disclaimer to readers :
ScottPlaid should not be regarded as exemplifying left leading posters here, the above post being an excellent example of ‘why’.
Suuuuuure that isn’t exactly like how things are. I believe you. :rolleyes:
But really, if my claim of how things are is totally off base, then please prove it by answering boret’s question.
I disagree strongly w/most of Bush’s actions. however, to assume it’s all “wrong” is an infantile position. I believe that intelligent people can disagree about what is best for our country, and the best ways to achieve those goals.
signed
chair of the liberal but not a fucking lunatic society
If you understood me to have been calling all of his actions wrong, then you misunderstood, I simply meant a few little things, like the “war” on terror, his choice in staff, how he is handling the economy, and little things like that.
Not everything, just important things.
Now, back to the question. Why do you suppose republicans here are so angry, if not for the fact that they can not stand having their mistakes shown to them?
get it through the rancid liquid in your skull: * I agree - in my opinion, Bush has fucked most major stuff - however I also acknowledge that real life intelligent adults (which seems to exclude you) may indeed disagree on things such as the state of the economy and the best way to deal w/it etc.
You know wring, there’s an opening for the position of “New Reeder.” Maybe you oughta send Scott an application. 
Scott Plaid. Dude. You forgot to shut your pie hole again.
Beautiful. I think you guys are beating your head against a very hard wall though. Some folks just aren’t reachable. I applaud your attempt though. Anyone remember Milum?
-XT
you mean besides being a spy for the Emperor. 
Indeed. In fact, that’s a point I’ve made many, many times on this board, as a veteran, when posters press the logical fallacy of the chickenhawk.
You just continue, time and again, to demonstrate that you are the epitome of fucking stupid.
Everyone can see it?? Yeah, right. If Bush won 51% of the votes, and his current approval rating is around 40%, then that means LESS people APPROVE of him than VOTED FOR HIM!* You fucking brain dead moron!
The vast majority? Give me a fucking break. See above.
Why can’t everyone see that?? Because it’s an illusion you have dreamed up, maybe? You are so lock step with Liberal ideology that you can’t see the forest for the froth you spew.
Scott, face it. You are an idiot. A 1K post pitting attempted to point that out. Every time you post in this thread, you are greated with a chorus of “SHUT THE FUCK UP”. And you just keep on.
- I don’t want to start a number crunch about election percentages or current approval rating, just pointing out that Scott’s use of “vast majority” and “everyone” is just bullshit.
The way it works: If you haven’t served in the military and you support the war, you’re a disgusting coward and a chickenhawk. If you support it and you’ve been in the military, hey, that’s totally irrelevant.
Or, conversely:
If you haven’t served in the military and you oppose the war, then you’re a traitor who’s not supporting the troops. And if you have been in the military and oppose the war, hey, that’s totally irrelevant.
Wow, this game is easy and fun. Could we do some more?
The vast majority of republicans. You know, the people that thread was about. Not the vast majority of people in general. Also, I did not say that reasonable people will not disagree with republican economics vs. democratic economics. What I did say, however, is why I feel republicans on this board are angry. You think my theory is shit? Then post a better one.
Hey. You want me to shut up? Then don’t tell me to. Obviously, that is not going to do it. Instead, show me why I was wrong to state my theory, hokay? :dubious:
Have any of the reasonable supporters for the war on this board ever called anyone a traitor for their opposition to the war? Afaik Sam has never called anyone a traitor for opposing the war. Personally I think it would take someone who is unAmerican to claim that opposition to the war is the act of a traitor…what use freedom if you can’t express yourself as you choose. Hell, its an American tradition to be outspoken and stuborn about nearly ANY position.
Gods and devils.
-XT
You left out ‘been in the military and then not supporting the war’, then Republicans say that the soldiers lied about their services.
Kerry had that treatment, but that is not who I am talking about here, look at a special election that will happen soon in Ohio:
Scott, I can’t decipher what your theory is. You make broad generalizations that are not true and expect somebody to be able to figure what the fuck you are blabbering about.
Basically, all Republicans are NOT happy with Bush. I don’t know if a “vast majority” even are. You seem to be under the impression that by being a Conservative, one must agree with and support Bush. This is the basis for your theory, and it is false.
Just like the Liberal posters here attempt to distance themselves from you, despite some ideological common ground, so it is with at least some Conservatives and Bush.
By being unable to make this distinction, due to your blind adherence to everything Liberal, you make a similar assumption about Conservatives and Bush.
This is why your theory is shit.
I do know that trying to debate you is like trying to talk to someone in a foreign language. You make no sense, and are impossible understand due to your lack of communication skills (which is a result of your lack of ordinary intelligence, unlike an intelligent person speaking a foreign language).
So with a hearty SHUT THE FUCK up, I bid you a good evening.
No, because by definition that would be unreasonable behaviour. Anyhow, i wasn’t making an accusation, i was simply responding to Sam’s silly hyperbole with some of my own.
As for whether any of the supporters of the war—reasonable or otherwise—has called any of the opposition traitors, i’m not sure if they’ve used those exact words, but i remember quite a few accusations that those who opposed the war were de facto supporters of Saddam Hussein—just as ridiculous, IMO.
Here is a quote from a prominent SDMB conservative who recently decided not to renew his membership. In this case, Brutus was discussing anti-war demonstrations:
Here, in the same thread and again discussing those who oppsed the war, is the same poster:
And again:
And again, just for fun:
Of course, you might argue that, as Brutus has gone, he’s not really counted. Well, what about John Mace, a relatively conservative Doper with whom i have agreed on a variety of issues over the course of our time here, and for whom i have considerable respect. In this thread, started in early April 2003, the OP asked anti-war protestors what they would do now that Iraqis were hugging US and British troops in the streets of Baghdad. John Mace, ruminating on what anti-war protestors’ signs would say, suggested:
And in that same thread, Bill H., also a current member, spoke to anti-war protestors thus:
And in addition to these examples, there are many more in which those who opposed the war are accused of essentially giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and thus being de facto or even outright supporters of Saddam. The banned poster december was particularly good at this stuff.
As someone who reads a number of Republican-leaning web sites and journals, I can tell you that Bush has lost tons of support from Republicans over many issues:
-
A number who originally supported the war have abandoned support because they believe they were lied to.
-
A number who supported the war have abandoned support because they now think it’s unwinnable.
-
A number who supported the war still support it, but have abandoned support for Bush because they think the Bush administration has been inept in carrying it out.
Then there the Republicans who have lost support for Bush over economic policies. Many are furious with his big spending ways. The latest example is the highway bill, which Bush will probably not veto despite the fact that it is now way higher than the level he said was his veto limit.
Large numbers of Republicans are mad at Bush for his position on stem cells. A lot of them are mad at him for his immigration policies.
Frankly, the only reason Bush has 43% support at all is because most Republicans think that, as bad as Bush may be, the Democrats have sold out to the left fringes and have become irresponsible, strident, shrill, and even dangerous. There’s a huge opportunity here for the Democratic party if they could find a way to toss off the MoveOn crowd and claw their way back to the center.
If they don’t, all those disaffected Republicans will hold their noses and vote Republican in 2006 and 2008. Just like a disaffected Democrat would still vote for the devil rather than, say, Rick Santorum, a disaffected Republican will vote for any Republican before he’ll vote for the equivalent of Ted Kennedy or Dick Durbin.
There’s also a huge – huge! – opportunity for the GOP to dump the NRA and Dobson and, well, lots of people. And move to the center while there’s still time before, well, something!
Jeez, Sam… listen to yourself. Sad, really.