RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


FirmhandKY -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 12:39:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm .... an ethical dilemma ...

Should I call you a liar, or just prove you wrong?

Or should I say that you base your comments and beliefs on a lie ... but that you're comfortable with that?

Page 130 of the "The Complete Independent Panel Report on CBS News" (pdf file)

The clear inference from this excerpt is that President Bush was in the TexANG to avoid service in Vietnam. Bush did state in his 1968 TexANG application that he did not volunteer to go overseas. However, Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG, did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.72 For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.


Does anyone on the right believe that there is a chance in hell that you'll admit you are wrong, and change your claim?

Firm


I don't know, you tell me.

Your quoted link says Bush himself said he did not volunteer for overseas duty.



.... my work is done here ...

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 12:40:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

searching for better proof


too late. I've already responded to your original post.

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 12:43:59 AM)

Funny ... and on-point .... political cartoon:

Day by Day

Firm




rulemylife -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 12:49:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Here is the actual quote:

Sanchez cited "a CNN source with very close ties to the U.S. Secret Service," who informed him that, "threats on the life of the President of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration," and that this goes, "far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president."


Yeah ... reliable sources .... an anonymous CNN source ... I bet it's the hairdress's friend, who runs a dry cleaner, who once had a maid who once thought about giving a BJ to a friend who once dated a secretly gay man, who told her than he worked for the CIA during Vietnam, but was lately working on getting into a counterfeiting ring so that he could help his brother Barney who wanted a job at the Secret Service ... if only they would ignore his drug trafficking charge in 1996 ...

He did have an interview with the SS, once, after all ...

Firm


[sm=rofl.gif]

This from the man who regularly posts obscure conservative blogs and touts the anonymous posters quotes on them as fact.




rulemylife -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 12:50:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

searching for better proof


too late. I've already responded to your original post.

Firm


Never too late.




rulemylife -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 12:53:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Funny ... and on-point .... political cartoon:

Day by Day

Firm


Two million huh?

Hasn't that already been debunked?





rulemylife -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 1:45:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm .... an ethical dilemma ...

Should I call you a liar, or just prove you wrong?

Or should I say that you base your comments and beliefs on a lie ... but that you're comfortable with that?

Page 130 of the "The Complete Independent Panel Report on CBS News" (pdf file)

The clear inference from this excerpt is that President Bush was in the TexANG to avoid service in Vietnam. Bush did state in his 1968 TexANG application that he did not volunteer to go overseas. However, Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG, did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.72 For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.


Does anyone on the right believe that there is a chance in hell that you'll admit you are wrong, and change your claim?

Firm


Only when you can substantiate it.

There are a few problems here.

To begin, I know a little something about the Air Guard and I know how hard it is to get a slot in peace time, much less when it is being used by spoiled rich kids to avoid the draft.

Lt. Governor Barnes admitted he pulled strings to get Bush in.

Your link provided nothing to contradict that fact.

So, if you want to call me a liar do you have anything else to offer?


Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points ...The reported comments by former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes add fuel to a long-running controversy over how Bush got a slot in an outfit known as ...
www.washingtonpost



A former senior politician from Texas has told close friends that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War because he was eager to "collect chits" from an influential political family


The reported comments by former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes add fuel to a long-running controversy over how Bush got a slot in an outfit known as the "Champagne Unit" because it included so many sons of prominent Texans.


Friends said that Barnes had recorded an interview for the CBS program "60 Minutes" that will address the question of whether Bush pulled strings to evade being sent to Vietnam.






rulemylife -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 1:54:33 AM)

Washingtonpost.com: At Height of Vietnam, Bush Picks Guard


Two weeks before he was to graduate from Yale, George Walker Bush stepped into the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Field outside Houston and announced that he wanted to sign up for pilot training.

It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week.

The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied.

His commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, was apparently so pleased to have a VIP's son in his unit that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in.

Later, when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant by another subordinate, Staudt again staged a special ceremony for the cameras, this time with Bush's father the congressman – a supporter of the Vietnam War – standing proudly in the background.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 4:17:08 AM)

quote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

.....this one didn't, eh? ORIGINAL: philosophy




Philosophy,
While I have been trying mightily to avoid bringing Bush into conversations in a desire to avoid the "well look what their guy did" form of argument, I have to say that I was never bothered by the fact that he didn't serve in Vietnam for whatever reason. What did bother me was that a man who spent the war in the safety of Texas allowed his campaign to defame two war decorated heroes who did serve their country in that war. That he allowed his campaign to try to paint McCain as an incompetent who's time as a prisoner of war shouldn't be worth respect because "he had no choice" and just "proved his was incompetent" was unforgivable in my opinion. That he allowed his campaign to support the "swiftboaters" to impugn the courage and honest of Kerry was also unforgivable.

I have nothing against someone who doesn't want to fight. There can be a lot of valid reasons for it. But in choosing not to put their lives on the line under fire, they lose their right to slander or libel those who have.





subfever -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 5:56:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

Many of your fellow Americans feel very very angry right now.  Whether it's properly articulated (or properly directed) or not.  When you posture yourself against (or above) them, you simply further the divide.  (Divide as in "divide and conquer.")  

People are feeling angry for a reason.  And in that sense, I have more in common with any pissed-off redneck with a swastika sign than I do with the corporate lackeys (of either fake persuasion) who are raping and pillaging this country every day (and successfully steering our anger and judgment toward each other, instead of toward them).





Ah... a breath of fresh air.

It's nice to see our ranks growing too.




Sanity -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 6:15:04 AM)


Who is mad?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Firm, "the right" spent the last 8 years digging the hole they now find themselves in - 8 years of earning every goddamned shred of the anger, disgust, and lack of respect of which they now find themselves the targets. From looting the treasury and totally trashing the world economy to line their own pockets, to treating the constitution like a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their collective shoe, to running up bazillions of dollars worth of debt to finance a war of aggression they lied us into, to slandering and maligning the patriotism of anyone who even questioned (much less opposed) their every action, to... well, I could type all night, but you get the point.

And now you're crying like little girls because people aren't being nice to you? Tough shit. Cry me a fucking river. The piper's at the door with his invoice in hand, and you people who supported and enabled Bush get absolutely no sympathy from me. Zero.

Live with it, if I may borrow a phrase from you. Spare us all the "oh, why can't we put the partisanship aside and be nice to each other" crap. You and your ilk had no interest whatsoever in "returning to honest debate and discussion" when you were busily fucking up the entire country for generations to come, so don't expect most of us to pay any attention to your whining now that you no longer have the imperial power you enjoyed for most of President Adolph Gump's Reign of Error. As far as I'm concerned, the republican party is "nothing more than scum that should be wiped off the feet before entering polite company", as you so candidly put it. If that's the way you people now find yourself being treated, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. 




UncleNasty -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 6:50:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

You're confusing our reaction to a target rich environment for anger.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You're confusing our reaction to a target rich environment for anger.




Let me take this opportunity to apologize if I have framed the original post in a less than constructive manner. Also let me take an opportunity to try to correct that error.

Can we address the two questions:
What are the parameters of reasonable political debate? (I do not ask so much for a firm line of demarcation, but some agreement of what falls firmly outside that line. Much as saying that while there can be argument whether the work of Maplethorpe or Playboy magazine are or are not pornography, we can generally agree that Debbie Does Dallas IS pornography)?

and

What can be done, on an individual and collective basis to bring our own political conversations into accordance with those lines of demarcation?



That you failed to see the lack of objectivity in your post is part of the problem. That you are so very far from being alone in doing such is also part of the problem.

When discussions are begun with statements/comments/questions that are phrased in such a way the recipient will likely feel demeaned/invalidated/marginalized/insulted it is very difficult to have effective communication or discourse.

Uncle Nasty




SpinnerofTales -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 8:34:53 AM)


quote:

That you failed to see the lack of objectivity in your post is part of the problem. That you are so very far from being alone in doing such is also part of the problem.

When discussions are begun with statements/comments/questions that are phrased in such a way the recipient will likely feel demeaned/invalidated/marginalized/insulted it is very difficult to have effective communication or discourse.

Uncle Nasty


Which is why I apologizied and attempted to reframe the question is a more constructive light. There are times for political humor, satire and even a degree of showmanship towards one's point. There are also times when it is inappropriate. In this case, I fully admit to stepping over the line. And, when it was pointed out to me that I had done so, I tried to correct it.

But I do believe that my initial question was valid. I believe that I see a rage past reason from the right that began on the day Obama took office. Further, I have gottenthe feeling that it is not just the issues that are causing this rage, but the feeling that there is some attemtp to silence, remove or otherwise still their rights of free speech in these matters. I still would like to know from where this feeling that the government is not just ignoring the right but actively pursuing unfair action against them comes.




FirmhandKY -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 9:43:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

Further, I have gotten the feeling that it is not just the issues that are causing this rage, but the feeling that there is some attemtp to silence, remove or otherwise still their rights of free speech in these matters. I still would like to know from where this feeling that the government is not just ignoring the right but actively pursuing unfair action against them comes.

As Uncle Nasty has said:

... statements/comments/questions that are phrased in such a way the recipient will likely feel demeaned/invalidated/marginalized/insulted it is very difficult to have effective communication or discourse.

As I mentioned to Panda in your "nazi" thread (where he was dismissive of the fact) listen to our political leaders. Read the newspapers, watch the tv "news" and tell me that they are anything other than dismissive and insulting about anyone who doesn't agree with them.

It's why it's gotten beyond disagreement about the health care issue. That particular issue is simply the forum in which the attitude of our elected officials became so overwhelming apparent that it set off a countervailing reaction to their methods and attitudes.

Firm




SpinnerofTales -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 11:09:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


As I mentioned to Panda in your "nazi" thread (where he was dismissive of the fact) listen to our political leaders. Read the newspapers, watch the tv "news" and tell me that they are anything other than dismissive and insulting about anyone who doesn't agree with them.

It's why it's gotten beyond disagreement about the health care issue. That particular issue is simply the forum in which the attitude of our elected officials became so overwhelming apparent that it set off a countervailing reaction to their methods and attitudes.

Firm


quote:

As I mentioned to Panda in your "nazi" thread (where he was dismissive of the fact) listen to our political leaders. Read the newspapers, watch the tv "news" and tell me that they are anything other than dismissive and insulting about anyone who doesn't agree with them.

It's why it's gotten beyond disagreement about the health care issue. That particular issue is simply the forum in which the attitude of our elected officials became so overwhelming apparent that it set off a countervailing reaction to their methods and attitudes
Firm, I think we’re getting somewhere here. While you speak of the right learning lessons from the left, you are missing out on what the left wing has actually learned in the forty years we’ve been demonstrating, rabble rousing and making noise. That may be because the republicans are just coming to the party now. So let me, and I do this as a unilateral gesture of bi-partisan good will, let you in on what us lefties have learned.

1) There is a tremendous difference between the right to speak and the right to have anyone listen. The first is guaranteed by the first amendment which I hold as sacred as do NRA members the second amendment. You have the right to go out and say just about anything you want in just about any way you want. However, everyone else has the right to listen or not as they choose. If you speak and no one listens, it isn’t your rights being taken away, it’s their rights being exercised. Even elected officials have no legal duty to listen to protests of any kind from anyone. The only obligation they have is to leave if they’re voted out of office. Therefore, just about anything that doesn’t get them voted out of office is usually ignored. Again, you can argue the right or wrong of it, but it’s a knife that cuts both ways.

2) The louder you shout, the less people listen. People don’t like strident. If you yell all the time, people start to turn off no matter what you say. Sure there is the place for big splashy demonstrations. The Tea Party march was a good example. But if you keep up that level of angry shouting all the time, you become viewed as irrational, angry mobs and no one wants to be associated with you. Six months down the road, the people who’s minds can be changed should be saying “these are people with good ideas about lessening the deficit” not “oh, those are the nuts with the swastikas”. Shocking images, enraged shouting, and such should be used very very sparingly. Otherwise, you get branded as the “lunatic fringe”

3) Extremists make people nervous: The democrats didn’t get power in their last two turns in the White House by burning flags, screaming slogans or scuffling with police. They did it by presenting an image of calm reason. Hell, they even changed their name from “liberal” to progressive just to stop being associated with that scary, tax and spend image. They moved towards the center rather than the edges. If the republicans keep shooting towards the edges, they’re just going to be angry outsiders. Move a little towards the center. It may be galling but it will make people more receptive to your message.

4) The media is nobody’s friend. They news media has no agendas. They have demographics. If ever there was a tradition of fair, impartial news gathering and reporting, it’s dead as a doornail. The news media’s agenda is now ratings and advertising sales revenue. That goes for both sides. Even if it’s true, stop yelling about the biased media. It makes you look like a conspiracy theorist and besides, it gives the news media more ammunition to make you look bad.

5) EVERYBODY gets dissed and dismissed. As a person who far prefers the term “pro-choice” to “baby killer”, “Atheist” to “Godless sinner” and far prefers “Obama supporter” to “Brainwashed liberal Obama worshipper”, I know it’s hard not to grow annoyed with this fact. Trust me, the left has learned that you don’t get anywhere fighting over the names or showing offense. It just shows you take it seriously. Calling names back doesn’t help. It just makes you look as bad or worse as your opponent. When tow groups stand on opposite sides of the street shouting bad names at each other, the people in the middle leave and go fof coffee.

So, these are a few of the lessons that the left has learned in the forty years of protesting stuff. It all comes down to some simple rules. Don’t come off angry, don’t lie no matter how badly the opposition does, try to walk the line between standing your ground and coming off like you’re spoiling for a fight. Then when you use your right to speak freely, maybe people will use their right to listen.




Irishknight -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 4:11:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

That he allowed his campaign to try to paint McCain as an incompetent who's time as a prisoner of war shouldn't be worth respect because "he had no choice" and just "proved his was incompetent" was unforgivable in my opinion. That he allowed his campaign to support the "swiftboaters" to impugn the courage and honest of Kerry was also unforgivable.



Did you see how McCain crumbled by the end of the presidential election? I have a great deal of respect for what McCain endured for his country. His fitness to be president on the other hand is in serious doubt. Both sides have played that card and it has worked.

As for Kerry..... I'll just agree to disagree with you. I do not now nor will I ever like the man nor give him anything close to respect. Apparently enough of the country agreed with me that we got saddled with "W" a second time.


As for the Bush haters only protesting truths.... they still want to cry that both elections were stolen. In both cases, it is bunk. There are too many sources disproving it. My wife's aunt still throws that into the ring whenever someone says "republican." The stolen election lies were old before the World Trade Centers were attacked.

The anger is the same. It has only shifted sides. It will keep doing so until we learn to stop wrapping our political differences in the hate that both parties so freely spew.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 4:38:44 PM)

quote:

As for the Bush haters only protesting truths.... they still want to cry that both elections were stolen. In both cases, it is bunk. There are too many sources disproving it. My wife's aunt still throws that into the ring whenever someone says "republican." The stolen election lies were old before the World Trade Centers were attacked.
ORIGINAL: Irishknight



Just for the record, I NEVER claimed the second election was stolen. The second election was a combination of Carl Rove being very, very good and the Demcrats being very, very bad.  The first election I'm not so sure about, to be honest. In any case, it stands that Bush was first put into office in an election where more Americans voted for his opponent than for him.




Arpig -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 5:40:49 PM)

quote:

In any case, it stands that Bush was first put into office in an election where more Americans voted for his opponent than for him.
Not actually an unknown thing in US history...after all it isn't the people who elect the President.

Its happened at least 4 times: J. Q. Adams in  1824, Hayes in 1876, Harrison in 1888, and W in 2000.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 5:49:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

In any case, it stands that Bush was first put into office in an election where more Americans voted for his opponent than for him.
Not actually an unknown thing in US history...after all it isn't the people who elect the President.

Its happened at least 4 times: J. Q. Adams in  1824, Hayes in 1876, Harrison in 1888, and W in 2000.



True..but it's still a disturbing experience.




Arpig -> RE: What Are the Conservatives So Mad At? (9/14/2009 5:50:49 PM)

Well it certainly emphasizes the anomaly of the Electoral College. But then again we have our inexplicable institutions as well.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02