Indeed. All of this requires one to suspend all credulity. George Bush, after all, has a far more distinguished service record than his predecessor did.
Clinton’s two opponents for the presidency were, we recall, war heroes. Their service records compare favoribly to Kerry’s. One was a paralyzed veteran of the Po River valley and a Bronze Star awardee. The other, a holder of the Distinguished Flying Cross, was the youngest Navy fighter pilot in WWII.
John Kerry campaigned against both of these honorable men, and it didn’t bother him a bit. He explained himself thusly:
If anything, John Kerry is failing to live up to the high goals he set for politicians of that generation. Not only did he tear the wounds open, but he also rubbed salt in them.
Helps you any, I reported it. Either the mods are busy, forgot, or it didn’t break a rule.
emarkp, rather than saying how wrong something is, might be a good idea to actually try to refute some of it rather than just claiming it’s spin or lying.
That’s how I remembered the rule, but I couldn’t find the particular wording. I didn’t think to look in a sticky thread about Pit rules.
My point in posting was not to suggest that Dio is on my list or even that booka should put him on the list. Rather if you’re trying to ignore someone but failing, that is the purpose of the ignore list.
There’s little point. Having been in discussions like this before I find it rare that someone who is as partisan as Master Wang-Ka’s post suggests is actually willing to listen. Anyone who is chanting “Bush lied and people died” are just beyond hope for discussion. Anyone willing to evaluate actual facts will see the irony in Master Wang-Ka’s post.
Frankly, the depressing thing to me is that we’re careening towards civil war. The partisans aren’t listening to anyone but their own talking points, and the attitude of “If you disagree with me you’re just wrong” is pervasive and it’s only getting deeper. I really don’t see how we’re going to resolve this without bloodshed.
You’re the one who believes that our debates will inevitably descend into violence. You said so yourself, in the clearest possible way. I’m afraid i don’t share your opinion.
Furthermore, i love the way that some people make blanket condemnations of the “partisans” in ways that portray themselves as somehow above and beyond the partisanship.
Beware of those who claim to be neutral or objective in matters of politics. For the most part, such people either are too caught up in their own biases to recognize them, or they’re so incurious that they really have no idea what’s going on.
I read “partisan” as someone who won’t even evaluate the opposition’s comments, who simply recycles talking points, and most especially dodges any question which puts his preferred candidate in a bad light.
I never claimed to be neutral. I’m trying my best to evaluate issues based on the facts as I understand them, rather than whether they are good for my preferred candidate.
It’s not easy. I’m definitely conservative, but I’m trying to seek out views that aren’t beholden to the Republican party first. I absolutely despise the actions of Alan Keyes, for instance, and find him totally discredited, while others see him as good just because he’s “fighting the fight” in Illinois. I also didn’t vote for Schwarzenegger in CA even though I saw that as the best chance for an ‘R’ next to the Governor’s name.
With the swift boat stuff I’ve tried to look at the facts as much as possible, and my conclusion is not that Kerry is totally discredited.
I’ve tried to seek out similar voices in the media, but haven’t found many. I would especially like to find a liberal who doesn’t start out every column with “Bush sucks.” On the conservative side, I can’t stand Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity (whose interview style is agonizing and it made me laugh when Orson Scott Card assessed it as “relentless dimness”). The only radio personaly I like nationally is Glenn Beck. The only columnist I really like is Mort Kondrake (though he’s got his problems).
So while I make no pretensions at neutrality, I do try to investigate and make decisions based on fact. I try to call people on it when they make untrue statements either for conservatives or against them. I’m trying to be non-partisan.
Perhaps instead of skirting the issue, for the benefit of those of us who are not blind sheep and might have actually rolled our eyes at some minute fragment of that post (I don’t auto-post every time I have a thought), perhaps you’d like to take factual issue with something specific in it, rather than off-handedly say there’s spin or lying in each bit? Here I am, for one, not chanting “Bush lied and people died” (and really, do you expect five-paragraph essays at a protest? It’s supposed to be quick and effective.). I’m willing to evaluate actual facts if you’ll present them, but don’t just say it’s all misleading and inaccurate. Put up the facts:) And since you detest talking points so much, I’m confident your cites will be politically neutral inasmuch as is possible, though I certainly think you’ll have a harder time with some things than with others (really, how do you get an unbiased citation on TWAT?).
Beg all you want; but I seriously doubt that Lynn posted that rule with the intention that we comply only with the letter of it, and not the spirit. Saying, “That’s what the ignore list is for” in reference to a specific person is probably not a good idea, regardless of whether you consider it technically to be a violation of the strict wording of the rule. But hey, I don’t really care. Do whatever you like. It’s not my job to enforce the rules.
Nobody lives forever. No matter how bad things get, they mean nothing in the long run.
More than a thousand American troops are sent to gruesome deaths in Iraq, most after Bush said major combat was over and the mission was accomplished?
Sure, it sounds bad. But they would have died eventually anyway. I actually feel worse for the many thousands more with terrible injuries that will make their lives unpleasant for a long time. But they too will pass.
The tens of thousands of dead Iraqis don’t warrant any more mention than this sentence, of course.
And what about the fact that, after going to war because of supposed WMD, our military strategy (ignoring the advice of military experts) allowed many suspected WMD sites to be looted before we secured them, perhaps by the very terrorists we didn’t want getting their hands on those potential WMDs.
Doubtless, such incompetence would be unforgivable… IF it mattered at all. But it doesn’t.
The mission is accomplished… bring it on! Death, destruction, deficit, corporate domination, denial of rights, deluded masses, doom and darkness. Bring it all on.
I suspect that a large percentage of Bush supporters are just people with morbid curiosities, like myself, who realize that none of this really matters, so we may as well just watch the carnage ensue.
Kerry just doesn’t have the macabre potential of a man driven by God to shed large quantities of blood for transparently false reasons.