taggert, I applaud your honesty and your willingness to clearly state your opinions.
I’d also like to thank you, for in so clearly stating your position, you are providing an excellent service to my own cause. I wish you a long and vocal future here on the SDMB.
Someone remind me. In Dr. Strangelove, does the Air Force officer who ramples on about ‘purity of essence’ also talk about ‘moral clarity’?
And why doesn’t taggert work for Mel Brooks any longer?
As far as I know, none of them are friends of W’s. They are, (with the exception of Thomas) respected professionals who work in the Bush Administration. Working with someone does not make you “pals.” FWIW, I see no evidence that justifies calling W a racist.
OK, for anyone who professes to be an admirer of W, that has to be satire.
And if you think the 'Pubbies don’t enjoy a good beer, you’re just mistaken.
This is an exceedingly unkind pile on of which you participants should be ashamed.
You’re ridiculing the person based on his opinions.
By all means feel free to attack the man’s positions, but the personal attack against him is reprehensible.
Hey, I’m a Republican and a fiscal conservative (ask around), and my bullshit meter goes off whenever I read your posts. I realize there is no remedy for you there – if you’re on the level, how could you post other than what you post? – and so there is a fair to middlin’ chance this is unfair, but . . . what can I say? My bullshit meter goes off whenever I read your posts.
On the off chance you’re for real, I promise not to post to tell you I think you’re shining us on. However, since I can’t take you seriously, this probably means I won’t be responding to your posts at all.
Just a dang blasted minute! I knew something was odd about this statement and it took me three reading to get it. Yes, Tommy J. was the first “Democratic” president and yes he slept with his slave, but a Jeffersonian Democrat is completely different from today’s Democrat. A Jeffersonian Democrat believed in states’ right and laisez faire in regards to business. Sound familar? That’s because its’ essentially today’s Republican platform. Its’ one of those quirks of American politics that the Democratic party turned into the Republican party and a new Democratic party formed (oversimplified I know). You can add historian to the list of things you aren’t.
By the way, the implying that all Democrats are licentious adulters isn’t the way to make friends. It makes you look like a jackass. Just some friendly advice, you tool.
Umm, I don’t recall posting anything about child labor. It’s usually not an issue in this country.
This satire thing, what can I say that I haven’t said, but here goes: the vast majority of Americans, not just the ones that vote, agree with virtually everything I have said in my posts. Just go ask people on the street about any proposition that I have put forward, they will agree with virtually any single proposition I have put forth. And I did not call President Bush a racist.
The Dr. Strangelove quote was referring to Sterling Hayden and his speech about communists poisoning “precious bodily fluids”. Moral Clarity is being espoused chiefly by William Bennett, former Drug Czar of the Reagan Administration and conservative intellectual.
Oh yes, and…
I doubt taggert has a preference whether you attack “him” or his “opinions.” His goal is accomplished either way.
taggert You oversimplify things a little. There, that was a criticism of his “positions.”
[sub]Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?, say no more[/sub]
If you really are a conservative taggert, and I am not conceding that fact, you had me completely fooled. I apologize for not taking you seriously, sort of. But, as a part-time conservative, I found some (most) of your statements strained credulity.
Keep up the good work, taggert.
When a liberal calls you a troll, that’s a compliment.
When a mod calls you a troll, that’s an accolade!
Are you serious?
>> When a liberal calls you a troll, that’s a compliment.
>> When a mod calls you a troll, that’s an accolade!
And when december says “keep up the good work” you know you are a total asshole.
and BTW, when a mod calls you troll, that’s the beginning of the end for you.
Fair enough. I may regret this, but I will take your post seriously and respond to at least parts of it. (And I’m not tacitly agreeing with things I don’t respond to…)
A few notes before I begin:
(1) I only read the SDMB sporadically, and thus have not seen any previous post from you ever, and thus have no preconceived opinion about you one way or the other
(2) I have read very few columns by Ann Coulter, and none particularly recently, and thus will refrain from commenting about her, specifically.
(3) To be blunt, I disagree with almost everything you said. However, the fact that I can do so and politely debate you in a public forum without either of us being afraid that the secret police is going to come take us away is one of the primary things that makes this country great, and is worth pointing out and reveling in from time to time.
First of all, some of the founding fathers, at least, had lots of extramarital affairs. Thomas Jefferson fathered children with a slave, and Ben Franklin had gazillions of illegitimate children.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don’t know if it’s even remotely meaningful to say that the founding fathers were “conservative” in the same sense that the term is used today. (And for that matter, your definition of conservatism as “knowing the difference between right and wrong, and making no bones about choosing right over wrong” is disingenuous at best.) For instance, one of the biggest single catalysts of the American Revolution was Common Sense by Thomas Paine, who was a radical by any standard and later went off to join the extremely radical French Revolution. And what were the political ideals that the Revolution stood for? No taxation without representation? How is that a “conservative” vs. a “liberal” ideal? And honestly, the basic idea of having a revolution, throwing off bonds, and forming a new nation is an idea of change and upheaval, which is certainly “liberal”, by the traditional definition.
You might also be surprised by the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. I’m not sure if any of them were athiests, but many of them were not really mainstream Christians, but were instead Deists of various sorts. However, that’s not an issue I know too much about.
(One final point: how on earth can you conflate “knowing the difference between right and wrong, and making no bones about choosing right over wrong” with slavery? Some of the founding fathers thought slavery was OK. So they didn’t know the difference. And others didn’t, but formed the US anyhow, so were willing to compromise with close-to-ultimate evil for political expedience.)
I just plain disagree with this sentiment, but it’s not one that can be particularly debated. However, I’m sorry that you feel that I am making you less safe because my beliefs differ from yours.
(a) even the most rabid conservative apologist would be hard-pressed to argue that W is a “great” president. He’s done a passable job in a really serious crisis, which is what people have mainly judged him on so far, and eventually history may judge him more kindly than I do right now, but you insult the founding fathers (and Great Presidents like Lincoln and FDR) by calling him “great”
(b) I agree that in times of national crisis, unity can be important. However, there are degrees of crisis, and there are limits to what one can overlook in them. I would certainly not have been interested in hearing about possible minor scandals on 9/12/01. But that was a long time ago, and I see no reason to give Bush a free ride forever. I think we’re in agreement that there are times and places when some things are inappropriate. The fact that we might disagree about how long those times last, or how serious certain things are, doesn’t make me a traitor.
“useless facts”? What are they, pray tell?
You claim that not only should the US now attack Baghdad, but that that choice is so clearly obvious that anyone who would debate it is, basically, a traitor, or at best a fool. Well, that argument is outside the scope of this post, but look back to my preamble… people in the US can disagree, and can express their opinions, and that’s the way it should be. And I disagree.
OK, now you’re being flat out hypocritical. First of all, the amount of Clinton’s energy that he wasted, over the 8 years that he was in office, getting blow jobs is positively MINISCULE compared to the amount of his energy that was wasted defending himself against trumped up and ludicrous impeachment charges related to said blow jobs. Secondly, how can you criticize people for investigating possible shady financial dealings in Bush’s past, and then criticize Clinton for having to put effort into defending himself against people investigating possible shady financial dealings in his past? Or is it simply that the “war on terror” gives Bush a free pass?
Two other points:
(a) Clinton was “ultra liberal”? I guess that’s why Ralph Nader was so disgusted with the Clinton/Gore administration that he refused to throw his support behind them even when it would have clearly swung the election. You may disagree with Clinton all you like, but to call his administration “ultra liberal” is laughable. True ultra liberals want to hunt Clinton down for sport and kill him due to his centrism. You might argue that Clinton was slippery, stupid, politically motivated, or lots of other nasty words, but simply applying more and more insulting adjectives to him doesn’t make him “ultra liberal”
(b) Would you care to provide any evidence or cite at all that Clinton’s administration did a less effective job of dealing with terrorists than any other administration, before or since (pre 9/11 of course)? In fact, didn’t Clinton put more effort and budget into the fight against terror than GWBush did (before 9/11)? (Perhaps someone else can back me up on this or point out if I’m wrong)
So Liberalism is “the allowance of a wide variety of divergent ideas and permisiveness”? Wow, sounds a lot like another word that begins with “Liber”, but in which the “alism” is replaced by “ty”.
So just to be clear here, anyone who questions anything Bush does at all, ever, is an anti-America traitor? (And probably a Gay Commie Nazi Pagan?) All joking and sarcasm aside, this attitude really disturbs me. And, to be honest, I find it personally insulting. I wonder if there are any American soldiers out there in the field right now, defending you and me, who are less than fervent supporters of Bush? Are they traitors too?
OK, you’re the president of a rogue state. You have finally managed to manufacture a nuclear weapon. You want to punish the “great satan”. Do you:
(a) also develop a rogue state ICBM to go with your rogue state warhead, despite the fact that a missile development program is both prohibitively expensive and very likely to call attention down on you, or
(b) put your nuke on a boat and sail into New York harbor. Or else, smuggle it in from Canada. Or something.
The missile defense shield is a JOKE. It was a bad idea for strategic purposes, 20 years ago, when it at least had some faint rationale. Now it’s immediately and obviously useless. Take all that money and give it to public schools, and our next generation of scientists will invent far better ways to defend us. Or heck, give it all to the CIA to hire more field agents.
Just curious, here… has this ever worked? Ever?
Anyhow, I’ve done my best to respond to your post in a fashion that will lead to respectful debate… so bring it on!
Pagan, taggert, pagan.
At least spell it right when you’re blaming me for the downfall of morality and the “removal of God’s umbrella”, you bigotted goat.
Maybe Ann Coulter?
I cant figure out if you are serious or not, and it is starting to get very very annoying.
Brilliant, simply brilliant!!! You actually have some people believing that you’re not a “parodist”. This has to be one of the best pieces of satire/parody I’ve ever seen. You, sir, are an artist of the first magnitude! And one damn sly snake in the grass.
Well, I think Taggert is a rather stylish writer, even when what he writes is utter bollocks, and most of the time it is.
I think the absurdly extreme positions he espouses (much like those of his love bunny Ann Coulter) are selected for no other reason than to spark outrage and build on his desire for celebrity; just look at how fast the replies have built up in this thread. Everybody wants a piece of the pile-on (yeah, me too), and we’ve done just what the OP wanted: make him one of the most talked-about posters on this board.
Congratulations, dude. You’ve got ‘em eatin’ out of your hand.
Hey, pal, this is the US of A, a republic where the president is elected to carry out the will of the electorate. WE are the sovereign rulers of this country; yeah, us, the people. If you want to talk rot about “the glory of our leader’s goals”, may I suggest you move to North Korea, a country where mandatory allegiance to the Great Leader is much more in vogue.
Well, yes and no. I am no historian, but I do know that the oldest continuous political party in the world is the Democratic Party (unless you believe in the Illuminati). I think that with the idea of original intent, you also must accept with it the continuity of political responsibility. Jefferson was a champion of separation of church and state, which made him a modern day liberal, and also of pubic education. See his Virginia Statute on religion on which the First Amendment’s religion clauses (in two parts, no establishment, no infringement) is based. He founded the University of Virginia. He was a licentious liberal by his day’s standards. Was he a Marxist? Of course not, Marxism had not been invented yet. As for states rights, no, Jefferson’s actions speak much louder than his words: the Louisana Purchase was a dictatorial act. While he constantly preached Mission and utopian ideals, he was as Machiavellian as they came, as anybody who has read Machiavelli’s Discourses would tell you, the ideas contained therein were fully incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. As much as Jefferson preached Mission, he was a Manifest Destiny actor, an expansionist, a strong advocate of the perogatives of the Executive Branch, moreso than the predecessors he criticized and ran against.
The problem with liberals is that they demand that everyone participate in their little fantasy of everyone blissfully having respectful disagreements over tea and fail to recognize what this country is really all about, the prosecution of conservative ideals.
That this country is basically a conservative country leads me to my next point Jodi I heartily applaud any conservatism on this board, but really, you can’t claim to be a conservative just by claiming to be a “fiscal conservative” as everybody claims that. Hell, have you ever heard anyone claim to be a “fiscal liberal”? Nope. And claiming to be a fiscal conservative does not make one a Republican. Fiscal conservatism, a spoken policy of balanced budgets, low taxes and welfare reform is what everybody talks about. But emminences like President Reagan and both Bushes walk the walk. They lower taxes for higher investment, they fight for balanced budgets and eliminating welfare.
And Minty Green, all I want is a voice in the debate and to lend a hand to the gallant conservatives on this Board who hail our President as the leader in the war against terror. My goal is accomplished because there is still freedom to post my conservative views. I don’t really mind the ad hominem attacks because as Ann Coulter detailed in her great book Slander, it least it shows liberals up for people who cannot argue about the policies. I have never on this board attacked another poster personally, even if they were a commie sympathizer. It shows the weakness of the argument if someone attacks me personally, and I count that as a win.