Yep. Little bro’s on active duty in the Air Force and, while there’s increasing grumbling from the ranks, there’s a basic philosophical disconnect with the Democrats for most of them. Mayyyyybe Clark would overcome that gap, but he seems to be sort of self-destructing.
And granted, this is upstate NY, pretty conservative to begin with, and these guys saw the effects of 9/11 firsthand (base was nose-to-tail with civilian aircraft for days) and believe in action. Which, for now, Bush represents.
umm, Mace…you do realize the three statements you attribute to “simplistic” and “manipulative” Democrats are in fact eminently supportable? I cannot say they are “true” since I am not Bush nor a Republican. The best any of us has to go on is the evidence - in the case of a public servant, evidence consists of actions. The actions of the administration are precisely in line with the three statements you wrote. To wit:
There are elements of the Patriot Act, CAPPS II program, military tribunals at Gitmo, and a wide variety of other less publicized tactics and policies employed by Federal agencies that are remarkably similar in nature and execution to the practices of the Gestapo and Nazi party apparatchiks. Go read a history book.
The series of tax policy changes and outright cuts that have been enacted by the combined Republican Executive and Congress have been factually/mathematically/economically proven to provide disproportionate benefits to the highest 1% of all wage earners and to subsequently exarcebate the concentration of more than 80% of the wealth in the United States in the hands of less than 10% of the population.
Relaxation of environmental standards to reduce the cost to businesses. Fast-track approval of the sale of federal lands and resource rights on federal lands, short-circuiting the process by which individuals and groups may appeal/sue to prevent such exploitation without due diligence. Energy legislation predicated exclusively upon opening hitherto protected lands without sufficient evidence that drilling on those lands would actually yield the resources hoped for. Yucca Mountain. Abondonment of the SuperFund program by which industrial polluters pay for cleaning up their own messes (now it all comes from the taxpayer). Administration opposition to higher CAFE standards, torpedoeing the legislation and increasing U.S. dependence upon foreign oil.
Gee, now that I think about it, the truth is pretty simple, especially after one has cast a critical eye upon the facts.
From rjung
What would be the point? Hell, any like parody ‘positions’ of the Democrats attacking the Republicans in like kind would be such that you would AGREE with them…because you are biased. I know you can’t wrap your head around it…I can clearly see that. Look at kwildcat’s post…now, tell me…do you agree with him? Of course you do! lol. You just happen to be RIGHT while those pesky 'Pubs are wrong, correct?
How about these further parodies of positions:
Bush stole the election. (Of COURSE you think he really did…I’m literally laughing my ass off here)
Bush is Stupid. Well, I know for sure your view on this, no matter what the empirical ‘proofs’ are…you just ‘know’. :))
Bush lied to the American people about WMD in Iraq (While this may be true, and in fact, I think it IS true, to a degree, it STILL falls into the category of “It’s a juvenile, petty, oversimplistic position, transparently manipulative to anyone with a critical eye.” That you don’t see it is just too funny for words)
**Bush just wanted to give tax breaks to the rich while stealing from the poor ** (In my own mind, the economy would be recovering in spite of what Bush did or didn’t do…but then, in my own mind we would have had the great boom attributed to Clinton if Mickey Mouse was in the Oval Office. I think the effect on the economy by ANY administration is incidental. However, it boggles my mind how you can on the one hand attribute such success to Clinton, while deriding Bush’s policies in the face of what looks to be a recovery. But thats politics)
…
The list goes on an on. The fact that you can’t or won’t see it is fairly obvious. The reason why you can’t or won’t, is the same reason a dyed in the wool 'Pub can’t see the opposite…you are too biased towards your ‘side’, and no longer have the ability (or most likely even the desire) to step back and take a more objective view. Its so much easier to sit smuggly there and feel superior to those stupid 'Pubs (or idiotic 'Crats), and the poor deluded masses that follow them, than to look deeper and see that BOTH sides pretty much do the same kinds of things…and for exactly the same reasons. The reasons? They want to get elected, and will say or do whatever it takes to do so. THATS politics…
BTW, please don’t post back your agreement(s) with my parody positions…I already KNOW with a fairly high degree of certainty your views on them all (no need for you either kwildcat). If you can’t see what I’m getting at, lets just leave it at that, ok? I can only laugh so much in one day, and the irony of your posts is like to kill me one of these days. 
I STILL love ya man (or woman).
-XT
Interesting simul-post by kwildcat immediately above yours. You can lead a horse to water…
My God, you’re right!
Tom Teepen had it right the other day too, when he heard “echoes of jackboots” in the successful effort by Reagan supporters to get that made-for-TV movie off CBS!
And I hear Bush used to be able to paint a whole house in one day. Two coats!!
!!!
Well, thats kind of a rhetorical pre-emptive strike you got going there, XT. “I could argue the facts with you but it won’t do any good because you’re too blindly partisan to recognize the clear truth of my arguments…”
Most stunning of all: you recognize that the Tighty Righties misled us into war by way of lies, yet you imply some parity. “Well, the Dems lie about stuff, too!”
Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out one of these lies that have had similar impact, that is, Dem lies that are getting people killed.
Jolly good luck with that.
I don’t know, 'Lcui. Perhaps you should ask Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh who continue to support the Iraq invasion today. Last I looked, they were Demmies.
But you know, that actually isn’t the point that XT was making. We’re talking about over-the-top smear talk that one side says about the other.
Anyway, this thread is just too ridiculous. I’ll see you guys over in the places where we argue something more substantive than “your guys play dirtier politics than my guys.”
From elucidator
You are misunderstanding me (or I’m not saying it right). What I was TRYING to say is not that 'Crats lie and 'Pubs don’t, but that they BOTH lie. My point is, re the OP, that sure the 'Pubs are using retoric…duh! My god man…you know as well as I do that they BOTH use retoric. Don’t you? I’m making an assumption here, so if I’m mischaracterizing you, please let me know.
The POINT I was trying to get accross (obviously unsuccessfully to you) was that both sides toss around equally noxious retorical bullshit. Some of it is even grounded in partial truths…but its STILL simplistic bullshit, packaged for the masses. Do you deny this? Am I giving you too much credit for being able to think at all objectively?
As to the rest:
From elucidator
Most stunning of all, is that you want to pigeon hole me into the 'Loves Bush, is a ‘Pub’ camp. Just because I don’t buy the arguement that 'Crats are good, 'Pubs are bad, as a general statement, and that I TRIED to interject some objectivity into this ridiculous discussion.
As to your second paragraph, well, I’m sure if I search for them, I can find some lies told to the American people during say the FDR period, during the Kennedy period, the Clinton period…and at least SOME of those ‘lies’ would have lead to deaths of American service men/women. After all, in case its slipped your notice, the 'Pubs are in power atm. Be a bit hard for the 'Crats to do such things atm, no?
Its a stupid arguement and has nothing to do with my positions on anything at all…where did you get it from?? Its you, trying again to pigeon hole me into the 'Pubs camp, and then trying to do an rjung again…'Crats good, 'Pubs bad.
Keep this up, and no Christmas cards for you!
-XT
When both sides are throwing lies around, it doesn’t really do much to distinguish one party from the other.
Sure, Bush told some whoppers about Iraq. And then Democrats, despite the fact that Bush was an easy target, had to make up some lies about him in turn. So people don’t know what to believe.
But I think the criticism of the Democrats is legit for the most part. What is their plan for the war on terror? Return to the pre-9/11 tactics? You may hate Bush’s plan, but it is a plan, and it is new. The Democrats have none to speak of, except to get help from people who don’t want to help us, negotiate with people who can’t be negotiated with, and trust those who can’t be trusted.
When I compare the two, I’d much rather have Bush’s strategy, imperfect though it might be. Actually, I trust Lieberman more, but it looks like Democrats are to stupid to nominate him. I guess he’s to truthful, they feel they need their own liar to counter the one the Republicans have?
John Mace - I am intrigued by your non-response response following my post. Is it because you have some evidence not available to the general public that somehow refutes the facts of my case, or you simply lack the historical and current events knowledge sufficient to address the subject?
If the latter, I would be delighted to refer you to several excellent publications by my colleagues in academia that would shed some light. One in particular by William S. Allen, Nazi Siezure of Power, 1984, ISBN 0531099350. As for the economic numbers and environmental data, it’s all a matter of public record.
Adaher
Gee. You think? But you put it so mildly, like telling rural tall tales around the cracker barrell. I tend to think that falsely urging us to war is a bit more serious than that, but hey, maybe that’s just me.
This makes for a crisp attack. But no doubt your many fans are a bit disappointed that you neglected to include any of those “lies” the scurrillous Dems are spreading about Our Leader.
Are you of the opinion that any plan is better than none at all? Even a bad plan? Even a stupid plan, a plan that makes the situation worse?
Why bother? Tweedledum is already running, why nominate Tweedledumber? “Kang or Kodos? You decide!”
kwildcat, I don’t know why you are posting vague allusions to Administration Nazi-dom and expecting any kind of reasoned response.
Maybe this could be worked into the topic of the thread under “Will the GOP also attack Democrats on the basis of the tiny but visible band of Bush-haters who make themselves look ludicrous through inappropriate and ignorant comparisons to Nazi Germany?”
Go right ahead. You started by stating a moral equivalence between the two parties - “they both lie”. Well, back it up with some good comparable examples, or else think a little harder.
Hardly. It’s simply trying to make sure you start with the facts and then draw conclusions from them - IOW be honest. Instead, it looks like you’ve started with the predetermined conclusion, that one party is just as mendacious as the other, and are unable even to find facts to support it.
It does matter, quite a bit in fact. Not all courses of action are equally moral, but the approach you’re taking implies that they are, and thereby avoids making difficult, necessary analyses and decisions.
Jack - Nothing vague about it. I’ll go slow, just for you:
John Corrado posts several statements he believes Republicans use as defamatory labels for Democrats, but that he believes are “simplistic” and “manipulative” (hence “untrue” or at the very least “unworthy”).
John Mace counters with several statements that he believes Democrats use as defamatory labels for Republicans, that he believes are equally simplistic and hence untrue.
I counter #2 with factual references and historical context that actually illustrate that the 3 statements John Mace attributes to Democrats are far from simplistic and untrue, but are instead eminently supportable in any informed debate.
The comparison to the tactics employed by the Nazi party to secure and retain political power are hardly inappropriate. I trust you are well-educated enough to recall the old saw, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”? As for any level of ignorance - I surmise by your statement that you have in fact read the book, and can consequently demonstrate that it is not possible to draw any parallels between the political machinations of the Nazi government and the legislative and policy actions of the Bush administration? For I have read the book, and as a practising historian, the similarities are quite astonishing.
Before you get bogged down in knee-jerk antipathy, nobody is saying that Bush is a Nazi, or even a fascist. I am responding explicitly to a statement made by another doper with direct evidence that rebuts that other person’s conclusion.
The larger inference is that the historical record is replete with examples of the demise of civil institutions and societies resulting from a simple lack of awareness that anything was amiss. As citizens of the United States, we may each choose individually whether to acquiesce to ignorance, or challenge the status quo.
I think your reading comprehension skills need some touch-up work.
Whoo-doggie.
I can also draw paralells between Lincoln’s assassination and Kennedy’s assassination. Does that imply that Lee Harvey Oswald was John Wilkes Booth reincarnated? Or that he specifically plotted out those similarities?
Hitler ran against Hindenburg for President and lost, twice. He then took the office of Chancellor at Hindenburg’s insistence because no previous Chancellor had been able to make the government work. Hitler then disbanded the Reichstag and ruled by decree.
George W. Bush was elected president by a legitimate process as established by the Constitution. He has called for new laws and an increase in presidential and police powers, and done so through the legitimate act of having Congress vote on the matter.
If you think Bush is following in Hitler’s footsteps, please, give any similiarities you see. You’re the “practicing historian”; please, edumacate the poor History-degree owning, professional fact-checker and footnoter who just assisted with a book that dealt with Hitler’s rise to power. 'Cause right now he thinks you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Duly corrected, misattributed user: rjung
What a ridiculous statement. I can’t imagine what point you’re trying to make here. If you were to ask, “Can we learn anything about the psychology of the ‘lone gunman’ phenomenon through comparisons between Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, Sirhan Sirhan, and Leon Franz Czolgosz?”, I might be inclined to consider it.
), I hope we can keep it civilized.Also, the book you have recently assisted with - is it already in print? If so, I’d appreciate the title, auther, and ISBN so I can obtain an exam copy. If not, perhaps you could tell me the author so I can see if she/he has additional publications on the subject that might contribute to our discussion.
From ElvisL1ves
Oh ho…so they have to be morally EQUIVALENT lies, ehe? Morally equivalent to who, Elvis? You? Me? How will we judge? Who decides? Before I start a long and ultimate fruitless search, why don’t you set some parameters on what I should look for, and a yard stick of ‘morals’ we can agree upon to measure by. In other words, how can we OBJECTIVELY look at both parties without our mutual filters getting in the way. Frankly, you and I are so different that I don’t see how its possible. Something that I would find morally neutral you will be frothing at the mouth over. Something I might find offensive, you will yawn and say its no big deal…not the same thing at all.
From From ElvisL1ves
And you are obviously starting from the predetermined conclusion that one party IS more mendacious than the other. What ‘facts’ are you using?? Why the ones that support YOUR version of morals of course. The things that upset YOU. You are right, you are definitely on the high ground here Elvis. Now…how will we OBJECTIVELY prove our individual cases? Since its morals you want, who decides whats ‘moral’? Your version? Mine? The American peoples?
Maybe I’m VERY offended by the fact that, say, Clinton was an open adulterer (these are examples btw…not MY actual positions. I doubt you will get this, but I have to try). Maybe I don’t think we had any business in the Balkins, or in Somalia (probably spelled that wrong) and I feel that those service men that died there were ‘murdered by the administration’. Maybe I’m NOT offended by a ‘war of agression’ in Iraq and I see that the presidents ‘lies’ were for a good cause, or that he didn’t actually ‘lie’ but was simply wrong. Maybe I don’t like Kennedy’s lies on the Bay of Pigs fiasco, or his slow ramping up and lies at the start of Vietnam. Maybe YOU don’t give a shit about Clintons adulterousness. Maybe YOU see Bush as the incarnation of Hitler and you think our ‘war of agression’ in Iraq is the equivalent of Germany’s invasion of Poland. How will we decide based on morals Elvis?
What you are calling ‘moral equivalent’ to me breaks down pretty much along party lines. In some instances not…some Republicans were, say, against the war. Some Democrats were, to continue to use the example, for it. So…tell me how we will objectively decide that one party is more ‘mendacious’ than the other, and I’ll start a search. Otherwise, from my perspective, it looks like a waste of my time…any examples I provide you will simply poo poo away with a “Well, thats not the same level of evil as what Bush does…or Regan either!”.
-XT
**
Hoo boy. This from the person who stated -
**
Go read a history book? :rolleyes:
I could point out the similiarity in ideology between the Nazi party and modern day environmentalists and animal rights activists if I really wanted to.
It’s a game that is easy to play if you look deeply enough. That’s exactly why the people who do that tend to come off as Godwinizing zealots with no sense of proportion or perspective and rarely get taken seriously. hint hint
Oh and while I realize that this kind of thought automactically puts me in the “wrong thinkers” camp, I would just like to say that this statement by adaher sums up how I feel about the Democrats as well. Though I’m certainly no fan of Bush.
**
I think the problem lies in fabricating a quote, putting it in quotation marks as if it had actually been said by Republicans in the article to which you link, and then condemning Republicans for saying it.
I suspect another part of the problem lies in your assumption that “The president’s critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world” cannot possibly be parsed in any other way than “Anti-war Democrats are traitors”.
The two statements are not synonymous. At least, not to anybody who is not already convinced of what the usual suspects on the SDMB hold as an article of faith. A more moderate reader would not necessarily draw that inference if he actually looked at what Gillespie had said.
And so I am afraid that your assumption that this is a Republican strategy designed to appeal to Rush Limbaugh fans is a little silly. What your OP is, is a liberal strategy designed to appeal to the most fanatical of your support. You would like very much to pep up the crowd by claiming “Bush called you a traitor!” - which he did not.
Which means that you are heading down (in my view) the wrong path. If it is a terrible thing if Ann Coulter says bad and untrue things about liberals, you cannot gain support for the eradication of bad and untrue political diatribes by engaging in them yourself.
At least not in the American middle. God knows it goes over big on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, because this board is so far to the left the background should be pink. :rolleyes: