard work and applying herself. While you are entitled to your opinion of whether she lied or not, it is simply not supported by the facts and intelligence available at the time. You also seek to blame her, Bush and the administration for the information the democrats voted on, which once again does not stand up to the actual facts. The democrats had been making similar statements dating back to the Clinton administration.

Was the intelligence flawed ? No one disputes that, but in the wake of 9/11, the option to err on the side of caution was not viable when put to the test of risk assessment. If they erred on the side of caution and were wrong, the number of deaths that could have occurred may have paled the 9/11 disaster.

Why is it that the left cannot grasp the concept of risk assessment at the time, instead of engaging in hindsight to criticize ? Yes, there were some competing intelligence assessments and the responsibility is to assess the risks encumbent with each being true and no further evidence to validate the pre-eminence of one over the other. So the choice they faced, was a preponderance of the intelligence, both here and abroad, was that he had WMDs (the types and amounts varied, but there was an overall agreement he had them), so the debate was really about what the threat was of those WMDs and how to respond. The question asked in risk assessment is: What would be the result of actions or of inaction ? If he has them, as all intelligence agencies here and abroad agreed, and uses them, and we have taken no action, how many lives could be lost ? What is the risk of being wrong in taking action ? In the wake of 9/11, the choice is a no brainer when held up to the scrutiny of risk assessment. It would have been irresponsible to err on the side of having the result be another terrorist attack and having to trust Saddam. And that is only one small aspect of the complex geopolitical paradigm that was in play.

[Laurab]

52. "the complex geopolitical paradigm that was in play"?

Do they mean, like the oil, the profits, and the fact that * wants to take over the world and stuff like that? I dunno I guess I just can't grasp the concept of "risk assessment" after I know what those guys have been up to, for all the years prior to finally invading Iraq.

Do you think they really wrote them by themselves? I have never yet seen a rethug who could write and type that well.

[deacon2]

36. The GOP true believers are mystified

They can't understand why millions of Americans don't join them now in mindless genuflection before their Emperor. It is not enough for them to "win" (I won't start), it never will be. Above all, it is paramount that they "control" all discourse and bend us to their will. This is, I believe, at the core of their pathology. They are so afraid of their own life and the real implications of this "freedom" they claim to love, that they will now sacrifice even the very illusion of victory to pursue an unattainable goal of complete dominance and reformation of all progressive thought. The sorriest bunch of "winners" I ever did see. But doesn't it warm your heart to know that our rational and firm refusal to join their Kool-Aid line gives them heartbreak at the very ground of their being? Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of sociopaths.

[BigBearJohn]

38. Boy did we EVER need to hear that! Thanks. GRRREAT post!

[floridadem30]

39. Funny, I had a similar response to a Repub today, but I tried to keep it

simple with single words like liar,thief,immoral,and murderer. I told him that he represented all of these things by defending Bush.

[corbett]

43. Remind Them About The British

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1185702

[GetTheRightVote]

44. Amen !!!

:kick:

[bush_is_wacko]

45. Well that's pretty much how i feel about * supporters! I would have much

harsher words for those in *'s administration, however. THEY know EXACTLY what is going on and they have no problem continuing the propaganda and lies. I suspect a lot of these Evangelical and fundie preachers know EXACTLY what is going on too. They are the absolute worst kind of scum IMHO! They lie in God's name!

[rumpel]

46. Great! btw, I also like Hersh's "taken over by a cult", the * cult and

it's followers.

[CFO6]

47. Excellent n/t

[JBear]

48. Lambs or lemmings? n/t

:bounce:

[ihelpu2see]

49. it is not sour grapes, it is time for the MSM to take the gloves off

for the entire election cycle they treated Bush gently, lets not harm him, he lead us through 9-11..... What a bunch of crap, Bush was floored in every debate.... his numbers speak for themselves, highest trade deficit ever, highest national debt ever, and for all those pro lifers out there higher numbers of abortions than under Clinton.

The news media must stop giving this joke of an admin. a pass and start taking them to task for being the lamest ever!!