I sincerely request that you read Richard Clarke’s book Against All Enemies, because you clearly do not have the slightest idea what went on in the fight against terrorism during the Clinton administration. BTW, the phrase “a few cruise missiles” is right out of the RNC talking points. But you forgot to say “lobbed”.
I don’t think I’m deluding myself. It certainly seems to me that there are more liberals than more conservatives on this board. It also seems to me that the posting conservatives are generally more measured, and that there’s quite a few extremist nutjob liberal types, but few of their conservative counterparts.
YMMV.
I’m not saying such doesn’t exist. I haven’t seen it, though. Comparatively though, it would seem that left bashing is very uncommon on this board while right-bashing is pretty prevalent.
And taking every word out of Clarke’s mouth as gospel is straight out of the DNC talking points. I won’t contribute to the hijack further, but Clarke’s rendition of the “facts” seemed to be geared toward burnishing Clinton and bashing Bush. He certainly didn’t present himself as an unbiased source.
Perhaps not; let’s review:
:eek:
:eek:
*My * mileage may vary? Friend Scylla, I would venture to say your mileage is unique, without peer, nonpareil. If you can find another poster, liberal or conservative, with unabashed cheek to concur in these statements without blushing, I will concede that it is I who is deluded on this point, not you.
Unquestionably true.
Yes, but this is almost certainly a function of the first observation. If one in fifteen liberals is an extremist nutjob, and one in fifteen conservatives is an extremist nutjob, then here on the SDMB you’ll see more liberal extremist nutjobs than conservative extremist nutjobs.
Again, when you have a population that’s strongly liberal, you’re going to see more right-bashing than left-bashing.
Shodan nailed it. I’ve came across far many more 100% Bush-haters. I’ve never met a 100% Bush-supporter. I’ve yet to meet a Bush supporter who actually liked the Medicare bill, for example.
Gee, couldn’t the fact that the right controls all elements of government add a tiny bit to the disproportionate amount of bashing of the right? Then add in the exceptional levels of corruption and incompetence in the White House, House and Senate, and you’re accounting for a good level of right-bashing.
The question should be: “Why aren’t you doing more bashing of the right?”
For example, just today comes this:
Yes, that’s a fair observation. When the right is running the show, there is disproportionately more fodder for bashing.
Well, here’s where we part company. Certainly there is incompetence and corruption to be found; I don’t agree it’s at significant variance from previous administrations.
Perhaps. I did try googling “Senate Majority Leader insider trading” and “presidential advisor outing CIA undercover agent,” but all that came up was pretty recent.
You are deluded on this point. Scylla is correct.
Regards,
Shodan
Those specific scandals are recent. But Google “Iran contra,” “Bert Lance,” or “Agriculture Secretary Espy” for examples of previous scandals.
You’re blushing.
Oh, you meant that the present Republican leadership of the House, Senate and White House has not shown more corruption and incompetence than all prior periods of government combined. Well, that I cannot really argue with. However, if that is the standard one has to reach for conservatives to voice opposition, it is easier to understand the 40%.
No, that’s post-orgasmic flushing.
Regards,
Shodan
Just a quick reminder: Clarke was National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000 and
Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003. IOW he’s in a better position to know what White House antiterrorism policy and actions were than anyone else.
The fact that you don’t like what he says doesn’t make him biased. You need some actual evidence that he’s ignoring some facts and overemphasizing others to show that. I am not aware of any, are you?
As for the frequency of corruption questions about the current administration, surely more of you than are on display here understand that those in power are far more likely to be approached by corruptors than those out of power. Is it really a surprise to find a disproportionate number of stories come out to that effect? How long can you continue to peremptorily dismiss them as simple bashing?
How would you know?
I agree with Scylla, and I’m not blushing. Honest! It’s just a suntan! See? 
Check some blogs, like Glenn Reynolds. The Frist-Insider Trading story is at best, extremely weak (in short, he only sold after it became known that numerous company insiders were selling), and the Plame affair never made any sense.
In any case, not only do liberals outnumber conservatives on this board, they seem to have even when Clinton-bashing was all the rage.
Well, Glenn Reynold’s alleged opinions notwithstanding, it is already clear that Frist has lied about the matter, and specifically about the amount of information that he had about his holdings.
An interesting comment from the Washington Post article, germane to your concerns, Bricker:
I don’t blush…my skin is brown. 
Just to make sure I understand what I’m agreeing to here, this seems to be the points you are getting at:
"It also seems to me that the posting conservatives are generally more measured, and that there’s quite a few extremist nutjob liberal types, but few of their conservative counterparts. "
and
"Comparatively though, it would seem that left bashing is very uncommon on this board while right-bashing is pretty prevalent. "
Ok, so generally I would agree that the few ‘conservatives’ left on this board ARE more measured in their responses compared to the ‘liberals’…through sheer weight of numbers. Oh, there are conservative nutjobs still about, though they are mostly good only for drive by posts. However, there are a lot more ‘liberal’ posters on this board than ‘conservative’, so there are a lot more left wingnuts than right wingnuts.
As for left-wing vs right-wing bashing, I’d say there is no contest ‘comparatively’ speaking…the right-wing bashing is predominent, at least in this forum and compared to the amount of left-wing bashing. The ‘right-wing’ bashing takes many forms, from the sheer number of Bush Bashes™ brute force attacks to the more subtle ones on things like discussions on ‘greedy capitalists’ and ‘evil corporations’, on social planning (and ‘heartless conservatives’), etc. If we compiled a list I would put my money on a lot more ‘right-wing bashing’ than ‘left-wing bashing’ when all was added up.
So…yeah, I generally agree with the two statements Scylla made there as well.
As to the OP I would say that most of the ones labeled ‘conservative’ on this board (including myself oddly enough to my mind) haven’t been shy about bashing Bush on some point…they are just not willing to mindlessly bash him on ALL points, or perhaps even on most points (though this varies with the poster…I like to think that I’m about 40/60% against Bush, being opposed mostly on economic and government expansion type issues, though I’m not overly fond of his Iraq adventure either).
I certainly know some conservatives IRL who are pro-Bush right or wrong, and who will contort through all manner of logical hoops to make sure Bush is always right (my dad for instance)…but then, I know liberals who do the same thing (my sister and the majority of my uncles, aunts, cousins, etc). On THIS board though I think the majority of those labeled ‘conservative’ take a much more sober approach to viewing Bush and his actions, being critical when warrented as they measure his actions against their own political world view in a thoughtful manner. Thats my own take, judging those listed as ‘conservative’ through multiple threads…instead of trying to take a snapshot of one post or even one thread and then pointing at that and saying that they are mindless Bush supporters. JMHO
-XT
Try googling “Dan Rostenkowski sentenced to 17 months in prison”. Then try googling “Dan Rostenkowski pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2000”. That might lead to you googling other Clinton pardons.