I recently had an interesting conversation with my father in law. The subject of Bill O'Reilly's "We'll do it live!" rant came up. He said that what it showed is that he's an honest man, and that eventually everyone has that kind of blow up at work sometime in their career. I said that no, I'm pretty I can say with a high degree of confidence that I will never in my entire professional life act like that. His response? "Well, any great man will." :rolleyes:

Some people think that the only way to go through life is to attack your opponents viciously and decisively. Anything else is weakness, timidness, and dishonesty. It saddens me to think that someone would look at that video and think it's something to admire. It saddens me to think that someone would look at a VP candidate compare herself to a viscious animal and admire her.

From my dog-knowledge perspective, I interpret the definition and meaning of her pitt bull description as someone who latches on to things and doesn't let go.

From my own perspective, I don't find this an admirable quality at all. But, I subscribe to the philosophy that it's better to bend a bit then to break. While I can be tenacious about things at time, I don't believe in the blanket statement that it is better to stand for something than to fall. Life is about compromises most of the time. That and one can only spend so much time imposing one's own ideals on others.

My interpretation is that she is not someone to be messed with.

I find it amusing that such a reference would be analyzed to find some deeper meaning. As if it really matters?

Of course it matters, just not very much.

I agree completely. Pres Bush is also one to attack, and to never back down (even when you're wrong) and that leaves no ground for changing information. When you learn new information, and that changes your decision, but your personal worldview says that changing your decisions is a weakness, we get the current administration, who will never back down even when it becomes clear they are wrong. "I decided, and I'm always right, so anybody else is wrong". I'm not ok with this.

I don't think changing your views and changing your mind to suit new information is a weakness. Changing your views due to polling is quite likely a bad thing, but when the information says your initial analysis is wrong, please feel free to change it.

But that's the name of the game with politics! Politicians throw out veiled statements, and everybody interprets (and misinterprets) at will. Especially in our sound-bite culture, one has to say many things with few words.

I prefer a non-sound-bite world, where I can express myself at will.

Oh, certainly. I don't pretend that my side of the aisle doesn't play politics, too, I just think this is particularly funny....I don't know if this is being played up in the media anywhere, but I could just see Chris Matthews playing this bite repeatedly with various left leaning analysts talking about her deep psychological darkness and desire to hurt the weak as demonstrated by this comment.

I think it is an attitude in many cultures that is fundamentally damaging. Fundmental Islam or fundamental Christianity are both two glaring examples of the lack of desire to let others have differing beliefs while living harmoniously with these differing beliefs.

My own rancor against fundamental Christians stems from being forced, coerced or legislated to act in a way that "they" feel is the right way, completely dismissing my own beliefs, as if I'm not American enough to matter. Islamic ideals influence my world in much lesser fashion, but usually on the greater world stage (and certainly presented in a more "evil" light).

The major difference being that fundamentalist Islam has a tendency to try to blow up the infidels. With rare exception, this is not the case when it comes to fundamentalist Christianity. Unless we have completely differing ideas of what that is.

It's certainly true that fundamentalist Christianity hasn't got nearly the ferocity and destructive power of fundy Islam. But, per the present discussion, American evangelical Christians with strong conservative political leanings often use language that is warlike, filled with militaristic metaphors, and that conveys unshakeable certainty. To some, this is a show of strength. To others, it comes off as bullying, hard-nosed and averse to reasoning.

(edited to add - yes, I know, the reverse is often true. I've been called bullheaded and reason-averse, among other things - and I hardly ever discuss politics. Of course, there is nothing I love debating more than religion, but that's not this thread.)