I was wondering if one of the officers on the SDMB would rebuke me for this. I’ve said elsewhere that it’s a very gray area (as you did as well in your above comments) as I am abstaining from direct criticism and the criticism that I am giving is aimed not at members of the Legislative or Executive Branches of government but at the candidates themselves, which I believe I am allowed to do as a citizen. I’d actually be willing to take a Court-Martial (by refusing what would almost certainly be an Article 15 initially) as a test case. But again, as you said, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that they would go after me, especailly given that I have been very circumspect in my comments. As far as a detriment to good order and discipline goes, I obey orders to the letter AND I volunteer for everything that comes down the pike, so I could hardly be considered a detriment to cohesion, any more than the people who send e-mails over DOD servers in support for Bush could be.
But thank you for your concern and the compliments, sir. Based upon this I would say that you are an excellent officer, due to your obvious concern for a nogoodnik Airman like myself.
Yeah, a “nogoodnik” for sure. Every unit should have a few more problem airmen like you. I figured you knew the regs, but I wanted to make fer-damn-sure, so I don’t have to see your face on the cover of the Air Force Times a few weeks from now. Reminds me of that old song… never mind.
As for an “excellent” officer, I’ll concede that I’m learning. I let it slip at a party that I was military, and a few pointed questions later, this walking side of beef with a high-and-tight started SIR-ing me at full volume, and doing stupid shit just to see if I’d give him a direct order in mixed company and out of uniform. But that’s a tale for another thread. Like I said, I’m learning.
You may resume all this political stuff. Or, um… “as you were.”
You point out that Bush couldn’t be bothered to do anything until you made it an issue. You hammer home the fact that Bush was perfectly content to let Bin Laden run loose until you pressed him on the issue. You run ads showing Rummy and Bush saying that they didn’t think that they’d capture Bin Laden.
There’s not going to be a strong enough uptick in the economy between now and November for that to be a concern.
There’s not going to be any WMDs found, but if, on the off-chance that some are found, you hammer away at the fact that it took them over a year to find them. That they used shoddy intelligence when they went to war because of how long it took them to find the weapons. Point out that given how long it took the US to find the weapons that the world’s lucky AQ didn’t get to them first. Or you could pull a Zell Miller and claim that the Administration planted them.
The same is true of Bush. Every time he opens his mouth, he runs the risk of saying something which could come back to haunt him later. Hell, a good ad for Kerry to run would be simply Bush saying, “Nucular” over and over again, while pointing out that if the man can’t speak correct English, how is he going to gain the respect of other world leaders.
Yeow, Tuckerfan, remind me never to run against you for dogcatcher or anything. Seems to me you’ve got a pretty good handle on how to take an opponent mercilessly apart and feed him to the media, piece by bloody piece.
Actually, I prefer a 'nad shot, followed by a thorough stomping and then the coup de grace. I just think that if you’re going to run for office (or run a business), you shouldn’t pussy foot around, go after your opponent with both barrels.
You may not have chosen the best thread you could have to demonstrate your point.
From the linked thread:
Along with encouragement from some for the Democrats to use slimy accusations such as Bush compelling a woman to get an abortion, and (in other threads) accusations that Bush is “a flaming homo”. Etc., etc.
Although you are correct that as it became more and more clear that the documents were questionable at best, the more hysterical morons who are the subject of this thread became less and less vocal.
And to be fair, the thread did contain this laudably fair-minded quote that I am sure you will recognize:
Which does you credit.
But then again, you have made your Bush-bashing bones, and are therefore safe from the accusations of mindless partisanship that are almost guaranteed for anyone expressing an insufficient level of hatred for Bush.
As mentioned by Airman, Weirddave, Max_Castle, **Bill H.**and others.
Interesting. So how do you explain this thread, in which Bricker states right there in post #2 that not only does he not hate Bush with a passion, but, dear lord, let me make sure I’m sitting down while I type these hateful words, he actually plans to vote for Bush, and yet he is not dogpiled, reviled, banned, or mocked?
Could it be that, contrary to your delusions of heroic persecution, the harsh reactions that you frequently receive are not simply due to the flailings-about of the mythical leftist SDMB hive mind, but are, in fact, the result of you yourself frequently being a partisan jerk?
(Note: I’m not claiming that no one EVER acts in the way you and Airman are describing. But seriously, read the thread I linked to. Sure, most people in that thread are anti-Bush. Most disagree with Bricker. A few even get a touch sarcastic and dismissive about it. But that thread, and many others like it on the SDMB, is basically a group of reasonable and intelligent people politely offering their opinions on a topic.)
Shodan, the thing is, you’re so often making the same sort of sweeping statements about liberals and leftists that you make in this thread, that I don’t see where you have any higher ground to speak of. One concession to liberals four years ago doesn’t make you objective; you’re one of the most extremist partisans on this board.
In quoting that thread to you, I was pointing out that things weren’t going exactly according to form: you had at least one leftist in the thread saying that the documents looked pretty damned suspicious. You tend to ignore such leftists in favor of focusing on folks with less nuanced political outlooks; in so doing, your own political outlook is represented as non-nuanced.
When Airman or Bricker or John Mace or a handful of other folks with conservative tendencies (including economic conservatism, obviously) criticize partisanship, it holds water. I just don’t see where you think you’re in a position to make such criticisms.
So, one leftist in a thread means the thread is non-partisan. But my one cite is disregarded, and you reiterate that I am an extremist partisan.
You dismiss my entire position as partisan and extremist, because you claim I make “sweeping statements about liberals and leftists”. When dozens of others make “sweeping statements” about Republicans and conservatives, their posts should be combed thru for “nuance” - provided they have posted “Bush is a big poopyhead” often enough. :dubious:
Not as far as the board is concerned. The OP was about the general unwillingness of the Usual Suspects on the SDMB to see “nuances” in Airman’s position. I cited the general pile-on to Bricker for his latest thread, and the same for Bill H. And the same complaint about the general tendency to lump all non-Bush bashers together has been made by more than just conservatives - Max_Castle and Weirddave both mentioned it. And I can cite you the latest pile-ons and attacks on Sam Stone if you like.
And the reasons that you consider only a handful of people to be credible are simple:[ul][li]There are only a handful of conservatives on the SDMB The way to instant credibility is to bash Bush.[/ul][/li]
The definition of “extremist partisan” on the SDMB is “anyone who refuses to attack Bush”. Anyone else, and people will make an attempt to see “nuance” in your position, or listen when you complain about misrepresentation of your position. But, even if you produce evidence of nuance, or even if you are pro-choice or hold some other “nuanced”, not reflexively Republican positions, that is disregarded. As we have seen.
You claim that my accusations of blind partisanship are not credible. Then we’re even, because accusations of being a mindless Republican robot are, in my eyes, even less credible. Because accusations coming from people for whom “extremist” means “anyone to the right of Gus Hall or who isn’t a slavering hate-monger” do not sink particularly deep into my hide.
I said I found your statements in the National Guard documents thread fair-minded, and I meant it. But your opinion of my partisanship, because I refuse to abandon my principles, or intend to vote for the candidate I find best qualified? Feh.
You’re right: I’m accusing you of partisanship because you refuse to abandon your principles. And what constitutes credibility may not be decided by an individual, but rather is determined by majority vote. And an individual is not the locus of bias, but rather a thread is the locus of bias. And you’re not twisting and squirming to avoid taking responsibility for your own incredible partisanship. You win.
See, you’ve already lost me. What “usual suspects”? Who, precisely, are the “usual suspects”, the liberal majority, the hive mind, the whatever? There are doubtless some liberal-leaning SDMB posters who are so partisan/stupid/mean that they frequently act in precisely the manner you describe. There are also certainly some posters who on occasion act that way. And still others who rarely or never act that way.
But there are at least two problems that result from posts of that sort:
(1) They’re basically impossible to respond to. Suppose I have a bad day in which three separate Bush supporters spit on me. If I come here and say “three separate Bush supporters spit on me”, I’m making a factual claim and people can commiserate with me about my expectoratory victimization. If I instead come in here and say “why do all those Bush supporters like spitting on me so much?”, all anyone can do is say “umm, they don’t”. Note, however, that the mere existence of indefensible and unreasonable posts in a thread does not automatically taint every other post in that thread.
(2) They put people on the defensive. I’m a liberal. I’m a Kerry supporter. But I know for a fact that I’m not part of any liberal SDMB hive mind. I strongly suspect that there is, in fact, no such hive mind. But if there is one, I’m not a part of it. Just off the top of my head, for instance, I’m not either strongly anti-gun or strongly anti-death penalty. Anyhow, if I see a post from you in which you make a claim with which I disagree, I might be inclined to post a response, and hey, presto, intellectual debate will ensue. Woo-hoo! The SDMB’s purpose is being fulfilled! If, on the other hand, your post which contains the claim also makes a comment about how you’re sure that your position will not be tolerated by the usual gang of SDMB liberal thugs, I’ll be thinking “does he mean me? Does he think I’m a liberal thug? Is this jerk insulting me?” and I’ll enter the conversation already in a nastily adversarial mood.
If you want to insult me, fine. If you want to start a thread called “MaxTheVool is a rude smelly idiot”, go right ahead, and I’ll obviously be insulted, but at least everyone will know what everyone things about everyone else. If, however, you just make these claims about SDMB liberals as a whole, then everyone will be insulted, and how on earth will productive dialogue happen?
A few disclaimers:
(1) While I vehemently disagree with your characterization of the above-linked thread as a “pile-on”, I agree that some of the posts you quoted are totally indefensible. The worst example, I’d say, is “FWIW, you’ll have to count me among the persons who believe that no reasonable person could possibly support Bush.” This is flat out wrong in two different ways. First of all, it’s factually wrong. I know some reasonable people who support Bush. There are reasonable SDMBers who support Bush. It’s also “wrong” in the sense that, much as I was trying to claim above, it doesn’t enhance the quality of intellectual interchange on the SDMB. So, for the record, speaking as a liberal, I denounce that post, and others similar to it.
(2) I’m also certainly never claiming that no liberals ever do anything wrong, or are wrong about things, or make the kind of generalizations I’m talking about. There are plenty of liberal idiots in the world, and some on the SDMB. If they (or anyone else) piss you off, you (obviously) have every right to respond. But please bear in mind that they are just certain specific people. They do not speak for all liberals.
There’s a grain of truth to what you’re saying, but you’re taking that grain and twisting it almost beyond recognition. It is true that the board as a whole is clearly left-leaning. That means that people can more easily get away with being liberal partisans than conservative partisans. After all, people have a natural tendency to cut slack to people who agree with them. If I see someone post a blindly anti-Bush statement, I might give them the benefit of the doubt, assume that they meant it jokingly or sarcastically or as hyperbole, etc. If a precisely equivalent pro-Bush statement is posted, it’s going to piss off far more people, and it’s much more likely to get jumped on.
That does not mean, however, that no liberal is capable of criticizing another liberal, or that no pro-Bush sentiment can be “tolerated” on the board (whatever that means).
As for the definition of extremist partisan, you’re clearly just flat-out wrong. Who has ever accused, say, bricker of being an extremist partisan?
Well, let’s take the one quote you gave that I decided to look at: “Supporting Bush is strongly correlated with ignorance” (which, by the way, was made by a poster who is probably more centrist than left-wing). Here is the full context:
And, here is the pertinent part of the post on page 1 that he referred to:
So while his words may not have seemed to be completely measured, especially when taken out of context, his basic argument that many of those who support Bush believe things that are manifestly untrue is documented in that thread. You may want to dispute the documentation or argue that he should have said “Supporting Bush is strongly correlated with ignorance on factual information related to Iraq” but I do think the context helps us understand what was being said.
