Certainly!
(This isn’t the Washington Post article from last night which I couldn’t seem to find tonight for some reason, but Google did bring this up. I have to say in my own defense that this is not a site I frequent but it does have quotes from the Washington Post interview.)
Anyway, here it is: http://www.resurrectionsong.com/archives/000815.html
I wonder, would this be your response if it had been Newt Gingrich’s wife, or Jeb Bush’s, or Tom Delay’s?
Whine? I exposed her for the hypocrite she is. I don’t see where anything I’ve said could be accurately described as “whining.”
Thank you! This is exactly my point! We’re all the same! Funny that to you that’s an insult. (I think this just goes to further illustrate my observation that liberals do indeed regard themselves as superior.)
Whatever.
With the exception of her naivete in her assumption that Hussein gave a shit about his people (she’s right that he was into Babylonian history, though), I pretty much agree with all her comments about Iraq, and the parking lot allegations, if true do not detract from the validity of those comments nor do they make her a hypocrite, There’s a gigantic difference between a parking lot scuffle and a fucking MILITARY INVASION, man.
The OPs efforts to extropolate anything about liberals or “peaceniks” are specious in the extreme. What the rant amounts to is that a lady who agrees with me about Iraq got into a fight in a parking lot. So fucking what? Is that supposed to prove something about Iraq? About war protesters? About liberals?
It’s been mentioned before, but you could grab all kinds of conservative Christians from the news, highlight hypocrisy or even specious hypocrisy, and then say “I love it when Christians say THIS and then do THAT” as if that says anything about Christians. Hell the hypocritical Christian might even be right about something. Let’s say he condemns adultery and then gets caught nailing a hooker. Does that invalidate what he said about adultery?
In short, the lady is (mostly) right about Iraq and her parking lot scrap doesn’t change that.
We do not know that she did any of this. It has only been alleged.
And we are not all the same. Some people look forward, some people look backward. Some people want to use peace to achieve their goals, others want to use violence. Certainly there is a difference between using ‘slapping’ violence (if she even did) and employing the violence of an unecessary, expensive war that is endangering not just our soldiers and Marines, but our entire nation.
from Starving Artist:
Yes. All humans are capable of innapropriate emotional responses. There is, however, a BIG difference between an individual overreacting in a childish and emotional way, and a President and his administration overreacting in a childish, emotional, and also deadly and foolish way.
I think a good case can be made that the nations that decided against joining an unnecessary, unethical war are more civilized and evolved than us. Similarly, nations with universal health care and no death penalty could be justifiably considered more civilized and evolved than us.
Some Senator’s wife? Big F deal! George Bush’s Mom shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. No shit, got it from the liberal radio. Mike Moore’s got the gun, you can see it on his website.
Criminey! Why do you people keep trying to equate my disdain of her hypocritic behavior with Bush or our actions in Iraq? Oh, wait…I know. It’s a straw man. By doing so you take the focus off of her behavior and focus it on my motives in order to redirect an argument you can’t win on its face. I’m not pitting her because we’re in Iraq and she doesn’t like it, and I’m not pitting her because I think her behavior is worse than war. How stupid! I’m pitting her for being the hypocrite she clearly is! Her being a hypocrite has no relation whatever to what Bush or the U.S. is or is not doing in Iraq or the war on terrorism.
Until yesterday she was a smug, superior (insert cool, sophisticated, non small-minded euphemism for “peacenik” here as I unfortunately don’t know of another word as descriptive) and now she’s shown her true colors. I mean, what kind of gall and sense of entitlement would a person have to have to go off on someone like that. I can and often do flare up at buttpipes in traffic and I’ve been known to engage in some quite agressive finger-flipping and so forth when riled, but I would never in a million years behave in such a way toward anyone who hadn’t actually assaulted me physically first, no matter what else was going on in my life.
You have failed to demonstrate any hypocrisy. A scrap in a parking lot is in no way analogous to a war and in no way contradicts an anti-war position.
I still don’t get what your point is. A lady who is against the war in Iraq is accused of getting in a fight in a parking lot and that proves…what?
Consuela Bush brought a bunch of stuff back to the states without declaring them at customs, avoiding IIRC a couple thou worth of duty fees. My reaction then, as it is now, was a resounding “so what?” As long as appropriate punishments are applied, I don’t particularly care. I don’t know what her politics are and I don’t care; I didn’t vote against Consuela Bush, I voted against her husband. (Twice.)
Our choices are:
I agree with you, thus you are right.
I disagree with you, so I’m a smug liberal meanie, and thus you are right.
Nice laybrinth of self-affirmation you’ve constructed there. :rolleyes:
Sure, I can be an elitist jackass a lot of the time, so are many other liberals, and so are many conservatives. But to take a couple of liberals “acting superior” because they think your OP is stupid doesn’t mean that you’ve proved that something inherent in liberalism leads to all liberals being smug jackasses. Apparently you’ve got a complex about this, and that’s the real issue here, not some mulch fight.
Thanks… I actually wanted a link to a story on what she said, rather than what she did, though. I fully believed the part about the fight at the garden center; the quotes in your OP read as if they’d been… edited, though.
What would your response have been had Consuela Bush gone around preaching about the evils of smuggling and then been caught red-handed with her illegal contraband? This would be a much more apt comparison.
Well, when you put it like that, I guess I am pretty damn clever, at that. 
I agree. It’s that smug and condescending superiority seems to be much more prevalent among those on the left.
To quote one of our greatest presidents: “There you go again.” Where did I ever, anywhere in any post I’ve ever made anywhere on this entire message board, imply that *all * liberals were smug jackasses? Again with the straw men. Make an inaccurate accusation and you can therefore deflect the true thrust of the argument. This goes on around here all the time, doesn’t it? Every time the going gets tough and I make assertions that my opponents either can’t or don’t want to address, out come the straw men. I’ve seen it time after time.
Au, contraire! You guys still aren’t getting my point, perhaps because you’re personalizing it. My references to smug, superior liberals have not been aimed at (however, nor do they exclude) any of the posters to this thread. I’ve been talking about the overall attitude of liberals in general who consider themselves superior to the great unwashed masses, troglodytes who they feel need to be guided as to how to be proper, humane, evolved, peaceful and tolerant human beings, when in reality they are no better than those they condescend to.
There’s no complex at all. Just annoyance with this smug superiority that is so richly undeserved. And even though I’ve been critisized for bringing this up so often, I will say that I don’t necessarily think one group is superior to the other, that everyone has the same inclination toward discrimination, bias, hatred, anger and even hypocrisy, only at different ends of the spectrum. I’ve seen as much stereotyping, hatred, anger, bias, and discrimination on this board as I’ve ever seen anywhere, but because those who are engaging in it believe they have the moral high ground and that the other side deserves what it gets by virtue of their being selfish, stupid, war-mongering, unenlightened clods. My point is that these people are no better than those they critisize, hence my observation about Wanda Baucus.
I believe I posted one before. Check the link I provided Whistlepig. It’s not a site I frequent, but lacking the one from last night it’s the best I’ve been able to find for now. I couldn’t locate the original from the Washington Post from last night. You might want to try again, though.
The smug condescension is matched on the right by open and bittter hostility. And the right does seem to feel vastly superior to the left, if you watch the news, listen to the radio, or read the letters to the editor of your local paper.
You’re all missing the key point here.
How does putting a bag of mulch behind someone’s car stop them from going anywhere? Even if you’re going around in a Mini-Cooper (not the best mulch transport vehicle), you can drive right over a bag of mulch (the humanity!) without any trouble.
This is the wrong time of year to be putting down mulch in the D.C. area. You should wait until the soil dries out a bit more and it’s a little warmer. And what of the problems of excessive mulching and overconsumption of trees?
Ms. Baucus has some explaining to do.
My god, man, do you not see the logical disconnect in your own posts? Talk about hypocrasy! No one here has constructed a strawman, because no one needed to. All of the above quotes from you are from just one post.
Let me see if I’ve captured your twisted little attitude correctly:
“There is no difference between liberals and conservatives, but liberals are far worse.”
“I don’t imply that all liberals were smug jackasses, I’m just talking about liberals in general.”
“I will say that I don’t necessarily think one group is superior to the other, but smug and condescending superiority seems to be much more prevalent among those on the left.”
Are you so blind that you don’t see the hypocrasy of your own statements? And before you accuse me of constructing a strawman, please note that I’m using your own words here. And all from one post.
Egads. I only read this far before my logic-o-meter blew a fuse. Let’s take this apart bit by bit, shall we?
Because you did. Read your own damn OP, will you? You go to great lengths to compare her behavior to Iraq, then blame others for doing the same. Then you have the gall to accuse others of hypocrasy. Unbelieveable!
I think you do not truly understand what that term means. A strawman argument means a false argument constructed because it is easy to knock down. While your arguments are certainly easy to knock down, they are not strawmen – they are your own words. Please don;t use that term simply because you are not getting your own way.
It’s you that took the focus off of her behavior. You then pinned it on all liberals (all the while denying that you did so, and then – amazingly – threw the word “hypocrite” around like it was so much mulch). You took one isolated incident and used it to denigrate an entire group, and then you’re astonished that said group doesn’t agree with you.
Funny, to me it looks, on its face, like we’ve already won. You just refuse to acknowledge that.
When did the senator’s wife condemn blocking cars with mulch or scrapping in parking lots? You’re comparing apples with watermelons. Condemning a war is not the same as condemning all violence and anyone who opposes the invasion of Iraq is not therby bound to live like Gandhi in her private life.
Now if she had lied her way into an illegal military invasion of Java you might have a point.
“Hypocrisy is the pretty compliment vice pays to virtue.”
For us weak mortals, choosing principles means to choose hypocrisy. Myself, I am opposed to violence in any form. Does that mean I could not be provoked to a point where I would bop somebody on the nose? Evidence would indicate otherwise.
As well, if the principles are repugnant, an honest adherence to them is nothing worth admiring.
I am largely opposed to projecting military force. Does this mean that if we caught ObL in an emply field somewhere in the Godforsaken Desert, I would be angry if someone dropped a “daisy cutter” on his sorry ass? Well, I would feel obliged, due to my principles, to say “Tut-tut, tsk tsk” while quietly pouring myself a celebratory shot of the Good Stuff. Hypocrisy? Probably. The death of any man diminishes me, unless he’s a total asshole. No man is a peninsula.
The fact of hypocrisy does not render choice of principle moot. I hold in higher esteem the man who strives to live up to principles I admire, and scorn the man who successfully embodies principles I disdain. To borrow a phrase from The Master, I am not only in the parade of fools and hypocrites, I am in the front row, carrying a banner. If my principles were not more worthy than I, I wouldn’t need them.
You’ve got it all wrong, Doggy Knees. It’s because she got into a scrap while simultaneously condemning an illegal invasion. This does not make her a hypocrite. It makes all liberals hypocrites. OK, not all liberals. Just liberals in general. Who are just as bad as conservatives. Only worse.
I think.
I think you got it backwards. Conservatives are just as bad as liberals, only not as much.