|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
American Spectator: By far the most common and silliest debate about the war in Iraq is the old send-your-child-to-Iraq-or-shut-up sophism. This so-called line of reasoning maintains that a government only has the moral authority to commit troops to an armed conflict if its leaders first pack their own kids off to the front.
Not only must the offspring of administration hawks enlist -- as the left's argument goes -- but the commander-in-chief and his advisers must also be battle-tested.
If progressives had their way the only persons with the moral authority (never mind the skill or expertise) to lead the Iraq conflict are those who have fought in the trenches. And service in the Texas Air National Guard, or surviving the attacks on the Pentagon or Twin Towers on 9-11, doesn't count.
Such a policy would likely exclude most of the current federal government.
Had there been some kind of asinine military service litmus test in place at the nation's founding, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, George "Father of the Bill of Rights" Mason, and Thomas Paine would have been ineligible for government service (or in Paine's case his views ignored) since not one of them wore the uniform of the continental army, and not one of them had a child serve. (George Mason's son John, a bank president and foundry owner, was appointed brigadier general of the District of Columbia militia, a unit much like the contemporary National Guard, which as we know from George W. Bush's service in that branch, doesn't count.) Only Washington, Monroe, and Hamilton would have been eligible for office.
Apparently, what liberals want is a military junta running the government.
But the left's idiotic ideas would go beyond mere policymakers. Not only must government officials and their offspring enlist, but civilians who support the war either have to sign up or shut up.
When history's great military thinkers -- the Sun Tzus, the Clauswitzes, the Jominis and Napoleons -- created military strategy, they did not deem it necessary to waste time on whether the adult children of government leaders joined the armed forces. They knew that such distractions divide the country and take our eye off the real target. It simply is not an issue when battling Taliban forces or Saddam's Republican Guard. It is a shallow partisan political ploy and thus has no bearing on military strategy.
Here's a basic civics lesson for the Left: when the U.S. Congress votes to commit troops, it is speaking for the nation as a whole, malcontents too, and not just those that happen to agree with the outcome. The American people voted through their representatives to take out Saddam Hussein.
It is not the pro-war Americans that are being hypocritical. That description goes -- in George Will's words -- to the Americans who think "the world is too good for America."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
doesn't the term chickenhawk stem from people who avoided active combat in their youth, but then pushed for war in their later years?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 340
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 340 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
doesn't the term chickenhawk stem from people who avoided active combat in their youth, but then pushed for war in their later years?
Good point. Obviously the left doesn't have a problem with a Commander in Chief who does not have a military background, e.g. they were fully confident in that "damn draft dodger Clinton" (as my grandfather used to say) and his ability to responsibly use the military.
Chickenhawks are clearly not non-military public officials, but politicians who
are "hawks" because they regularly employ strong rhetoric about the use of military force but are "chickens" because as members of the "Baby-Boom" generation they could have fought in Korea/Vietnam, but deferred or avoided service in combat even thought they were on the political side that ardently advocated those wars as necessary despite criticism (again hawks).
I am a man with needs. Rack JLA!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Chickenhawks are clearly not non-military public officials, but politicians who
are "hawks" because they regularly employ strong rhetoric about the use of military force but are "chickens" because as members of the "Baby-Boom" generation they could have fought in Korea/Vietnam, but deferred or avoided service in combat even thought they were on the political side that ardently advocated those wars as necessary despite criticism (again hawks).
And that fails to describe Clinton how?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Chickenhawks are clearly not non-military public officials, but politicians who
are "hawks" because they regularly employ strong rhetoric about the use of military force but are "chickens" because as members of the "Baby-Boom" generation they could have fought in Korea/Vietnam, but deferred or avoided service in combat even thought they were on the political side that ardently advocated those wars as necessary despite criticism (again hawks).
And that fails to describe Bush how?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
My point was that Flagg brought up Clinton as a president who wasn't a "chickenhawk", in order to disprove the point of the thread, but then went on to define a chickenhawk in a way that appears to describe Clinton.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 22
few posts
|
|
few posts
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 22 |
I say I say I hate chickenhawks, I just hate him I say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Chickenhawks are clearly not non-military public officials, but politicians who
are "hawks" because they regularly employ strong rhetoric about the use of military force but are "chickens" because as members of the "Baby-Boom" generation they could have fought in Korea/Vietnam, but deferred or avoided service in combat even thought they were on the political side that ardently advocated those wars as necessary despite criticism (again hawks).
And that fails to describe Clinton how?
Clinton was never really overly pushing for wars.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
They did provide a convenient diversion on two noteworthy occasions. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
someone said:
Chickenhawks are clearly not non-military public officials, but politicians who
are "hawks" because they regularly employ strong rhetoric about the use of military force but are "chickens" because as members of the "Baby-Boom" generation they could have fought in Korea/Vietnam, but deferred or avoided service in combat even thought they were on the political side that ardently advocated those wars as necessary despite criticism (again hawks).
Quote:
the G-man said:
And that fails to describe Clinton how?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Clinton was never really overly pushing for wars.
Clinton was willing to send troops into Kosovo and Somolia, not to mention his occasional bombing runs against Iraq.
You might or might not agree with those decisions. But those were every bit as much military incursions as what Bush has done.
If Bush is a chickenhawk for serving in the National Guard instead of Vietnam and then using the military while President, Clinton is a chickenhawk for going to college on a student deferment and then using the military while President.
Personally, I think the argument cited in my original post demonstrates the fallacy of calling either man a chickenhawk.
If you only could be so consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
My point was that Flagg brought up Clinton as a president who wasn't a "chickenhawk", in order to disprove the point of the thread, but then went on to define a chickenhawk in a way that appears to describe Clinton.
The key to remember here, G-man, is that the term can only be used as a pejorative against Republicans.
( Despite the battlefield courage of Republicans such as George H.W. Bush, John McCain, Bob Dole and many others.)
As you say, Clinton (among his many other indiscretions) is a card-carrying draft evader, and yet (of course! ) none of the liberal/Democrats had anything negative to say about Clinton or his lack of battle experience with which to make his war decisions.
(Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan...)
And each of these parenthetical ( ) war decisions of Clinton's are vulnerable to criticism, of going in with too small an invasion force, not enough preparation, questionable motives, longer deployment than was promised when begun, lack of exit strategy, etc., etc.
And of course liberals, as they bask in their partisan venom against Bush and Cheney, never seem to notice the criticisms they raise against Bush are just as true of Clinton's military decisions.
Among other possible chickenhawk candidates:
Al Gore ( being a military news reporter is a cushy job, not nearly the same as combat experience Democrats demand from Republicans)
.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (and his military experience was... ? )
.
Harry Truman ( same question )
But alas...
We can't apply it to Democrats, only Republicans, right?
I don't seriously wish to demonize Roosevelt, Truman or Gore on this criteria.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the alternate double-standard Democrats and the liberal media apply to Republicans, and from which they exempt their own, as they partisanly attack Republicans in a deliberately skewed and emotionally charged way.
________________________________________
Proud Recipient of 1000 Mr JLA RACK points
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
I should remind everyone that G-man started this thread with an editorial that refers not to some of the left or even most of the left but to the left as if we're all one uni-mind. With that start we move into Liberals mysteriously making rules about only Republicans can be Chickenhawks without any Liberal actually saying such a silly thing. Can we maybe rise above some of this?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
They did provide a convenient diversion on two noteworthy occasions.
yeah, remember when he was going after that completely benign guy to divert our attention? that guy who wasn't really a threat to anyone, and all the republicans said the guy was harmless and was being used as a diversion?
what was that guy's name? and whatever happened to him?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I should remind everyone that G-man started this thread with an editorial that refers not to some of the left or even most of the left but to the left as if we're all one uni-mind. With that start we move into Liberals mysteriously making rules about only Republicans can be Chickenhawks without any Liberal actually saying such a silly thing. Can we maybe rise above some of this?
PLEASE do not waste time with facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I should remind everyone that G-man started this thread with an editorial that refers not to some of the left or even most of the left but to the left as if we're all one uni-mind.
The liberal mindset is one uni-mind, chanting the mantra "Bush is an idiot".
Democrats may vary in opinion on other issues, but they ARE one uni-mind in their partisan trashing of Bush, with an endless stream of new trumped-up hyperbolic allegations and conspiracy theories against Bush every few weeks, for four years now, none of which have been proven in all that time.
I hasten to add that this Democrat uni-mind hypocritically trashes Bush for having pretty much the same policy toward Iraq that Clinton had since January 1998
( a stated objective of regime change in Iraq, with the stated national threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed, a statement repeated by Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and virtually every other leading Democrat in the House and Senate. Democrat statements of the need for regime change made right on up to early 2003. )
Somehow that little bit of Democrat hypocrisy escapes liberals, in their relentless partisan trashing of Bush, for his pursuing exactly the same policy Democrat leaders clearly advocated in the Congressional record.
Amazing how the liberal media, which never misses an opportunity to point out the slightest appearance of inconsistency in the words of any Bush official, seems to have missed every opportunity in the last three years to point out the polar change in statements by virtually every Democrat regarding Iraq, prior to and since the Iraq war began.
But the uni-mind continues to chant, oblivious to the national interest.
And oblivious to their own hypocrisy.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
With that start we move into Liberals mysteriously making rules about only Republicans can be Chickenhawks without any Liberal actually saying such a silly thing. Can we maybe rise above some of this?
I find this especially funny coming from you, Matter Eater Man.
For you of all people to talk about "rising above" partisanship ?!?
You rarely miss an opportunity to report the latest half-baked partisan allegation against Republicans.
You relentlessly post links and articles to partisan liberal spin-sites such as mediamatters.org and the Democrat party itself.
And I could post an endless number of past discussions where you have initiated the type of partisan venom that you hypocritically say we should all "rise above".
A few:
President Bush VS Kerry, military records online
HERE
"It's not about oil or Iraq..."
HERE
Ann Coulter
HERE
Impeach Bush over WMDs?
HERE
Do liberals HATE the President?
HERE
Do Liberals HATE America?
HERE
"Rise above" apparently means to you: Republicans, just shut up and take it.
________________________________________
Proud Recipient of 1000 Mr JLA RACK points
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Not to mention the fact I said this argument could apply to both (Republican) Bush and )Democrat) Clinton. But that it should apply to neither, that BOTH were capable of being President without military service.
But, according to certain posters, the Republicans are the ones "bashing".
Quote:
I should remind everyone that G-man started this thread with an editorial that refers not to some of the left or even most of the left but to the left as if we're all one uni-mind.
Use of "Liberals say" or "Conservatives say" is typical shorthand, found it editorials from both sides, for "Some/many liberals say" or "Some/many conservatives say". Sorry I didn't bother to extensively edit the article to avoid offending you over a minor point to what I was starting the thread about.
Quote:
...we move into Liberals mysteriously making rules about only Republicans can be Chickenhawks without any Liberal actually saying such a silly thing.
"Liberal" flag then brought up Clinton. "Liberal" Ray then tried to differentiate Clinton from Republicans and explain why Clinton couldn't be a chickenhawk.
In addition, as soon as I pointed out that you could tar Clinton with the same brush, simply in order to dispute Flagg's point, "Liberal but pretends to be moderate" Theory9 immediately started trying to steer the thread back to a Bush attack.
Quote:
Can we maybe rise above some of this?
As noted above, I said this argument could apply to both (Republican) Bush and )Democrat) Clinton. But that it should apply to neither, that BOTH were capable of being President without military service.
So which side is failing to "rise above" anything here?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The liberal mindset is one uni-mind, chanting the mantra "Bush is an idiot".
..."Rise above" apparently means to you: Republicans, just shut up and take it.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The liberal mindset is one uni-mind, chanting the mantra "Bush is an idiot".
..."Rise above" apparently means to you: Republicans, just shut up and take it.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
The American Expectorator article uses the straw man tactic. Who are these 'Liberals' that say this?????
The very notion of sending one's children to the war is ridiculous. These "children" are adults. They make their own decisions and the smart ones don't enlist in the Armed Forces. This a mercenary, er volunteer army that is fighting over there, not a conscripted one.
I'm a liberal and I have no military service requirement for elected officials. On the contrary, one of the few things I admire GWB for was his cleverness in avoiding conscription. Same goes for Clinton. They successfully dodged the draft while maintaining plausible deniability, GWB more skilfully than Bill.
Liberals are not of one mind on things, sorry. If we were we would probably win more elections.
Te Democratic Party is not liberal. It's the lesser of two evils. Let's here it for open primaries and proportional representation. That's liberal.
X ers & Y ers are wankers.
Finally, Wonder Boy should change his name to Wind Bag
Last edited by magicjay38; 2005-10-21 4:05 PM.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
The American Expectorator article uses the straw man tactic. Who are these 'Liberals' that say this?????
Michael Moore made a big, well-received by many liberals, show of many of these points in his F9/11 film, for one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
The American Expectorator article uses the straw man tactic. Who are these 'Liberals' that say this?????
Michael Moore made a big, well-received by many liberals, show of many of these points in his F9/11 film, for one.
Michael Moore doesn't speak for me or many other liberals. I never saw F 9/11. Do you assume that everyone that saw the movie agreed with everything in it? Why don't you run a search and replace routine that changes every occurance of 'liberals' to 'Michael Moore'. How dare you presume to speak for me.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You asked me to name liberals who made that argument. I named one.
If you don't like the answer to your questions, don't ask them in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Here G-man. this is a more accurate assesment.  Quote:
the G-man said:
American Spectator:
LIST]By far the most common and silliest debate about the war in Iraq is the old send-your-child-to-Iraq-or-shut-up sophism. This so-called line of reasoning maintains that a government only has the moral authority to commit troops to an armed conflict if its leaders first pack their own kids off to the front.
Not only must the offspring of administration hawks enlist -- as Michael Moore's argument goes -- but the commander-in-chief and his advisers must also be battle-tested.
If Michael Moore had his way the only persons with the moral authority (never mind the skill or expertise) to lead the Iraq conflict are those who have fought in the trenches. And service in the Texas Air National Guard, or surviving the attacks on the Pentagon or Twin Towers on 9-11, doesn't count.
Such a policy would likely exclude most of the current federal government.
Had there been some kind of asinine military service litmus test in place at the nation's founding, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, George "Father of the Bill of Rights" Mason, and Thomas Paine would have been ineligible for government service (or in Paine's case his views ignored) since not one of them wore the uniform of the continental army, and not one of them had a child serve. (George Mason's son John, a bank president and foundry owner, was appointed brigadier general of the District of Columbia militia, a unit much like the contemporary National Guard, which as we know from George W. Bush's service in that branch, doesn't count.) Only Washington, Monroe, and Hamilton would have been eligible for office.
Apparently, what Michael Moore wants is a military junta running the government.
But Michael Moore's idiotic ideas would go beyond mere policymakers. Not only must government officials and their offspring enlist, but civilians who support the war either have to sign up or shut up.
When history's great military thinkers -- the Sun Tzus, the Clauswitzes, the Jominis and Napoleons -- created military strategy, they did not deem it necessary to waste time on whether the adult children of government leaders joined the armed forces. They knew that such distractions divide the country and take our eye off the real target. It simply is not an issue when battling Taliban forces or Saddam's Republican Guard. It is a shallow partisan political ploy and thus has no bearing on military strategy.
Here's a basic civics lesson for Michael Moore: when the U.S. Congress votes to commit troops, it is speaking for the nation as a whole, malcontents too, and not just those that happen to agree with the outcome. The American people voted through their representatives to take out Saddam Hussein.
It is not the pro-war Americans that are being hypocritical. That description goes -- in George Will's words -- to the Americans who think "the world is too good for America." [/LIST]
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I hate to pull a "Ray Adler," but a google search of the phrase "republican chickenhawks" returned 10,800 hits. That's a lot of liberals advancing the "chickenhawk" argument.
A similar search shows that only about 500 of those hits involved "Michael Moore."
So if you want to know who these liberals are, it appears that there are literally thousands of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I hate to pull a "Ray Adler," but a google search of the phrase "republican chickenhawks" returned 10,800 hits. That's a lot of liberals advancing the "chickenhawk" argument.
A similar search shows that only about 500 of those hits involved "Michael Moore."
So if you want to know who these liberals are, it appears that there are literally thousands of them.
Your research methodology is sorely lacking. Many of those hits are in opposition to the idea and represent multiple postings by the same individuals. So, if you want to be anywhere near accurate, you'd need to weed out the multiple postings and eliminate those instances of Right Wing posters in opposition to the idea. Then you could say that X percent of liberals that post on the internet (how do we get the denominator for this fraction?) agree with Michael Moore's take on the subject. You'd really need to do more than that but this would put you in the ballpark. It would be improper to generalize the findings to the entire population anyway.
If you're a clever programmer and do nothing else you should be able to accomplish the task in a couple of weeks. Enjoy reading and quantifying all that open-end data!
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I should remind everyone that G-man started this thread with an editorial that refers not to some of the left or even most of the left but to the left as if we're all one uni-mind.
The liberal mindset is one uni-mind, chanting the mantra "Bush is an idiot".
Democrats may vary in opinion on other issues, but they ARE one uni-mind in their partisan trashing of Bush, with an endless stream of new trumped-up hyperbolic allegations and conspiracy theories against Bush every few weeks, for four years now, none of which have been proven in all that time.
There have been a number of times I've said that President Bush is not an idiot elsewhere & in this very forum. I likewise notice partisan Republicans behaving in the same manor you describe towards top Democrats.
Quote:
I hasten to add that this Democrat uni-mind hypocritically trashes Bush for having pretty much the same policy toward Iraq that Clinton had since January 1998
( a stated objective of regime change in Iraq, with the stated national threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed, a statement repeated by Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and virtually every other leading Democrat in the House and Senate. Democrat statements of the need for regime change made right on up to early 2003. )
Somehow that little bit of Democrat hypocrisy escapes liberals, in their relentless partisan trashing of Bush, for his pursuing exactly the same policy Democrat leaders clearly advocated in the Congressional record.
Clinton's policy towards Iraq was one of containment. He bombed Iraq a couple of times with considerable less support from Republicans than the Dem's gave to President Bush. It's just not factualy true to say both President's had/have the same policy towards Iraq. As for the Dems who supported President Bush for his war with Iraq. It was based at least partly on bad intel that was sold as good intel by President Bush. The WMD stuff was continued to be touted as good long after better evidence pointed otherwise.
Quote:
Amazing how the liberal media, which never misses an opportunity to point out the slightest appearance of inconsistency in the words of any Bush official, seems to have missed every opportunity in the last three years to point out the polar change in statements by virtually every Democrat regarding Iraq, prior to and since the Iraq war began.
But the uni-mind continues to chant, oblivious to the national interest.
And oblivious to their own hypocrisy.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
With that start we move into Liberals mysteriously making rules about only Republicans can be Chickenhawks without any Liberal actually saying such a silly thing. Can we maybe rise above some of this?
Quote:
I find this especially funny coming from you, Matter Eater Man.
For you of all people to talk about "rising above" partisanship ?!?
You rarely miss an opportunity to report the latest half-baked partisan allegation against Republicans.
You relentlessly post links and articles to partisan liberal spin-sites such as mediamatters.org and the Democrat party itself.
And I could post an endless number of past discussions where you have initiated the type of partisan venom that you hypocritically say we should all "rise above".
A few:
President Bush VS Kerry, military records online
HERE
"It's not about oil or Iraq..."
HERE
Ann Coulter
HERE
Impeach Bush over WMDs?
HERE
Do liberals HATE the President?
HERE
Do Liberals HATE America?
HERE
"Rise above" apparently means to you: Republicans, just shut up and take it.
Wonder Boy I hardly want you to shut up. You may not care for me & I'm certainly partisan, I would still hope the sentiment I expressed would still have value. While I'm partisan, there are plenty of Republicans I like who I know are good people. Beyond their all being Republican, I just couldn't group them with negative traits like you do with Liberals/Dems.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Not to mention the fact I said this argument could apply to both (Republican) Bush and )Democrat) Clinton. But that it should apply to neither, that BOTH were capable of being President without military service.
But, according to certain posters, the Republicans are the ones "bashing".Quote:
Quote:
I should remind everyone that G-man started this thread with an editorial that refers not to some of the left or even most of the left but to the left as if we're all one uni-mind.
Use of "Liberals say" or "Conservatives say" is typical shorthand, found it editorials from both sides, for "Some/many liberals say" or "Some/many conservatives say". Sorry I didn't bother to extensively edit the article to avoid offending you over a minor point to what I was starting the thread about.
How do you know when either is using it as short hand? In these days where there are Rush Limbaughs & Anne Coulters who are actively promoting a negative connotation to anything Liberal it gets confusing for me. Wonder Boy doesn't seem to see it as short hand either considering his response.
Quote:
...we move into Liberals mysteriously making rules about only Republicans can be Chickenhawks without any Liberal actually saying such a silly thing.
....
Quote:
As noted above, I said this argument could apply to both (Republican) Bush and )Democrat) Clinton. But that it should apply to neither, that BOTH were capable of being President without military service.
So which side is failing to "rise above" anything here?
I don't have an arguement about somebody not having military service & being President. I was pointing out you started the thread with a very partisan negative slant.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
