responses to the "Conservatives/Liberals-only" threads [Archive]

west3man

03-22-2006, 07:44 AM

This'll give both sides a place to respond to comments in those other threads without derailing them.

The three main problems I have with him are his inability to control spending, his non-attentiveness to illegal immigration, and his insistence that working with the Democrats will actually work, which is foolish. I don't recall a bad word he's said about them, and yet you never hear anything civil coming from the Dems at all. He should have realized a long time ago that his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" policy won't work if the other side doesn't WANT to be united. Probably a big tactical mistake, and I haven't a clue why he's still banging his head against a wall like that unless he's into pain.

I still haven't figured out if I agree or disagree on his stance regarding stem-cell research and cloning. I think I mildly disagree.

Matterconsumer, you're a conservative? You posted on the Liberal side of this question...okay, which are you?

I'm kinda thinking you won't get too many responses on this thread, Gail. Most of the Conservatives left YABS awhile back after being compared to Nazis and bigots 24/7. Heck, just listening to Rush is enough to be accused of planting crosses on yards.

EDIT TO ADD: Yeah, Matter, looks like you just wanted to complain about W on two threads. Tsk tsk.

What I find mildly amusing is that so far, all two of the conservatives here have actually managed to stay on topic, while the Liberal side...well, you asked for what good they did, and half of them are using it to make MORE Bush slams, or at best, VERY backhanded compliments.
This is some post.
You criticize other people for making backhanded compliments in the "say something nice about GWB" thread while you offer softball criticisms in this one.
Then there's the "I don't recall a bad word he's said about them, and yet you never hear anything civil coming from the Dems at all" Bush compliment-by-way-of-Dem insult.
You also suggest that "the other side doesn't WANT to be united[/B]" after having made the most divisive points you could.

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 09:13 AM

Gail Simone

03-22-2006, 09:15 AM

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 09:22 AM

stealthwise

03-22-2006, 09:34 AM

It's interesting. I'm liberal, I try to be open-minded, but when I post anything positive about Bush, such as the fact that he's earmarked much more money for Africa than Clinton, I still feel the urge pretty strongly to say I think he's the worst president since Warren G. Harding at least.

I do feel we're all losing objectivity.

Gail

Well, that money earmarked for Africa is still well short of the objectives laid out by the G8 when they were trying to figure out how the Millenium Development Goals should be met.

I think that regardless of which party or which president is in power, the United States needs to lead the way in terms of providing more funding for an entire continent that is literally dying off, generation by generation, from one of the world's most insidious diseases.

My country is no better, as we're devoting less of a percentage of our own GDP than nations like Luxembourg.

Let me repeat that: Luxembourg, by their own standards, is outperforming both the United States and Canada in terms of the established criteria for providing foreign aid.

Ugh, I knew that I shouldn't have taken that social inequalities course.

Rhydaman

03-22-2006, 10:16 AM

Not sure you want to use Luxembourg as a comparison for anything, though. Population of less than half-a-million, economy devoted to banking, and an average income of over $60,000/annum. They've got cash to spare. And yet they still manage to spend more on defence than ODA.

the4thpip

03-22-2006, 10:29 AM

such as the fact that he's earmarked much more money for Africa than Clinton,

Gail
Counting the money they only get if they stick to abstinence-only sex education, which either means they won't get the money and more people will die, or they will get the money and implement programs that will cause more people to die.

the4thpip

03-22-2006, 10:35 AM

Here's a little something from yesterday's salon fitting Sabrina's unbelievable comment that Bush never says a bad word about Democrats:

The president and the straw man

Asked this morning about Russ Feingold's censure resolution, George W. Bush said that "during these difficult times," Americans "expect there to be an honest and open debate without needless partisanship." If that's the case -- and we don't doubt that it is -- why won't the president help give the people what they want?

Over the weekend, the Associated Press documented the way in which Bush uses "straw man" arguments in his speeches. When the president says that "some say" or "there are some who believe," an unfair characterization of somebody else's beliefs is sure to follow. "The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents," AP reporter Jennifer Loven wrote. "In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position." Having mischaracterized his opponents' arguments, the president "typically then says he 'strongly disagrees' -- conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making."

Maybe Bush wasn't trying to illustrate Loven's point today at his press conference today, but it sure did seem like it. To hear the president tell it, there are "some in this country" who "don't view the enemy" as the serious threat he does. "I guess they, kind of, view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill," Bush explained. "I just don't see it that way. I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to impose their will on other countries." Likewise, Bush said, when faced with warnings that al-Qaida will use Iraq as a base for destabilizing the Middle East, "maybe some discount those words as, kind of, meaningless propaganda." "I don't," Bush said. "I take them seriously. And I think everyone in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly."

To whom, exactly, was the president referring? Maybe he didn't realize what a threat al-Qaida was back in 2001, but we can't think of a soul "in this country" today who thinks that al-Qaida isn't a serious threat now. And while the president and his aides rushed into Iraq despite warnings that a war there could destabilize the entire Middle East, we can't think of anyone "in the government" today -- except for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, of course -- who would "discount" the threat that the war in Iraq presents now.

But Bush was just getting started. He said he has a message for "people" who say that the blessings of liberty should only be "for one group of people": You -- whoever you are -- are "denying the basic rights to others." And even when the president named names, he seemed incapable of taking anything other than a caricature approach to the ideas of the opposition. Accusing the Democrats of political cowardice, Bush said he's noticed that "nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program."

"You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it," Bush said. "They ought to stand up and say, 'The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.' They ought to take their message to the people and say, 'Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.'" But maybe the Democrats haven't said that because that isn't, in fact, what they believe. As Bush knows, any number of Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans have said that the government should continue to monitor the calls of suspected terrorists, but that it should either get warrants in the process, as current law requires, or change the law to make the president's program legal in the future.

Of course, it's possible that the president doesn't know. It's hard to tell what gets into his bubble -- or up to his "perch," as he described it before he thought better of it today. After all, the president seems to have trouble remembering details of even his own views and accomplishments. Asked how he could portray himself as a captain of fiscal restraint when he hasn't vetoed a single spending bill, Bush said he hasn't vetoed any appropriations bills "because they've met the benchmarks we've set." In fact, he signed into law last summer a pork-laden transportation bill that exceeded the "benchmark" he had set. Talking up the war in Afghanistan, Bush said that there was "no such thing as religious freedom" under the Taliban. He didn't mention the plight of Abdul Rahman, a man who may soon be put to death in Kabul for converting from Islam to Christianity. As Bush expressed amazement over the "interesting debate" about "whether or not this country of ours ought to work to spread liberty," he apparently didn't see any reason to recall that he was once on the other side of that debate himself. And as he congratulated himself for being a "a president who's realistic and listens to what the enemy says," he didn't mention that he once excoriated John Kerry for suggesting that he should do just that.

Bush talked repeatedly today about how "realistic" he is. "I'm talking realistically," he said. "Yes, I'm optimistic about being able to achieve a victory," he said, "But I'm also realistic." We don't know who they are, but we're sure that there are some who disagree.

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 10:49 AM

Sabrina's unbelievable comment that Bush never says a bad word about Democrats:
Yeah, that was pretty funny that she said that.

Since the go-to Republican argument for the last five years has been to call outright or imply that Democrats are traitors.

the4thpip

03-22-2006, 11:10 AM

Yeah, that was pretty funny that she said that.

Since the go-to Republican argument for the last five years has been to call outright or imply that Democrats are traitors.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/03/20/tomo/story.jpg

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 11:25 AM

Kudos to MacQuarrie for taking Gail's question seriously and answering it without equivocation.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 12:04 PM

Oh. Ow, West3man.

Okay, let's try this then.

The question is:

Do you think Bush has accomplished anything worthwhile or admirable in his tenure?
Nothing backhanded, please. I'm looking for things he did that you felt were wise or good decisions.
Gail

And the answers from that very thread...

Nope. The guy could fuck up an orgasm.

I dunno, the War on Terrorism has always made as much logistic sense to me as the War on Drugs. ;/

Well dang since not allowed back handed comments pretty much leaves everything out since the few good ideas ("road to hell...") welll I'm stumped.

No.Worse than Buchanan. (The President who did nothing when the Civil War started, not the "pundit", although he's not any better)

But it ain't gonna happen with an incompetent, corrupt fuck-up like Bush at the helm.

Can anyone honestly watch this man deliver a speech without laughing hysterically? That ever-present smirk on his face is a dead giveaway that he is picturing that last episode of Gumby and Pokey he just watched in the Oval office.
I don't think he was well prepared for the job. His "National Guard" enlistment was a bit of a joke. His time in Texas was a bigger joke. And that's not even talking about driving a BASEBALL team into the ground.
Could there be anyone less qualified? If you ruin America's passtime...won't you ruin America?
The economy is in the toilet. The world hates us. Iraq...is a mess! Terrorrism is at an all time high. His vice-president shoots a guy. And this guy....goes on vacation.
Actually...in all seriousness....I think the difference between George W. Bush and the other presidents in my lifetime is that most of them surrounded themselves with an intelligent cabinet. And George didn't.
Were those comments backhanded????

Wait, wait, wait. Bush was born in Connecticut. CONNECTICUT.

Not, unfortunately, that I expect anything to actually be done, with an administration wholly owned and operated by Big Oil. It's sort of like the neighborhood drug dealer saying people need to cut down on their addiction to crack.
Sorry, I guess that ended up being backhanded...

Didnt he also say he wanted to oppose the creation of "Human-animal Hybrids?"

I have to say, I do admire his principled stand against the ongoing threat of the Mole Men insurgency. Ever since George Reeves died, no one else has had the guts to stand up to those subterranean terrorists.

Tell me, West3man...how is it you noticed what I said, but somehow missed all of the above? And how it is what I said was wrong, but all of what I quoted was correct? Oh, that's right...it's only correct when *your* side does it.

Tom

03-22-2006, 12:07 PM

Sabrina, you're missing the point that what you did was slam liberals and Democrats - pretty much all of them - in your response, while your quotes are of people slamming the President.

Spackling Compound

03-22-2006, 12:07 PM

Oh. Ow, West3man.

Okay, let's try this then.

The question is:

And the answers from that very thread...
I don't know about anyone else, but this is like howy's digest early. Good quotes, Sab!

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 12:14 PM

Tell me, West3man...how is it you noticed what I said, but somehow missed all of the above? And how it is what I said was wrong, but all of what I quoted was correct? Oh, that's right...it's only correct when *your* side does it.

Gail never said we couldn't offer criticism, just no back-handed compliments. Can you not tell the difference?

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 12:14 PM

Sabrina, you're missing the point that what you did was slam liberals and Democrats - pretty much all of them - in your response, while your quotes are of people slamming the President.
I find this to be a pretty common tactic from "the other side".

For the most part, the left attacks the President while the right attacks all of the left.

west3man

03-22-2006, 12:15 PM

And the answers from that very thread...

Tell me, West3man...how is it you noticed what I said, but somehow missed all of the above?How much easier is it to notice one post in a thread with three responses versus one with three PAGES of response?

There's your answer.

And how it is what I said was wrong, but all of what I quoted was correct?I told you precisely how what you said was "wrong" (or, more precisely, where I found your post ironic or troubling). Too bad that loooong post you just composed didn't address a single point I raised.

Oh, that's right...it's only correct when *your* side does it.Pft.
The difference between a three page thread and a thread with three responses had NOTHING to do with anything, whatsoever.

By the way, when someone suggests a flaw in your argument or position, it's fine to consider whether they're just as critical of those they know, like, or agree with. But that's only half the job. The next step is to follow-up by considering if what they said was actually RIGHT. One might do that by actually considering and addressing the points the person raised.

If you'd put half the energy into examining your own position as you commit to criticizing others, I think we'd all be better for it. Trust. I criticize myself and my friends just like I criticize everybody else.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 12:18 PM

The only person I've seen doing that in YABS is Briareos, calling all Dems racists.

Form the "I Hate Talk Radio" thread (and all I had said is "I listen to some Rush (along with Handel and Hendrie on KFI...Handel is the one I love listening too, btw...)

"I mean, why didn't these morons leave New Orleans before the hurricane? I'll tell you why: because they wanted to rape and loot! That's just the way some people are! And if they're black--if the rapists and looters are black--it's not George Bush's fault! We've had these problems ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. Once the whites leave town, all you've got is overwhelming lawlessness. That's not racism, Mr. Snerdley; it's a proven, demonstrable fact. Have you even seen a ghetto in Greenwich, Connecticut? I rest my case. [9/12/05]"

So...without whites to tell them what to do, blacks are just lawless animals, eh? Then explain to me the rampant lawlessness in predominantly white areas of the south? Explain the massive number of rapes attributed to white perpetrators. Rush is full of crap, and racist sacks like yourself who support him are everything that's wrong with this country today.

That Rush quote was made up, BTW.

Report it for what? Quoting your idol Rush Limbaugh? If you aren't a racist, then why do you admire one so much?

And you are a pitiful thing for liking Rush. Get help. Therapy, medication, some additional IQ points, anything.

And it's much more than supposition to suggest that someone who idolizes Rush, as Sabrina seems to, is a racist.

What are you going to do about it? Burn a cross on my lawn?

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=106552&page=4&pp=15&highlight=santo

Samurai

03-22-2006, 12:19 PM

Sabrina, you're missing the point that what you did was slam liberals and Democrats - pretty much all of them - in your response, while your quotes are of people slamming the President.
... in a thread asking people to mention the good things he's done. And Sabrina didn't "slam" liberals, she correctly referred to the great animosity directed by them against any and all conservatives on YABS who don't show proper contrition and self-flagellation for being a conservative or voting for Bush.

Samurai

03-22-2006, 12:21 PM

I find this to be a pretty common tactic from "the other side".

For the most part, the left attacks the President while the right attacks all of the left.
Well, if the left produced anything resembling a leader (y'know, someone who leads...), then maybe we could attack them instead. When we mention the last leader you had (Clinton), all we get are groans of "Drop him already!"

Tom

03-22-2006, 12:24 PM

... in a thread asking people to mention the good things he's done.Yes. And? If your contention is to wag your finger at those people, be my guest.
And Sabrina didn't "slam" liberals, she correctly referred to the great animosity directed by them against any and all conservatives on YABS who don't show proper contrition and self-flagellation for being a conservative or voting for Bush.

Whoa. Talk about projection.

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 12:25 PM

Form the "I Hate Talk Radio" thread (and all I had said is "I listen to some Rush
Wow. One guy totally proves your point that:
Most of the Conservatives left YABS awhile back after being compared to Nazis and bigots 24/7.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 12:29 PM

Well, if the left produced anything resembling a leader (y'know, someone who leads...), then maybe we could attack them instead.
ZING!

When we mention the last leader you had (Clinton), all we get are groans of "Drop him already!"
DOUBLE ZING!

Yeah, it's nonsense like that that makes it worthless to talk to you.

It's amazing that in a response to the charge that all you do is attack the left as a whole and not its leaders you manage to just... attack the left as a whole and not its leaders.

cactusmaac

03-22-2006, 12:36 PM

Someone should start a thread where liberals are asked to criticize Clinton and conservatives are asked to defend him. See how that pans out. I'm guessing that liberals will be a lot more forthcoming about what they disliked about Clinton than conservatives manage to be when it comes to what they dislike about Bush. And also that conservatives won't have as many positive things to say about Clinton as liberals have managed to muster about Bush.

But, maybe that's just my bias showing and they'll surprise me.

Clinton did well on:

1. NAFTA. He ensured that free trade would have bipartisan support.

2. Welfare reform. See above.

3. He was a Democrat so the ensuing gridlock meant spending stayed down.

4. He eventually did the right thing in Kosovo.

5. He recognised the importance of the net and rise of SE Asia.

6. He put high-calibre people like Rubin and Summers in charge at the Treasury Department, left Greenspan in place at the Fed and was very on the ball during the LTCM crisis in 1998.

7. He wised up after 1994.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 12:47 PM

Well, okaythen, West, let's try it...

You criticize other people for making backhanded compliments in the "say something nice about GWB" thread while you offer softball criticisms in this one.

How is the fact that he spends too much and he's done nothing about illegal immigration softball? I consider those MAJOR problems, with the spending one the FAR bigger one. Is your point that I put it politely? Should I have said "He's F%^KING up on spending and F&^*ING up on immigration?"

Do you consider the stem-cell and cloning issues softball? Hey, sorry there, but as a med student, those are the ones I think I'm *supposed* to care about...and I really don't...but if I had to take a side, I'd probably disagree.

Then there's the "I don't recall a bad word he's said about them, and yet you never hear anything civil coming from the Dems at all" Bush compliment-by-way-of-Dem insult.

Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying "Dems on the Hill".

You also suggest that "the other side doesn't WANT to be united[/B]" after having made the most divisive points you could.

Look at what's happened to Joe Lieberman simply for siding with Bush on the war. He's a pariah.

See, you missed MY point that I thought he is/was wrong for even trying to be nice to the opposition. If you want me to rephrase it, try this: "I think it's a huge mistake to keep playing nice to your idealogical opponents. Play hardball with them. You're the President; act like it. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't act like that, in fact, you're almost a 180 degree turn away from him." Would that have been better?

This is probably why I wouldn't make a good politician BTW.

But, okay...I'll take your point (and now Tom's) that I shouldn't have
slammed Liberals. I still maintain that you're not seeing my point that on a thread where you were supposed to say what W had done right, that a signifigant amount did quite the opposite and simply used it as another excuse to slam W.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 12:51 PM

Ed, you said the only person who had done what you suggest was Bri (which I would like to see) and then I gave you quotes from Santo (and one from Pip) that proved otherwise.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 12:57 PM

And, to add to what Cactusmaac said, because he got all the good ones...

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which required large employers to allow their employees to take unpaid leave because of pregnancy or serious medical condition.

North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996.

And this will surprise you coming from me, but Clinton also signed into law the Brady Bill.

west3man

03-22-2006, 01:08 PM

Well, okaythen, West, let's try it...

How is the fact that he spends too much and he's done nothing about illegal immigration softball? I consider those MAJOR problems, with the spending one the FAR bigger one. Is your point that I put it politely? Should I have said "He's F%^KING up on spending and F&^*ING up on immigration?"I felt that "his insistence that working with the Democrats will actually work," was softballing, especially when followed-up by "which is foolish. I don't recall a bad word he's said about them,..."

Do you consider the stem-cell and cloning issues softball? Hey, sorry there, but as a med student, those are the ones I think I'm *supposed* to care about...and I really don't...but if I had to take a side, I'd probably disagree.

Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying "Dems on the Hill".I must say, I'm impressed by the fact that you did just what I suggested. Even if you disagree, the fact that you're willing to entertain opposing opinions, particularly after having been called-out, says something positive about you.

In case you're wondering, that's not intended as a backhanded comment, at all. :)

Look at what's happened to Joe Lieberman simply for siding with Bush on the war. He's a pariah.

See, you missed MY point that I thought he is/was wrong for even trying to be nice to the opposition.Nope. I got that, even if I completely disagree with it. In my opinion, you're endorsing the kind of partisan war games that leave "we the people" shell-shocked.

If you want me to rephrase it, try this: "I think it's a huge mistake to keep playing nice to your idealogical opponents. Play hardball with them. You're the President; act like it. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't act like that, in fact, you're almost a 180 degree turn away from him." Would that have been better?

This is probably why I wouldn't make a good politician BTW.

But, okay...I'll take your point (and now Tom's) that I shouldn't have
slammed Liberals. I still maintain that you're not seeing my point that on a thread where you were supposed to say what W had done right, that a signifigant amount did quite the opposite and simply used it as another excuse to slam W.Does the fact that I didn't address this point suggest to you that I didn't "get it?" I got it, really. I even think there's some validity to your point.

I just didn't want to derail the original threads (although I almost did since, as you mentioned, the Conservative one probably wouldn't get very many submissions) and I wanted to address the points with which I disagreed.

At any rate, I thank you for taking the time to consider my point-of-view. This easily could've become some big, ugly, flaming thread. Instead, it ends (at this point, anyway) with two people continuing to disagree on some points, but agreeing somewhat on others. Not bad, a'tall.

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 01:17 PM

Glad to see some conservatives taking my challenge. I always felt Republicans had more reason to like Clinton than Democrats did. Now, come on, libs! Let's show 'em we can hate Clinton better than they can hate Bush!

Things I never liked about Clinton:

1) Whenever any of his nominees became a political liability, he left them twisting in the wind.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell." What a lily-livered and scum-sucking way to duck out of being a leader.

3) His half-assed welfare reform, which was more of a sop to conservatives than an attempt to help the working poor.

4) The Communications Decency Act. Fuck that!

5) The TeleComm Reform Act. Fuck that, two times!

6) The Defense of Marriage Act, another sop to conservatives.

7) Furthering the already failed "War on Drugs" and putting an asshole like Gen. Barry McCaffrey in charge of the ONDCP.

8) That whole Monica thing, while none of our business, was also pretty embarrassing.

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 01:24 PM

Sure.

Things Clinton did wrong:

1) Should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Just because it's hypocritical partisan bullshit doesn't excuse the fact that you cheated on your wife.

2) DOMA.

3) Failed to enact universal healthcare.

EdContradictory

03-22-2006, 01:35 PM

Ed, you said the only person who had done what you suggest was Bri (which I would like to see)
Sure.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2787151&postcount=137

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2270276&postcount=70

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2176263&postcount=3185

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1976284&highlight=racist#post1976284

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1975333&postcount=2570

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1782611&highlight=racist#post1782611

and who could forget this classic:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=89653&highlight=racist

and let us not forget Samurai, either:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2205473&postcount=3435

and then I gave you quotes from Santo (and one from Pip) that proved otherwise.
Pip didn't say anything about people who like Rush being racists. Pip said they needed "therapy, medication, some additional IQ points".

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 01:48 PM

Kudos to Tad Sivana (over in the "for Conservatives/Republicans only" thread) for articulating why conservatives should be just as opposed to the Bush Administration as liberals are.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 01:56 PM

1) Should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Just because it's hypocritical partisan bullshit doesn't excuse the fact that you cheated on your wife...

3) Failed to enact universal healthcare.

1) Conservatives ... at least the real ones...didn't think it was about sex. The real problem with Monica was that it opened him up to potential blackmail. Apparently, the Russians knew about Monica before Drudge did. What if they had used her against him, or worse, if Monica had been a foreign agent?

3) If Bill had been in charge if it himself, we would have had it. He could sell freezers to Eskimos. The failure wasn't that he didn't enact it, it was in letting Hillary be in charge of it.

the4thpip

03-22-2006, 01:56 PM

Pip didn't say anything about people who like Rush being racists. Pip said they needed "therapy, medication, some additional IQ points".
See, just trying to help. And I am a licensed psychologist. I also know that Sabrina and titanfan take great offense with this, but I think it requires a lot of either denial, stupidity or self-loathing to be a GLB Republican.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 01:58 PM

Pip didn't say anything about people who like Rush being racists. Pip said they needed "therapy, medication, some additional IQ points".

Yeah, you're right there.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 02:00 PM

See, just trying to help. And I am a licensed psychologist. I also know that Sabrina and titanfan take great offense with this, but I think it requires a lot of either denial, stupidity or self-loathing to be a GLB Republican.

As well as it taking a great deal of elitism and smug self-superiority to make comments such as this.

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 02:09 PM

1) Conservatives ... at least the real ones...didn't think it was about sex. The real problem with Monica was that it opened him up to potential blackmail. Apparently, the Russians knew about Monica before Drudge did. What if they had used her against him, or worse, if Monica had been a foreign agent?

This sounds like historical revisionism to me. Please supply evidence that the Russians knew about Monica before Drudge. And please supply evidence that the potential for blackmail was actually the driving factor behind conservatives' call for impeachment.

I mean, honestly...if the sex was no big deal (as you now claim), then how was blackmail a threat?

I can understand why the Right would want to spin it this way. The only thing more embarrassing than Slick Willie getting his cock sucked by a plump intern was the irrational and opportunistic reaction of the Republicans.

K'Nort

03-22-2006, 02:15 PM

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 02:21 PM

This sounds like historical revisionism to me. Please supply evidence that the Russians knew about Monica before Drudge. And please supply evidence that the potential for blackmail was actually the driving factor behind conservatives' call for impeachment.

I mean, honestly...if the sex was no big deal (as you now claim), then how was blackmail a threat?

I can understand why the Right would want to spin it this way. The only thing more embarrassing than Slick Willie getting his cock sucked by a plump intern was the irrational and opportunistic reaction of the Republicans.

I read it awhile ago, I'll haveta start searching. But, let's face it, if Drudge could find out, you think the Russians couldn't?

Edit to add: Here's the link I was thinking of...

http://www.afpc.org/rrm/rrm577.htm

Editor's note: Russian intelligence knew about Clinton's sexual recklessness long before the mainstream American press reported about it. In February 1998, after the Lewinsky scandal became public, Russian External Intelligence Service (SVR) chief Vyacheslav Trubnikov told a Moscow newspaper that the espionage service anticipated Clinton's sex scandals "long ago." See Russia Reform Monitor No. 395.]

...although it's unclear from this wherther the specifically knew about Monica or just guessed something like this would happen sooner or later.

I said real Conservatives, not the ones on the Capitol at the time. Most of 'em.

He could have been blackmailed BECAUSE of the sex, but the sex in and of itself was unimportant. I'm not making my point well, there has to be a better way to say what I have in my head...

I don't think he should have been impeached over Monica. Wasn't it about perjury though, and Monica simply spun out of that as an amusing side-note?

cactusmaac

03-22-2006, 02:33 PM

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 02:40 PM

"Russian intelligence knew about Clinton's sexual recklessness long before the mainstream American press reported about it."

Wow...what a load of crap. The mainstream American press had been reporting stories of Clinton's sexual recklessness since before he was ever elected. Anyone remember Gennifer Flowers?

As you said, the citation leaves it unclear whether they actually had evidence of his affair with Lewinsky or if the KGB was just guessing that his sexual appetite would eventually become a political liability. Let's face it, guessing that Clinton would have a sex-scandal while in office was pretty much a no-brainer.

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 02:42 PM

See, just trying to help. And I am a licensed psychologist. I also know that Sabrina and titanfan take great offense with this, but I think it requires a lot of either denial, stupidity or self-loathing to be a GLB Republican.

So is that, like, tough-love therapy or something? However confusing it might be, one of the best things about this country is that lesbians can vote Republican as much as their muff-diving little hearts desire.

Ogdred

03-22-2006, 02:48 PM

Oh, another thing I disliked about Clinton: "I tried pot once, but I didn't inhale." Fuck you, Mr. Clinton, and your have-it-both-ways douchebaggery.

Noah Johnson

03-22-2006, 03:30 PM

I find it amusing that Sabrina considers pointing out that Bush is from Connecticut to be an insult. The right wing has SUCH a weird relationship to facts...

But if we want to play with the Clinton-criticism meme, I think you'll find a massive amount of contemporary criticism of him from the left during his terms. For my part, I'm utterly outraged that he signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I think it's pathetic that he helped continue and step up the bullshit War on Certain Drugs, and I'm still mad that he punked out on gays in the military, which showed the right wing that they could push him around. If he hadn't wussed out, we'd have decent national health care by now.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 03:50 PM

I find it amusing that Sabrina considers pointing out that Bush is from Connecticut to be an insult. The right wing has SUCH a weird relationship to facts...

If we're gunna play this out again, then I guess I'd better argue that the left-wing has SUCH a tenuous grasp on the concept of questions and answers.

Do you think Bush has accomplished anything worthwhile or admirable in his tenure?
Nothing backhanded, please. I'm looking for things he did that you felt were wise or good decisions.

Wait, wait, wait. Bush was born in Connecticut. CONNECTICUT.

Spackling Compound

03-22-2006, 03:53 PM

Is it just me, or does anyone else wanna see a full political thread with nothing but Sabrina and Pixies Chick?
It's just me...isn't it?

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 03:59 PM

I think you guys just wanna see us hot-oil wrestling.

Spackling Compound

03-22-2006, 04:01 PM

I think you guys just wanna see us hot-oil wrestling.
:eek:
And I mean that in a nice way...

matterconsumer

03-22-2006, 04:01 PM

and someone asked what I was doing on the conservative thread...

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 04:06 PM

Well, what WERE you doing on it, Matter? I mean, geez...you posted on both of 'em.

matterconsumer

03-22-2006, 04:10 PM

I haven't given you a hard time about taking it both ways :)

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 04:12 PM

The scary thing is, I did walk into that one...

Ed Cunard

03-22-2006, 04:14 PM

If we're gunna play this out again, then I guess I'd better argue that the left-wing has SUCH a tenuous grasp on the concept of questions and answers.

Yes, but you're missing a comment in-between those comments.

What do we really know about his stances and policies when he's busy chopping wood? I mean seriously. He's from Texas. I get it. But don't they have Lumberjacks for hire? (And if they do...can I move there?)

The part you quoted isn't the back-hand complement--s/he was correcting a factual inaccuracy from the preceding post; the part you left out wasn't back-handed at all--it was... fore-handed snideness?

Honestly, for as progressive as I am, I don't like bashing in that thread--on that, we agree. At the same time, though, this thread is very full of "yeah, well your side..."

That said, though, wouldn't it be awesome if people could, I don't know, play their positions instead of "well, the other side _______"

Like, while some conservatives here want to rush to Samurai's defense because he gets picked on, this is absolute bullshit:

... in a thread asking people to mention the good things he's done. And Sabrina didn't "slam" liberals, she correctly referred to the great animosity directed by them against any and all conservatives on YABS who don't show proper contrition and self-flagellation for being a conservative or voting for Bush.

I'm a liberal, and I don't direct animosity to any conservatives except Samurai, and that's only when he plays shenanigans (admittedly, I very rarely engage in the political threads any more because, as Gail said earlier, we are tending to lose our objectivity). Hell, some of my favorite posters are conservative to some degree--I *love* Fenris's thoughts on stuff, I've grown to love BlairH in an "aw, idn't he cute" way, I totally wish Screwtape would come back and post because he was awesome even if I didn't agree with his politics, and I am ape-shit in love with Nathan Carroll. Don't show contrition to me for voting how you vote or for thinking how you think. Show contrition for acting like a git. I mean, we all act like gits from time to time, but some people make a regular habit of it.

That said, though, you do have a point with some of the comments liberals have made here--some of those posts you posted earlier from El Santo and Pip were the same kind of crap that Samurai does, and others do it too--I can't remember who and what and when, but I've seen it. I guess I'd wish people would stop doing that crap on either side, which is why I rarely get involved in the political threads anymore. It makes me sad--I love talking politics! I just don't really like screaming politics--I smoke, so my throat is irritated enough). Half the time, I feel more compelled to comment on how someone else is commenting, rather than making comments of my own, and that's not so fun (like, um, now, I guess. My typing this is not fun.)

It's not like taking a hard-line position is a bad thing--believing strongly in something rocks, but being a cock about it? Not so rock.

Also, it would be totally awesome if someone bought me a pony. Or a herd of goats. Goats are cute and they eat grass so I don't have to mow the lawn.

Adam Crocker

03-22-2006, 04:16 PM

I love you Ed Cunard.

Ed Cunard

03-22-2006, 04:17 PM

I love you Ed Cunard.

No, I love you.

Also, I'm a hypocrite, because the minute this turns into a discussion on art comix vs. superhero stuff, I'll totally be Captain Insane Fun-Sucker and I will bore you all with form and hurt your feelings with rudeness.

matterconsumer

03-22-2006, 04:24 PM

The scary thing is, I did walk into that one...

It's ok. Perhaps some foam will soften the blow.

The name calling that so frequently flairs in political threads is just so much caca being tossed about.

But I understand that if a stalker fan is around Larry Dixon has the means to put 'em down!

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 04:24 PM

I'm a liberal, and I don't direct animosity to any conservatives except Samurai, and that's only when he plays shenanigans (admittedly, I very rarely engage in the political threads any more because, as Gail said earlier, we are tending to lose our objectivity). Hell, some of my favorite posters are conservative to some degree--I *love* Fenris's thoughts on stuff, I've grown to love BlairH in an "aw, idn't he cute" way, I totally wish Screwtape would come back and post because he was awesome even if I didn't agree with his politics, and I am ape-shit in love with Nathan Carroll. Don't show contrition to me for voting how you vote or for thinking how you think. Show contrition for acting like a git. I mean, we all act like gits from time to time, but some people make a regular habit of it.

I'm afraid where I'm perceived in relationship to that group...might be an interesting thread there where the Conservatives rate the Liberals and vice-versa...

No. WAAAY too dangerous there. Probably half the comm board would end up banned.

But I am actually fairly sure Pixies Chick is my ideological counterpoint on the Left.

Ed Cunard

03-22-2006, 04:26 PM

I'm afraid where I'm perceived in relationship to that group...might be an interesting thread there where the Conservatives rate the Liberals and vice-versa...

No. WAAAY too dangerous there. Probably half the comm board would end up banned.

OOOH OOOOH RATE ME. We could call it "Git or Nit."

...

Wait. Both of those are pejoratives. Shit.

Ed Cunard

03-22-2006, 04:29 PM

Actually, what I think would be neat (but I'm too lazy to do) is to see how close or how far people match up with their party lines. I consider myself "liberal" or "progressive," but I diverge with the "party line" on "key issues." So I'm probably more "moderate" than I give myself "credit" for.

Yeah, they were running a sale on quote marks. I'm waiting for the price to come down on em-dashes, so I can play Kerouac.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 04:30 PM

OOOH OOOOH RATE ME. We could call it "Git or Nit."

...

Wait. Both of those are pejoratives. Shit.

I actually don't know much about you at all, except there was a time when everyone was using your avatar. For the longest time, I thought you lived in Scotland with BlairH and Gaz. I'm not sure if you know anything about me either.

Ed Cunard

03-22-2006, 04:34 PM

I actually don't know much about you at all, except there was a time when everyone was using your avatar. For the longest time, I thought you lived in Scotland with BlairH and Gaz. I'm not sure if you know anything about me either.

I thought you were in Scotland with them.

Oh, I know stuff. But, again, I tend to stay away from the political threads, so I just know you're a conservative who gets worked up about shit sometimes, that you like to shoot things, and that you study medicine. If it's not a political thread, and it's at the Comm, YABS or Indie forum, I pretty much read everything.

I'm not sure if "liberals" have social lives, but I sure as hell don't anymore.

Vesper

03-22-2006, 04:48 PM

But, okay...I'll take your point (and now Tom's) that I shouldn't have
slammed Liberals. I still maintain that you're not seeing my point that on a thread where you were supposed to say what W had done right, that a signifigant amount did quite the opposite and simply used it as another excuse to slam W.

Honestly, I think this is an unfair remark. When someone makes a point in a thread, then I'm all for its pros and cons being discussed (and no one slammed another poster in that thread; just aspects of the topic). It certainly wasn't a thread intended to hurt any conservative feelings. This country is split on any number of important issues at the moment, and I think discussion is one of the healthiest ways to sort through our contradicting values.

On the other hand... I personally try to stay away from political threads because so many misunderstandings and irate tempers arise. I only said what I said on that thread because I considered it a "safe" place to post, as the majority of the people posting in it would share a (somewhat) similar point of view (though I certainly lean more to the left than most). I certainly wouldn't invade the "conservative" thread to post incindiary comments there.

Am I overwhelmingly negative about Bush's presidency? Sure. But I still live in the United States, I still pay taxes, and I certainly don't see moderates and conservatives as my enemies. I even posted my own positive Bush item to begin with, though I was taken to task for it (which I definitely didn't have a problem with).

Noah Johnson

03-22-2006, 04:51 PM

Am I overwhelmingly negative about Bush's presidency? Sure. But I still live in the United States, I still pay taxes, and I certainly don't see moderates and conservatives as my enemies. I even posted my own positive Bush item to begin with, though I was taken to task for it (which I definitely didn't have a problem with).
Hope I didn't seem too harsh. Believe me, I'd like it if there was at least one thing we could point to that Bush hasn't screwed up. NCLB, however, is not that thing.

It's strange that he hasn't had ONE successful policy. You'd think just the law of averages would produce one, but I can't think of one. Though really, considering that Bush's entire resume, through his whole life, is just him turning everything he touches to shit, it's not like we couldn't see this coming.

Vesper

03-22-2006, 05:15 PM

Hope I didn't seem too harsh. Believe me, I'd like it if there was at least one thing we could point to that Bush hasn't screwed up. NCLB, however, is not that thing.

It's strange that he hasn't had ONE successful policy. You'd think just the law of averages would produce one, but I can't think of one. Though really, considering that Bush's entire resume, through his whole life, is just him turning everything he touches to shit, it's not like we couldn't see this coming.

Not at all. I don't dispute your contradiction in the least.

I'll hold my tongue on the rest of it lest I rustle more feathers. However, if anyone wants to discuss something less politically sensitive, I'd love to join in. fly on the wall and I once had a great debate on the Comm board re: whether Hitler or Napoleon was the better dictator. I still have part of the song he wrote about it. :p Another discussion I enjoyed revolved around whether Abraham Lincoln was within his Constitutional rights to prevent the South from seceding. I'd love an excuse to delve more into Burke, Mill, Nozick, Hayek, Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, de Maistre, Aristotle, Marx, et. al. The political science major caged within constantly betrays me (she said, ever so dramatically).

kingdom2000

03-22-2006, 05:17 PM

I actually tried to come up with something positive, but I either didn't agree (the port thing) or at some where along the way his ideas got screwed up. Thus the "road to hell..." comment.

No Child Left Behind....good idea on the surface, poorly executed. His talk about education in general being important, but then spending the last five years cutting education budgets. Tax cuts are good...until put together with explosive spending. Money to Africa, a decent idea but one personally I think is wasted and could better be used to support medicine research. Even 9/11, the first fews days could be a postive but its clouded by his 7 minutes of confusion and the information that came out since then.

I simply could not come up with one thing, where the intial idea, its execution and the aftermath that was actually a "good" thing for the country.

kingdom2000

03-22-2006, 05:22 PM

I still maintain that you're not seeing my point that on a thread where you were supposed to say what W had done right, that a signifigant amount did quite the opposite and simply used it as another excuse to slam W.

Hmph. I ignore your reality and insert my own. As a slam it was rather subdued slamming as a whole. I say we all showed restraint (while ignoring the threads point). :evilsmile

Crowley

03-22-2006, 06:47 PM

I find the fact that people are so beholden to this President as though no one could ever say anything bad about him to be deeply disturbing.

Sabrinaset

03-22-2006, 06:54 PM

I find the fact that people are so beholden to this President as though no one could ever say anything bad about him to be deeply disturbing.

Who are these "people" you speak of? Do they exist at CBR? Everyone on the Conservative thread talked about where they had found failings with him.

Gail Simone

03-22-2006, 07:41 PM

Kudos to MacQuarrie for taking Gail's question seriously and answering it without equivocation.

MacQuarrie is the good stuff.

Gail

Justin D.

03-22-2006, 11:15 PM

To the dismay of many Republicans and right-wingers, a lot of people who refer to themselves as liberals, as opposed to people who are referred to as liberals by others (there's usually a difference), aren't against criticizing Clintion's presidency. You know why?

He wasn't a liberal. He was more liberal than Bush or Reagan. There's no arguing that. But he was not a "crazy, liberal Democrat" like many try to paint him as. If anything, he was a moderate. He did a few things I'm not thrilled about. However, no matter what I or anyone else thinks of his time as president, he's done amazing things since his term ended.

Also, I wasn't offended at all when Samurai slammed Democrats for not having a leader. For once, I thought he was right. They don't. They have people who try to step to the role from time to time, but end up tripping over their own feet more often than not.

By the way, I consider backhanded compliments to be something along the lines of, "I don't recall a bad word he's said about them, and yet you never hear anything civil coming from the Dems at all. He should have realized a long time ago that his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" policy won't work if the other side doesn't WANT to be united." That reads like, "I wish he's stop trying to get along with those mean Democrats since he's so much better than them." Maybe backhanded compliment isn't the right phrase. Backhanded insult?

west3man

03-22-2006, 11:38 PM

Crowley

03-22-2006, 11:53 PM

i will say that a few of the conservatives here in the past have made some really excellent points...

just not recently.

Justin D.

03-23-2006, 12:07 AM

Because all that matters is what he did, said, and believed, not which direction his political compass pointed?

I hope some of'em have a better reason than "He wasn't one of us, so we'll judge him harshly."

That's not really what I meant, but I can see how it could be taken that way given how I worded it. What I meant was that Clinton is not a good example for Republicans and right-wingers to bring up as someone liberals love for being such a liberal Democrat president because not only do we criticize him, but he wasn't all that liberal as a president. More in words than in actions. Yet, he's constantly brought up for the previoulsy given reason.

It might have been simpler to say something along the lines of, "Yeah, well, if he was as much of a crazy, liberal president as he's made out to be by Republicans, many people claiming they're conservatives, and far right-wingers, then why did he ______ and why didn't he ______?"

Samurai

03-23-2006, 09:08 AM

That's not really what I meant, but I can see how it could be taken that way given how I worded it. What I meant was that Clinton is not a good example for Republicans and right-wingers to bring up as someone liberals love for being such a liberal Democrat president because not only do we criticize him, but he wasn't all that liberal as a president. More in words than in actions. Yet, he's constantly brought up for the previoulsy given reason.

It might have been simpler to say something along the lines of, "Yeah, well, if he was as much of a crazy, liberal president as he's made out to be by Republicans, many people claiming they're conservatives, and far right-wingers, then why did he ______ and why didn't he ______?"
But if you notice the theme of the conservative complaints about Bush (spends too much, soft on immigration, etc), you could say the same thing about him. He's too moderate (even perhaps left-leaning) in some areas for the real conservatives to fully support. That's why his base has been disappointed in him. All the conservatives I know say the same things about him, which makes all the "people blindly follow Bush no matter what" comments so funny. I don't know of anyone that is perfectly happy with the job he's done.

Nick Soapdish

03-23-2006, 09:19 AM

But if you notice the theme of the conservative complaints about Bush (spends too much, soft on immigration, etc), you could say the same thing about him. He's too moderate (even perhaps left-leaning) in some areas for the real conservatives to fully support. That's why his base has been disappointed in him. All the conservatives I know say the same things about him, which makes all the "people blindly follow Bush no matter what" comments so funny. I don't know of anyone that is perfectly happy with the job he's done.

I'm guessing the "insistence that working with Democrats will actually work" falls into that category as well.

The "blindly follow" has more to do with the idea that his handling of Iraq or Katrina didn't make the radar for most of the complaints. It's rather astonishing to me that people don't think that he didn't make some mistakes there.

EdContradictory

03-23-2006, 09:47 AM

That's why his base has been disappointed in him. All the conservatives I know say the same things about him, which makes all the "people blindly follow Bush no matter what" comments so funny. I don't know of anyone that is perfectly happy with the job he's done.
The base is disappointed... but they continue to blindly follow him. It's not funny so much as sad.

Bush does things that make conservatives unhappy, but, before the Dubai deal, they never once made him pay a political price for it.

Gail Simone

03-23-2006, 10:35 AM

I wouldn't say that's entirely true...he did take some Conservative hits for the prescription drug plan, and for his previous choice for the Supreme Court (I've already forgotten her name).

Gail

west3man

03-23-2006, 10:38 AM

Oohhh. Now I get it. Folks thought I created this thread for them to respond to the TOPICS of those other threads when I created it so we could respond to the POSTS in those other threads.

Gonna hafta work on my phrasing. Sorry for the confusion.

K'Nort

03-23-2006, 10:38 AM

What I've observed in discussions with conservatives is that it's not that they are blindly following Bush despite being disappointed (even infuriated) with his choices. It's that they are completely unwilling to complain in front of Democrats/liberals/etc. The importance of presenting a united front. The value of loyalty. The right has always been more about keeping disputes private than the left is.

Ogdred

03-23-2006, 10:43 AM

I wouldn't say that's entirely true...he did take some Conservative hits for the prescription drug plan, and for his previous choice for the Supreme Court (I've already forgotten her name).

Gail

Harriett Miers. It was really more the Washington-based Republicans and pundits who disapproved of her and...well...rightly so. She wasn't exactly qualified for the job.

cactusmaac

03-23-2006, 10:46 AM

The base is disappointed... but they continue to blindly follow him. It's not funny so much as sad.

Bush does things that make conservatives unhappy, but, before the Dubai deal, they never once made him pay a political price for it.

No one bloc in the GOP coalition is big enough to keep power on its' own so unity is imperative. So the small-governmenters hate his spending, the fiscal conservatives hate his deficits, the paleos hate his lackadaisical approach to illegal immigration, the libertarians hate the Patriot Act and the free-traders hated the steel tariffs.

Balanced against that though is the realisation that the middle-class love their entitlements, tax cuts are popular, it would be political suicide for the GOP to antagonise Latinos as they did in California and concerns over civil liberties don't hold as much water in suburban living rooms as they do on the Internet.

Griping is OK up to a point - and anyone who thinks conservatives are "blindly" following Bush must go out of their way to avoid the dissent aired on conservative websites, columnists and journals - but sabotaging the party's prospects because you're only getting half a loaf is a recipe for ensuring you don't get any loaf in the future.

The "blindly follow" has more to do with the idea that his handling of Iraq or Katrina didn't make the radar for most of the complaints. It's rather astonishing to me that people don't think that he didn't make some mistakes there.

It depends on how much you think he was genuinely at fault vs how much was the result of unforseen consequences. Hindsight is always 20\20.

Ogdred

03-23-2006, 10:48 AM

west3man

03-23-2006, 10:54 AM

It evolved. The thread is a living document. Like the Constitution!
Maybe. If so, it evolved mighty quickly.
No biggie, either way. It's serving a purpose, which is good enough. If anyone feels compelled to comment on the original OR the current topic, they're more than welcome to.

I'd just been wondering about the lack of ANY rebuttals that didn't have to do with the original post and quote. When I saw that extra room for interpretation, it was like I finally solved a Rubix cube or something. I had to share.

EdContradictory

03-23-2006, 11:15 AM

I wouldn't say that's entirely true...he did take some Conservative hits for the prescription drug plan, and for his previous choice for the Supreme Court (I've already forgotten her name).

Gail
I'll give you Miers, but his prescription drug plan passed in 2003, and maybe he'll pay a price for it this November, but he sure didn't in 2004.

and anyone who thinks conservatives are "blindly" following Bush must go out of their way to avoid the dissent aired on conservative websites, columnists and journals
Dissent without actual repercussions is just easily ignored noise.

titanfan

03-23-2006, 03:01 PM

See, just trying to help. And I am a licensed psychologist. I also know that Sabrina and titanfan take great offense with this, but I think it requires a lot of either denial, stupidity or self-loathing to be a GLB Republican.

You would think that a liberal would be more open to trying to see the world from someone else's eyes.

TCJohnson

03-23-2006, 03:13 PM

I'm kinda thinking you won't get too many responses on this thread, Gail. Most of the Conservatives left YABS awhile back after being compared to Nazis and bigots 24/7. Heck, just listening to Rush is enough to be accused of planting crosses on yards.

I just want to say that there is one conservative on this board I really don't like. There is another that I really don't like when he discusses politics but is cool other times.

I may disagree strongly with other conservatives on this board (Phoney Bone, Sabrinaset, Bizz Dixon, Titanfan, Matterconsumer, Spackling Compound, MacQuarrie) I don't think you are Nazis and think this community would be poorer without you.

Spackling Compound

03-23-2006, 03:23 PM

I just want to say that there is one conservative on this board I really don't like. There is another that I really don't like when he discusses politics but is cool other times.

I may disagree strongly with other conservatives on this board (Phoney Bone, Sabrinaset, Bizz Dixon, Titanfan, Matterconsumer, Spackling Compound, MacQuarrie) I don't think you are Nazis and think this community would be poorer without you.

Thanks, TC.

I voted Clinton (twice) and Bush (twice). I voted for the Democrat for governor.
But I'd say all in all, I'm a conservative.

Phoney Bone

03-23-2006, 03:25 PM

I may disagree strongly with other conservatives on this board (Phoney Bone, Sabrinaset, Bizz Dixon, Titanfan, Matterconsumer, Spackling Compound, MacQuarrie) I don't think you are Nazis and think this community would be poorer without you.

As far as I'm concerned, the feeling is mutal and I don't think the liberals who post here are a bunch of Communists.

Except Night Swordsman.

Hating the Muppets is just Un-American!

TCJohnson

03-23-2006, 04:18 PM

Hating the Muppets is just Un-American!

He doesn't like Muppets?

Freakin' republican.

Justin D.

03-23-2006, 05:08 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the feeling is mutal and I don't think the liberals who post here are a bunch of Communists.

Except Night Swordsman.

Hating the Muppets is just Un-American!

What the hell?! Is this the same person who didn't like the Mahna Mahna song? He seriously has something wrong with him. I would not elect anyone to office who hated the Muppets. I don't care if they said they were going to give everyone jetpacks that ran on water. If you hate the Muppets, you're not getting my vote.

Nuh uh.

Sabrinaset

03-23-2006, 07:20 PM

You would think that a liberal would be more open to trying to see the world from someone else's eyes.

You'd think a PSYCHOLOGIST would as well. One has to wonder where that "license" is from!

As far as I'm concerned, the feeling is mutal and I don't think the liberals who post here are a bunch of Communists.

Agree there, PB :)

Samurai

03-24-2006, 01:22 AM

No one bloc in the GOP coalition is big enough to keep power on its' own so unity is imperative. So the small-governmenters hate his spending, the fiscal conservatives hate his deficits, the paleos hate his lackadaisical approach to illegal immigration, the libertarians hate the Patriot Act and the free-traders hated the steel tariffs.

Balanced against that though is the realisation that the middle-class love their entitlements, tax cuts are popular, it would be political suicide for the GOP to antagonise Latinos as they did in California and concerns over civil liberties don't hold as much water in suburban living rooms as they do on the Internet.

Griping is OK up to a point - and anyone who thinks conservatives are "blindly" following Bush must go out of their way to avoid the dissent aired on conservative websites, columnists and journals - but sabotaging the party's prospects because you're only getting half a loaf is a recipe for ensuring you don't get any loaf in the future.

It depends on how much you think he was genuinely at fault vs how much was the result of unforseen consequences. Hindsight is always 20\20.
Excellent post, Maac... I second it completely.

kingdom2000

03-24-2006, 01:41 AM

^ That repub philosophy does make sense...to bad it hasn't actually accomplished much. Except for the big business focus, I don't see anything that was fundamentally "republican" that has been accomplished in the last 5 years. Its actually amazing how little has been accomplished in light of the absolute control they have. And yes the argument could be made about the Patriot Act, but until Bush that would have smelled more of a democrat idea then a republican one. Its just amazes me how what was democrat 10 years ago is republican now and its just accepted without question or a fight. But then we are once again in the age where the illusion of safety is paramount (lessons of 1950s being ignored).

What really amuses me is with the repubs so busy feeding from the trough of big business and pork (bridges to nowhere) that they could have made American their version of utopia but they somehow utterly failed. If I was a die hard repub like some here, I would be more then a little pissed about it.

They not only failed spectacularily but its quite possible that it cost them the control they had. While I know that all good things in the last 200 years come from repubs and all bad things from Dems, that cannot be said anymore cause Odie has left the building and can't even take a shit without Repub's permission. Blaming Odie for anything at this point just looks foolish (course still hear "clinton" every other sentence). Its interesting that Odie kept control of Congress for what 30+ years and Republicans may lose it in only 6.

matterconsumer

03-24-2006, 01:50 AM

Sabrinaset

03-24-2006, 03:38 PM

I'm not Jewish! :)

Ogdred

03-24-2006, 04:29 PM

I'm not Jewish! :)

Who the hell said you were?

Wait...sorry....this isn't the Huffybaby thread.

Sabrinaset

03-24-2006, 06:19 PM

Who the hell said you were?

Wait...sorry....this isn't the Huffybaby thread.

See post #94, two posts above your last one.

Ogdred

03-24-2006, 06:22 PM

See post #94, two posts above your last one.

He didn't say you were Jewish. He said, "what if" on top of all those other things, the hypothetical in question (you) were also Jewish? Which, you're not. But, what if you were? But, you're not. I know. You said that. But, what if you were? Okay, forget it. I don't know where he was going with that question, either.

matterconsumer

03-24-2006, 06:27 PM

Some Jews are notorious for being neurotic and/or self-loathing. "Self-loathing" was mentioned as part of the statement "but I think it requires a lot of either denial, stupidity or self-loathing to be a GLB Republican."

It was a joke.

---sometimes subtle matterconsumer

spoon_jenkins

04-08-2006, 12:06 AM

I'm guessing the "insistence that working with Democrats will actually work" falls into that category as well.

The "blindly follow" has more to do with the idea that his handling of Iraq or Katrina didn't make the radar for most of the complaints. It's rather astonishing to me that people don't think that he didn't make some mistakes there.
This is the thing that truly depresses me.

I'm also astonished that there isn't nearly unanimous condemnation of Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina. I mean, even if the President were a close friend/relative of mine and he/she handled Katrina like Bush did, I'd ream that person out and it would really hurt my opinion of that person.

Basically, when I make a political argument against Bush or the Republican leadership on a thread, I'm only trying to convince independents and, say, 20% of Republicans. I feel that a lot of Republicans will not be convinced no matter what happens.

Samurai

04-08-2006, 05:22 AM

This is the thing that truly depresses me.

I'm also astonished that there isn't nearly unanimous condemnation of Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina. I mean, even if the President were a close friend/relative of mine and he/she handled Katrina like Bush did, I'd ream that person out and it would really hurt my opinion of that person.

Basically, when I make a political argument against Bush or the Republican leadership on a thread, I'm only trying to convince independents and, say, 20% of Republicans. I feel that a lot of Republicans will not be convinced no matter what happens.
Just what did Bush himself supposedly do wrong in Katrina? Was there a slow and haphazard response from FEMA? Yes, but that's FEMA's and the Director's fault. Bush should have chosen a better Director of FEMA, but that isn't something he specifically did during Katrina.

Also, FEMA has never been a first responder... they come in to support local and state authorities afterwards. Always have.

Should Bush have sent in the National Guard? By law, he couldn't until the Gov specifically calls for them. That idiot Blanco didn't call for them until much later, and Bush sent the Guard as soon as she did.

Her and the fool Nagin refused offer after offer of help and blew several opportunities to minimize damage and loss of life. Amtak offered to movde people out by train... they refused. Hundreds of school busses sat in the parking lot and were submerged rather than have them used to evacuate people. They made errors after errors, directly and personally, that far outweigh Bush's role in the problems.

spoon_jenkins

04-08-2006, 11:18 AM

Just what did Bush himself supposedly do wrong in Katrina? Was there a slow and haphazard response from FEMA? Yes, but that's FEMA's and the Director's fault. Bush should have chosen a better Director of FEMA, but that isn't something he specifically did during Katrina.
Yes, he should have picked a better Director. That's really unforgiveable. There's no way Bush shouldn't be slammed for this, other than making a semantic point that it's not part of "response" - which would miss the point that he botched the situation.

Bush doesn't get the Deist god excuse that he just sets stuff in motion. He is ultimately. And especially regarding serious situations, he has to take a very hands-on approach. I mean, doesn't the fact that he had a teleconference before landfall and visited afterward prove that it's something the prez should be involved with. Just because we have a Sec. of State doesn't mean the prez avoids meeting with foreign leaders or lays back on foreign affairs.

Seems like your tortured logic almost implies that it's the President's job to do nothing.

Also, FEMA has never been a first responder... they come in to support local and state authorities afterwards. Always have.
First of all, FEMA website before and after Katrina specifically said that it was supposed to take the lead in major emergencies. In case you haven't heard, FEMA has lots of resources that aren't getting out there. They have tons of trailers sitting empty. They didn't respond quickly. There were even internal emails/memoes that they weren't positioned to respond super-quickly.

Directed federal/military response did come - hence it was capable of being sent, but it was slow.

Should Bush have sent in the National Guard? By law, he couldn't until the Gov specifically calls for them. That idiot Blanco didn't call for them until much later, and Bush sent the Guard as soon as she did.
I thought this had been thoroughly debunked. Letters turned up that Blanco had asked before landfall and the Administration was that she didn't phrase in the exact right magic words that they thought she should have used.

Her and the fool Nagin refused offer after offer of help and blew several opportunities to minimize damage and loss of life. Amtak offered to movde people out by train... they refused. Hundreds of school busses sat in the parking lot and were submerged rather than have them used to evacuate people. They made errors after errors, directly and personally, that far outweigh Bush's role in the problems.
I don't think Nagin or Blanco should be absolved on whatever mistakes they made, but that's really tangential to excusing Bush. The best thing you can say about Bush is you think other people did worse.

Hurricane Katrina was a major catastrophe that was beyond the scale of local governments' resources, so you need outside federal help to handle the scale. In all the threads at the time, I don't recall you or any other Bush apologists at all making any effort whatsoever to refute this point. You all just remained silent. For example, it may be hard to find the personnel within you local government to man buses, so you bring in outside drivers and others to handle the immensely atypical transportation needs. Or, here's an obvious one - why aren't all the Katrina evacuees housed in the Gulf Coast area? Why are they spread out in many states all over the place? Because it's so damn obvious that the resources just aren't sufficient to handle it locally.

And Bush and leading Administration officials (he's responsible for Chertoff, Brown, et al.) claiming ignorance of specific situations when any idiot with internet, TV, or even a newspaper knew about them. They should be way ahead of the general public on this information rather than trailing. That's inexcusable.