You bet I fuckin’ care! Big time and down town!
I assume you mean “some” Democrats, right Shodan? 'Cause otherwise, the irony in your post is in danger of becoming magnetized and wiping out my hard disk. I mean, I’m a liberal democrat, and I’ve never defended any of the statements from Dean that you’ve quoted. I presume, then, that you have no problem with me calling Rove out for his absurd and libellous statement?
Who exactly is supporting the terrorists again? I forgot.
“I meant the politicians, not the voters!” 
Well, if you indeed also called out Dean and Durbin for their absurd and libelous statements, you can certainly do the same for Rove. I can hardly stop you in any case.
I am not exactly defending Rove, in any case. The part about indictments was true enough, as Clinton seemed to want to treat the previous attacks on the WTC as a criminal matter. The part about therapy is the stupid part - Rove could have said “hand-wringing” or “anguished soul-searching” or “allergic guilt reactions” and been much more on the mark.
But, as I said, it wouldh’t have mattered. Much of the outrage is manufactured, and a attempt at distraction from equally stupid statements from the lunatic fringe of the left. And some of the genuine outrage seems to be coming from those who think Rove is Satan incarnate anyway, so it can be treated much as the accusations that Rove rigged the elections, funded the Swift Boat Veterans, rapes kittens, killed Cock Robin…
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t give a rat’s patoot about the “indictments” crap or the “therapy” Bushwah! When he said “Ladies and Gentlemen” that didn’t bother me either. Now, I don’t blame you for trying to put the focus on something innocuous, buts its a load!
You know exactly what I’m talking about, but just in case…
Are we clear now? “No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals”
Got any liberal friends, Shodan? Can you look them in the eye and tell them this is just some forgiveable bit of rhetoric? Calling them backstabbing traitors who want to see our troops killed?
Rove should apologize for that. Although it’s true that Durbin’s words could be used by our enemies against our troops, it’s was entirely out of line to say that that was Durbin’s motive. Disgusting doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Incidentally, it’s not clear that Al Jazeera ever did broadcast the words of Durbin to the Middleast. The only item that seems to have been covered is the fracas over Durbin having to apologize, not his original statements.
The Bush team responses to these complaints have been just as calculating as the original statement. One thing you can say about these guys is that they milk every darn thing for political gain until it’s nice and dry, and they don’t given an inch. Just like with the Hannity thing, they deny taking swipes while taking even more swipes.
Can you imagine if Durbin had clarified his statements with “Oh, I was just outlining some of the philosophical differences between Nazis and the Bush administration” as a way to basically re-inforce the comparison while still sounding reasonable and unaggressive? He would have had to end up censured in some way for sure. But with these slick willies, they’ll fuck you from the front, deny it, and then fuck you from behind while you’re trying to run away.
I know it’s Shodan’s time in the sun to chuckle at Democrats and lord it over them, but somehow I can’t imagine that even he would much like the country we’re becoming if we keep going in this direction.
We seem to have changed standards along the way, here.
Each statement above is similar to Christians want gays ridiculed and harassed in that they ascribe to all Christians sentiments not held by all or even a majority of Christians.
But OK - I’m a fun guy. I’ll find you three more statements that are along the lines of #1.
Do you seriously think that three more aren’t out there?
Oh, fuck Al Jazz! Fuck 'em! They start broadcasting how Bush poll numbers are in the toilet, we going to shut down CBS/Times, etc.?
Since when are we afraid of the truth?
Disagree. If Durbin is some guy shooting off his mouth with some buddies in the local pub, absolutely no problem… Rant on bro. But he’s a friggin Senator for crying out loud. If he’s too dumb to know those words will be used against us, he should just say so.
BTW, I read the whole speech. I think it’s great. I especially love how the Dems are fallling into the trap of reminding everyone that they can’t be trusted to fight our enemies.
The majority of Christians do not want gay marriage. At best they want separate but equal. At worst, they want separate and unequal.
The majority of Christians do not view marriage as something secular.
And the Scott comment has nothing to do with Christian sentiments and everything to do with Scott opinions about Christians. Again, if I say, "NASCAR sucks!** that doesn’t say anything about what fans of NASCAR think.
I’ve said it twice. I’ll say it again. Find examples where statements by the fringe are used instead of statements by the outspoken majority. If people are claiming, for example, that Fred Phelps represents Christianity, that’d be a good example. Saying “Christians are against gay marriage” isn’t a good example because, well, metric shitloads of them are. “Hollywood is against psychiatric medication” would be a good example if it were based on the ravings of Tom “there’s no such thing as a chemical imbalance” Cruise.
I don’t know how to make it clearer. You claim that statements like Rove’s get made all the time. I say that I rarely see one nutter being used as a representative of a whole well-known group. Your examples sucked.
Oh, good lord. Who is using Dick Durbin’s words against America? This is just the dumbest allegation under the sun. Can you cite anyone using Durbin’s words other than the Republican party? Will you object to the political ads that the GOP and other winger organizations that repeat his statements for the harm that they are causing America?
Released prisioners and international human rights agencies are telling people what’s happening to the prisoners, and you think they need Durbin alluding to Nazism to get people upset? Sheesh. I suspect they are more upset at the actual torture itself.
This is very low on the outrage meter. He’s not saying that there’s anything WRONG with republicans, just that he, personally, hates them. Granted, this is a poor thing to say if you want to work with people, but it’s not actually necessarily INSULTING, per se. On an outrage meter of 1 to 10, I give this a 1.5
Barring some extenuating circumstances in the context, this is a totally outrageous and inexcusable and clearly false statement, and I’m embarassed that a leader in my party made it. This is a 7.0 on the outrage meter.
By the way, Dick Durbin’s original comment is (a) absolutely true, and (b) not directed at any group in general, unless you count Gitmo guards, and even then it’s only talking about their worst offenses. But it does compare them, indirectly, to nazis. It also has the extenuating circumstance that it is using the nazi reference to attempt to bring attention to grave issues, not (just) for cheap political gain. So it’s a 1.9, at worst.
Rove: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” (It’s a bit unclear to me whether this is an actual quote, or a paraphrase.)
This is classic Rove. It’s taking two basically true statements (Clinton addressed pre-9/11 terrorist attacks with criminal prosecution; and one liberal response to 9/11 was to point out that, in order to stop future terrorism, it’s important to understand what motivates them, and perhaps address the issue as its source), conflates them, and then uses them in what is more or less a false dichotomy… liberals wanted indictments, and wanted understanding, [and because we know there are only two positions, pro-understanding or pro-military action, with no possible overlap, thus did NOT support the military response to 9/11]. So it’s using flawed logic to imply a demeaning and insulting conclusion, without coming right out and saying anything that can be proven false, while targetting all liberals. Outrage meter: 7.5 (Compare this to the Dean quote that I gave an 8.0, above. The Dean quote is imho less outrageous because (a) it’s at least straightforward, not slimy and weaselly, and (b) I’d say that “never worked an honest day in his life” is less insulting than “only wants to respond to terrorism with group therapy”. But they’re in the same realm.)
Rove: "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals. "
This is utterly indefensible, as it is first making a hideously libelous claim about Durbin’s motives, with no support, and then expanding that claim to cover all liberals. This is Anne Coulter level. I can see no defense for this. (It’s a bit unclear whether he’s saying that liberals WANT to put our troops in greater danger, or liberals are WILLING to put our troops in greater danger or political purposes. Neither one is acceptable). Outrage meter: 9.7
Anyone disagree with my analysis?
(Oh, and I do have to agree on Bricker about one thing, which is that it is not uncommon on the SDMB for people to make unfairly generalizing and insulting remarks about Christians. I will also point out, however, that while it happens with some regularity, people do get called on it all the time, including by liberals, gays, and others who one might expect to be stereotypically anti-Christian. It’s a disturbing trend, but hardly a defining characteristic.)
This is just from a search of AJ’s english web site and offered without comment…parse it as you will.
-XT
Oh my god, xtisme, they are practically calling for a fatwa! Or a jihad!
But, I did some undercover work and discovered a nefarious branch of “AJ” posting very similar stuff here. Perhaps the government should shut them down!
I don’t see it quite that way, luci. There is a difference between trying to sabatoge Bush’s war efforts and inadvertently, or carelessly (or even cynically), putting our troops in greater danger in order to do so, and in “wanting to see our troops killed.” I didn’t see anything in the quote you posted about liberals being accused of “wanting” to see our troops killed.
Man, I do not want to play Twister against you. You got flexibility that would make Gumby blush.
But lets pretend that its worth serious consideration. What, pray, do you make of the “tag line”, that is, how this reveals liberal’s “motivations”. How do you intent to parse that word to make it mean something other than “wanting”? If these statement which place our troops in danger reveal liberal motivations, what other motivations do you think he’s talking about?
Puh-leeze!
I would say that it’s generally based on something, rather than made up out of whole cloth. Most of the anti-Christian generalizations are generalizations from a significant sector of Christianity to the whole. If I say “Christians do X” and only half of them do, that’s a hell of a lot more accurate than saying “Christians do X” when only one of them does. One type is an inaccurate generalization. The other type is an outright lie.
Did I say that…or anything remotely fucking like that? Did I comment at all? If so I must have missed it. Are you simply trying to push my buttons, or do you have a tape recorder and anytime anyone you THINK is a dread ‘conservative’ you just push play?? You asked for a cite that AJ had used his words…I provided one. Perhaps you can simply blow trying to make my statements into your own partisan bullshit out your ass next time for all I care. Yeah, I know its not the pit, but I figure if you can try this kind of nut kicking stunt and get away with it I can at least partially express how I feel about it.
Carry on.
-XT
Does anybody want to consider the possibility that, as one liberal has put it it’s a trap? I mean, isn’t Rove supposed to be this wheels-within-wheels mastermind? What might he have achieved by deliberately saying such a thing in full expectation of the ensuing media maelstrom?
-
He gets Democrats to self-identify as liberal. Sorry, but on a national level, the term “liberal” is a ticket to loserdom. In most states, dems have to call themselves “moderates” to win. To the extent that dems angrily insist that they did not do the things he ascribes to liberals, they are calling themselves liberal. Despite what the true belivers think, that is not a good thing for dems politically.
-
It keeps Dick Durbin in the news. That story was ready to disappear, but now for several days it will be the obvious compare-and-contrast story.
-
It provides an opportunity to drag up the past statements of people like Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney and Moveon.org, which is always a good thing for Republicans.
-
Most critically, it does ju-jitsu to the Gitmo complaints and to a lesser extent the criticism of Iraq.
For the last month, we’ve been hearing that the treatment in Gitmo is abusive and that the administration is too harsh, and I think there was some traction being made there. So it seems damned smart to invoke the memory of 9/11 and reinforce the perception that “fuck, yes, we’re the harsh party.”
And while I know many people here reject any connection between 9/11 and Iraq; not everyone agrees and most people understand that, at least in the administration’s eyes, the war in Iraq will address the root causes of 9/11. I truly don’t think joe voter has thought through the issue of what geostrategic connections are or aren’t there. What he does know are the caricatures of both parties: Republicans as the triggerhappy mean dudes, shooting first and asking questions later, and willing to trample on individual and civil rights, while Democrats are over-therapied wusses who just want everyone to get along. Dicks v. Pussies, Tackleberry v. Stuart Smalley.
Rove knows this, and he knows that dem squamishness over Gitmo and Iraq plays right into the sterotypes people already have. he also knows that so long as the memories of 9/11 are (or can be kept) fresh, people will opt for the asskicking psycho over the caring nurturer every time.
None of which should be taken to mean I personally agree or endorse the statement per se. Some of what he said is true of some liberals, which means it’s just true enough not to be a lie; it is at best a gross oversimpification of the position of the typical Democrat.
But it’s damned smart politics.