Well, at least that’s a new one! Elitist, Birkenstock-wearing, Volvo-driving, latte-drinking, wimpy, atheistic tree-hugging… all of these have been worn out, it would seem. Now we are “bored”.
I would like to be bored. Really, it would be such a nice change, to go weeks and weeks without some new bit of malicious horror to be repelled by. Imagine a whole week going by without some new example of ham-fisted ignorance and hate-mongering rhetoric dropped into my life with the subtlety of a turd dropped delicately into the punch bowl.
Shock, horror and dismay are certain proof against boredom. I’d rather be bored. I have any number of alternatives to enlist against boredom, its down there at the very bottom of my list of dread, just above injury by elephant stampede during a blizzard on the 4th of July.
Couldn’t you just go back to “effete” and “wishy-washy”? Really, the old lies are the best, they have the patina of being well-used, like the diseased orifices of a two-dollar whore.
I said that in my view, he spoke from the heart, and I admired the results his speech had.
I did not say, “I uncritically accept each and every statement of fact made by Miller at face value, and recommend readers do likewise.”
Ooooooohh.
OK.
Sure it’s possible.
I don’t see how this conflicts with Miller’s speech. He condemned those who I believe your first sentence covered. But there can undoubtedly be those who support the line soldiers while still condeming the leadership.
In other words, Miller supports the Iraq mission, and has harsh words for those who don’t. I agree that one can support the soldier without supporting the Iraq mission.
You do know what that brand of spin sounds like, don’t you? “I can forgive any manner of lies or distortions or misattributions as long as they help get somebody I like in office”. Sad. Typical of you by now, but still sad.
So you *didn’t * really mean to make a point by quoting Miller’s condemnation of those who use the word “occupier” at such length? You do have a better command of the language than that, I hope. Perhaps you’d like us not to think you mean *anything * you say or quote, either? Is that it?
Miller condemned those who call what we’re doing in Iraq an “occupation” as unfit for office. Look at his own damn words. It’s really that simple.
That is *entirely * “other words”. He called those who fail to support not only the Iraq expedition but Bush’s own handling of it, in every way, even if they call it by Bush’s own word, “unfit for office”. Go back and read your own fucking cite, weasel. If you truly disagree, you’ve waited a long time to say so, and have used quite a bit of invective in the meanwhile.
You bit into a large, steaming heap of tu quoque, swallowed it whole, and are still trying to tell us and yourself how delicious it was. The longer you keep it up, the more foolish you’ll look.
Well, NOW I’m going to lose sleep. One of the Top Ten dishonest debaters on this board disapproves of me.
Yes. If someone’s primary view is “occupation,” he’s unfit. It IS simple.
By the way, we seem to be operating on a consensus here that the war in Iraq WAS a bad idea. Amazing, if that is so, that a majority of voters gave the man responsible another term, eh?
Get your head out of your own rectum and look around. (And by “around” I mean “farther than the boarders of the SDMB.”)
Hey, wait a minute! Elvis gets to be on a top ten list? How does he rate? You know what a pain he can be when he gloats and lords it over the rest of us! “I’m on the Top Ten List, I’m special, just like Mom says…”
Honestly, he can be such a little bitch sometimes!
If it comes to the judgement of you and your ilk (got ilk?) as to what constitutes dishonesty, and Elvis qualifies, I absolutely insist on my fair place!
True, although both of those are troubling statements. I mean, Hitler spoke from the heart (well, there’s some dispute about that, but some people seem to think he did). And if someone got up on stage at the democratic convention and made a speech about how GWB fellated diseased goats, in dead seriousness, and that resulted in Kerry winning, I’d be glad for the result it had, but I sure has hell have enough integrity not to get up and praise the person who made the speech, then back off from actually supporting the content of that speech.
Ummm, what? Assuming you’re not saying “I accept your argument and withdraw my baseless implication of hypocrisy”, let me spell it out a bit more.
Zell Miller took a hyperbolic point (anyone who ever uses the word “occupier” to refer to US troops in any context is automatically unfit to be president) and spoke on it, at great length, with many examples and tear-jerking supporting sentences and examples, on national TV. And then someone else (gobear maybe) typed one sentence of hyperbole on a message board. And I’m seriously supposed to treat those two occurrences in the same way?
If the whole point that Miller was making was “I think the iraq war was the correct decision. And if someone disagrees, then I think that being so wrong about such an important issue would make that person a bad president.”, well, then I’d have no beef with that. I mean, I’d make exactly the same speech, but in the opposite direction, if I were a Famous Person.
The problem, though, is that Zell seems to be saying “anyone who disagrees with the war, even in relatively reasonable and factually accurate language, is Slandering The American Soldier! The American Soldier Who Died On Iwo Jima! The American Soldier Who Liberated Paris! He’s Spitting On The American Soldier!!! Why does he hate The American Soldier???”
So, let’s see, what’s wrong with that:
-It insults the patriotism and loyalty of a decorate war hero
-It fosters an attitude of “disagreement with the current administration equals hating America/being a traitor”
-It uses the memory of past american Heroes, living and dead, to support the controversial military actions of the current administration
-And, lest we forget, it’s phrased in this idiotic "using the word ‘occupier’ " fashion
Another way to think about how troubling that speech is is this: the US army could have invaded ANY country under ANY circumstances, and Zell’s speech would apply just as well to anyone who disagreed with it. If president Bill Gates in the year 2011 becomes psychotically insane and brutally and genocidally invades Canada, and someone runs against him on a anti-Canada-war platform, Zell Miller could get up and give precisely the same speech, more or less word for word, and it will have just as much meaning, and be just as cheap and tawdry an election ploy.
Look, you’re a conservative, fine, great, diversity of opinion is good. And I’m not going to claim that you should be constantly judging everything that every conservative ever does, and be constantly dashing in here and saying “I just want to point out the reservations I have with the speech made at X by Y” or something. But you PRAISED this speech. At least, I thought you did. Were you just praising Zell’s sincerity? If so, do you deny that the speech itself was slanderous jingoistic pablum?
A predictable response from a tighty righty with no argument left and not enough common sense to shut up. You do have some juicy examples of my dishonesty to point out, don’t you? You with the scrupulous insistence on evidence, that is.
And yet you firmly support Bush anyway. Try actually explaining that to us sometime.
You mean you really haven’t heard the sentiment expressed that “we’re in it no matter what now and we need to see it through”? You really haven’t? Is that “amazing”?
SDMB takes in boarders now? How much do you pay per week? How good is Gaudere’s cooking, btw?
If you drew the short straw and it’s your turn to be december this quarter, you’re doing a damn fine job of it so far - except that he was so unfailingly polite.
Note, as well, the disparity in intensity of opinion: those who approve are mostly kinda wishy-washy, those who disapprove burn with the rage of an Enron stockholder. Like, well, me.
I almost feel sorry for Zell now. Barely worth a pitting. Just a sad, greedy old man who wanted some attention. Final moments of imagined glory.
But look at the price he’s paying for it. They trot him out like a clown to present an award to a bunch of other clowns. Why get their own hands dirty, when there’s no shortage of clowns like Zell Miller and Jerome Corsi?
What happens when you outlive your usefulness? Ask Bernie Kerick, Zell…
But for one man’s half-hearted attempt to defend him, this pitting would have sunk into oblivion long ago.
The same fate Senator Miller sold his soul to delay. I hope he enjoyed his extra 15 minutes…
“The same fate Senator Miller sold his soul to delay. I hope he enjoyed his extra 15 minutes…”
What’s old Tom have to do with it? Most people are expected to sell their soul to the Devil. It makes some sense that a whore like Zell Miller sold his to the Tom Delay.
Look, stop pretending that you’re not bright enough to understand that what you posted is in no way “meaty.”
.
No - and that’s not what Miller did, nor what I said… and I have been in enough discussions with you that I know you know it isn’t.
What I said above was that anyone who believes the prime purpose, the intent, the best way to describe US troops in Iraq is “occupiers” is unfit. That choice betrays a mindset.
Now, that is NOT "anyone who ever uses the word ‘occupier’ to refer to US troops in any context. That’s someone who believes the best, first, or primary way to describe them is “occupier.” That was the reason for the surgeon example – it’s not that “occupier” is wrong. It’s that if the first thing that comes to your mind is “occupier” then you have a problem: you’re unfit to be the CinC.
You knew that. Why you dodge it with the ridiculous rephrase above is beyond me, but it certainly removes your thoughts from the pale of “meaty” and into the “score cheap points” category.
THAT IS WHAT MILLER WAS SAYING.
No. Except that, being a passionate speaker, he frequently uses hyperbole. But I notice you’re not challenging me to find the single instance in which Kerry voted for a spitball bill. You understood that to be shorthand hyperbole. Why is that phrase alone in that box?
Oh, yeah? Well,if the truth is so great, how come it loses elections? Maybe the truth ought to reconsider its position, maybe be more inclusive, more accepting of half-truths, innuendos, stuff like that.
As compared to your own “contributions”, presumably?
And yet you firmly support Bush anyway, even though you’re own definition would disqualify him. What basis do you have for believing Bush’s view is not that we’re occupying the place? You’ve made an assertion several times here that his own attitude about occupations is laudable and Kerry’s is disqualifying without any explanation of what that difference actually is. It’s time to put up or shut up, if you can in fact do either. Here’s a hint: Kerry wants to pull out of there, on a time scale but he still wants us out, while Bush wants to stay in “as long as it takes”, which is indefinite. Which attitude more represents that of an occupier?
Hyperbole which you have quoted at length, along with misty-eyed statements about how convincing and inspirational you found it. What else is a reasonable person able to infer from that except that you’re easily fooled?
Not the truth. “We are in Iraq to occupy (and subjugate, and get their oil, and pillage, and whatever else …” is not the truth. We are in Iraq to remove a brutal dictator and assist in the establishment of a functioning democracy.
Bush’s view is that we will stay until the job is done. We will assist a fledgling democracy take wing, make sure it has the tools and support to survive, and leave. He’s said as much again and again. Bush has NEVER said that we are to stay forever.
Kerry wants to set a time scale and leave. Not the view of an occupier either. But the reason Kerry wants to us to leave is he views our troops presence as an occupation, and he doesn’t want to do that. So Kerry’s view is that the troops are occupiers, and he wanted to end that. Thankfully, the election results assured his relatively inability to effect his plans.
When “reasonable” parses as “leftist” and “easily fooled” parses as “stubbornly unwilling to buy the liberal mindset,” then “reasonable” people will obviously see I am “easily fooled.”
