It wouldn’t sting if it didn’t have an element of truth.
“If you’re a Republican… you’re either dumb… or you’re cruel.”
It does have an element of truth, though I would add “ignorant” to the mix. Around these parts, people just vote Republican automatically, and most don’t know much, if anything, about what’s going on in the party. I know plenty of good people who vote Republican who just don’t know who (whom?) they’re voting for.
:: puts on Nancy Grace hat ::
Ah disaghree!!! Ah disaghree!!!
Ahem…
Actually, it doesn’t sting at all. It’s just that none of like to be portrayed in a falsely negative light. Pubs/conservatives don’t like this “uncaring”, “cruel”, “heartless”, bullshit anymore than Dems/liberals like being called tree-hugging weenies. Take me, for example. I may not be the brightest bulb in the room, but I don’t think anyone who knows me would say that I’m dumb; and I’m about the most un-cruel person you’re likely to find. It’s true that some conservatives could be called dumb and/or cruel, but they are in the minority by far and are hardly a defining elements of conservatism, just as some liberals are tree-hugging weenies but they don’t define liberalism.
Garofalo is a mindless nitwit who eagerly swallows liberal propaganda – such as that which tries to portray conservatives as greedy, selfish and cruel – and then routinely spouts off about one thing or another that she knows nothing about. I think less of her than even Al Franken, who, though I loath his politics and his manner, at least tries to bring a modicum of intellectual honesty to his arguments.
The regular ways.
Yes. Keep giving the liberal entryists, the neocons, rope.
Anything else you need help with?
I think that Patriot X is living proof that the question should not have been whether “Republicans” can be reasonable. but whether reasonable people can still support Bush.
If anything PX is an exemplar of how reasonable Republicans should have been responding to Bush from the beginning.
GWarI? Grenada? Somalia? Yugoslavia? GWII? Panama? Bay of Pigs? Lybia? Go ahead, count em all.
Whether or not I am a good person is not for me to say. Yes, I support this administration overall, although not as automatically as it is opposed by a good many hereabouts.
But no, I suspect I can’t explain it to many of the rest of you. That’s because a good deal of the opposition to Bush and Republicans is faith-based, like creationism. I can’t remember the exact quote, but it is something like:
We saw that in the OP. The very first thing mentioned as a source of his discontent from this alleged Republican, the vandalism of the White House, turns out not to be true. But the notion that “Bush sux” is not fact-based, but faith-based, and thus is not changed. That’s why the Usual Suspects can chime in and blandly deny those facts which are inconvenient to their world view. Because they don’t start from the facts, and derive a position from those facts. It works the other way around.
It’s not universal, but on some topics and with some people, it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion. Because, as we have seen, facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees gets called names.
Reread the OP. Certain words often have specialized meanings when used in certain contexts. “Moderate”, when used in the media to qualify the term “Republican”, often means “pro-abortion”. “Honorable”, when used on the SDMB to qualify “Republican”, generally means “Bush-hating”.
I don’t know enough about your posting, Slacker, to tell if you are a knee-jerker or not. But I suspect that anything about Rove will become a sacred cow on the SDMB, like Swift Boats or “the 2000 election was stolen” or “the US uses torture as official policy” or “Bush lied about WMD”, on which discussion is anathema - all posters are required to simply chime in with Bush-abuse, on pain of a pile-on.
It doesn’t matter (for example) what facts come out of the Rove investigation, just like it doesn’t matter what facts the GAO found about the Clinton staffers. From now to eternity, the Usual Suspects will simply repeat what they assumed from the outset, and in increasingly louder voices.
Goes down well on the SDMB. In the Presidential elections? Not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
No.
The White House vandalism story has either been debunked or proven depending on which cites you prefer. Somehow popping Ws off keyboards isn’t as serious a matter to me as lying to start a war. Or turning a record surplus into record debt. Or destroying reproductive freedom. The vandalism thing, even if true (which I don’t believe) is nothing more than a smokescreen, a misdirection from cunning and malevolent charlatans.
I didn’t know abortion had been outlawed. I better go read the paper.
Regards,
Shodan
Very amusing. Of course I meant the intent is there.
Boy, you guys slay me! Don’t you know when you’ve been had?
Of course, friend Shodan knows that the whole “Goths Ransack Oval Office” story was a crock, only a compleat and total ignoranus wouldn’t know that! Shoddy is but another in a long, long line, through Calvin Coolidge down through Spiro Agnew and Prick Santorum of Republican droll, post-modern ironists!
As one who treasures a crisp and acidic sarcasm, I gasp in admiration at the spoofery! Jayvoo saloot! as they say in Lubbock!
OK, who “invented” the “faith based” whatever? It wasn’t the Bush hating commies was it?
Here are some of the facts - no WMD, no nukes, no Niger yellow cake connection, no Al Queda connection, numerous serious security leaks to the press.
Rove leaked info, repeatedly over the years for his own beneift. George H W Bush fired him for it one time. Now under George W Bush he did it again. He invented push polling. He raised character assassination to a fine art form. The Swift Boaters were proved to be liars and goons. The administration did look into the use of torture and does use humiliation as a tool of “interrogation”. Abu Ghraig and Gitmo are the examples. Right now, a new policy is being written by the military to stop these abuses. Bush did deliberately “mis-state” about WMD. He still switches reasons as it suits him, and never recanted anything, no matter what ageny calls him on it.
I am looking forward to seeing indictments handed down, hopefully followed by trials and convictions.
Dunno, it was here when I joined.
Repeat it a few thousand more times, and louder each time.
Maybe you can win the 2000 election yet.
Regards,
Shodan
You are wise to gloat while the opportunity still exists. See that handwriting? “Mene mene tekel upharsin”?
Translation available upon request.
2000? 2004? I was one of those who was not interested in disputing the results (even though I voted for the other guy and was disappointed). However, winning an election does not alter what has happened since then. Heck, the Republicans may keep winning elections from now on. That does not alter things that have already been done (good or bad). The last election was what - a 51 percent squeaker? Not very good for a war president with a mandate, is it? Since then approval ratings have slipped. Numbers. That’s all. Instead of talking about who won elections, let’s talk about lies, administration orchestrated personal attacks, misdirection etc. That’s more interesting.
I assume that you’re offering the translation to the Godless Democrats who wouldn’t be familiar with it.
Shodan, you do realize all of these happened, right? Democrats and liberals and Bush haters didn’t just make them up. Not every detail and rumor will be true of course. But the 90% that is true outweighs the 10% that is false.
At some point you have to realize the truth exists. It’s like saying “Richard Nixon lied” or “Bill Clinton cheated on his wife” - you can argue that these things don’t matter and you’re willing to overlook a man’s flaws because of his virtues. But denying the flaws exist demonstrates an inability to face reality.
It’s possible that the reason people are saying Bush is a bad President is because he really is a bad President.
The problem with the Democratic party is that apparently it is full of cow orkers.
Think of the cows, man.
I agree with the agressive stance on international terrorism. People seem to forget that hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s rule for their ethnic roots. I wish we had more international support to fight the same battles in Africa, where people are also being killed for their ethnicity. Are things bad in Iraq? Yes, but it will never get better by itself.
I agree with Social Security and Tax reform. I want to do what I want with my money rather than giving it to the federal government to spend how they want. People have become reliant on the federal government to be responsible for them, instead of being responsible for themselves.
I agree with limiting ‘pain and suffering’ and punative settlements. Filing lawsuits has become a get rich quick scheme, mostly for the lawyers involved. Money does not make pain and suffering go away.
The main reason I didn’t vote in 2000 is that I was more ambivalent towards the two candidates. Either in 2000 or 2004, a stronger Democratic candidate would have gotten my vote. I also value the role the Democratic party plays in the two party system when the Republicans are in charge. I felt safe voting for Bush because I know that abortion will not be completely banned. I know that SSM has a long way to go before it becomes acceptable enough to become nationally recognized. Too many Republicans and Democrats have gay friends or relatives and sisters or daughters who have had abortions to ever make either illegal. The two party system is self-moderating and the president just nudges the equilibrium in one direction or another. If (when) he has more power than that, that is when we need to start voting our senators and representatives out of office.