Ladies & gentlemen, Evan Coyne Maloney:
If the Democrats want to neutralize President Bush on [the war] issue, they have to articulate a credible vision for dealing with terrorism. But even that will be difficult for the Democrats, because their criticisms of President Bush have no logical consistency. There is no underlying philosophy on which Democrats base their critiques of the Bush Administration; instead, their rhetoric is comprised of reflexive opposition to whatever President Bush does. If you want to test this assertion in the real world, try this: next time you run across a partisan Democrat, ask whether President Bush has done anything right. Odds are, the response will contain less than one item.Indeed, without exception, every partisan Democrat I've talked to has been incapable of answering me whenever I've said, "what precisely would you be doing differently? What policies could Bush follow or change that would make you happy?" Instead I get more crap about how Bush "lied," or bloviating about incompetence and failure.
As I've said many times, automatic criticism is a child's game. I can criticize anything. Give me the receipts from your last grocery shopping trip, and I can make you look like an idiot for your purchase choices. What does that accomplish? If you can't articulate a clear alternative, you're just a partisan hack.
I repeat, if you cannot articulate a clear alternative, you are just a partisan hack. But I'll go further: if you can't do that, then I openly question your patriotism, because sowing disunity in time of war without offering a credible alternative course of action clearly signals that partisanship is more important to you than victory for America.
Anyway, Maloney goes on:
The inconsistencies of the Democratic arguments against President Bush make it impossible for them to put forth any alternate vision, because anything they propose will conflict with some of their previous criticisms. Even that they'll deny, though; they'll sweeten their waffles with the syrup of nuance, the word they use to cover up the fact that they're holding several completely contradictory stances simultaneously.Yep.
And then:
Principled, persuasive arguments can be made both for and against the tenets of the Bush Doctrine. Unfortunately, the Democrats are squandering their opportunity to outline an alternative vision and instead are resorting to knee-jerk criticisms and ad hominem attacks. That's too bad; this is a discussion our country must have, because it will determine how we handle this war against radical Islam, a war that could easily last a century. But it seems that the only war the Democrats want to wage is one against President Bush.
I suggest you read the whole thing.
This country needs a sensible, moderate Democratic Party. My late friend Gary Utter, a staunch McGovern Democrat and a fellow member of Vietnam Veterans Against The War alongside John Kerry (who, by the way, he also grew to despise), said last year that we need a new Democratic Party. I more or less agree, although I think that that it requires reform from within the current party. But the only way to do that is to fire everybody at the top of the DNC and DCCC as well as the House and Senate leadership, which is probably too much to hope for until after the election--an election Democrats very much deserve to lose badly.
Because calling Bush a liar and a screwup, and ranting about how knocking five points off the top marginal tax rates has destroyed the economy, is not the position of a sane, thoughtful person, let alone a great political party.
Democrats have squandered every opportunity to articulate a coherent criticism beyond "Bush sucks" and "Bush lied." They deserve to be spanked in response.
They really do.
* Update * Think I exaggerate? The New York Times reports:In an interview on Wednesday with American Urban Radio Networks, Mr. Kerry described the president's Iraq policy as "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life."
Still, even as he attacked Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry was notably vague in saying how he would handle the matter as president. His advisers said he had no plans to offer a policy speech about a war that aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry alike said they now expected to provide a bloody backdrop for the campaign for months.
"Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made," Mr. Kerry said on Wednesday on CNN.
Can any reasonable person read that and not conclude that Kerry has no position whatsoever except that whatever Bush has done or will do is wrong? That his only intention is to criticize whatever is done, no matter what it is? That he actually has no plan of his own beyond that?
Case in point:
Democrats railed that Bush has done too much to fight terrorism by pre-emptively invading Iraq and the establishment of the Dept of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
And yet, Democrats blame Bush for not doing enough to combat terrorism in the 233 days he was in office before 9/11. The only thing he could have done would have been to pre-emptively invade Afghanistan and pass something equivalent to the Patriot Act, and even those would most assuredly not have prevented the 9/11 atrocity.
Let me go one further for you and point out that the people who are criticizing Bush's choices and actions without presenting a credible alternative (and that includes John F. Kerry) have made it painfully clear that they consider a victory for America to be mutually exclusive to a victory for their party/candidate/platform.
What is this thing you have about spanking?
"Democrats railed that Bush has done too much to fight terrorism by pre-emptively invading Iraq and the establishment of the Dept of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act."
That's humorous. The invasion of Iraq has nothign to do with terrorism. In case you missed the memo, none of the 9-11 terrorists were Iraqi and Al-Queada has no ties with Iraq.
The Department of Homeland Security was "created" by Bush only after his adament arguement that one was not needed. It was hardly his idea.
The Patriot Act is not a tool to fight terrorism, it's a step towards outlawing dissent and establishing G. W. Bush as dictator of the United States, a position I might add that he has twice publically stated he woudl like to obtain.
"And yet, Democrats blame Bush for not doing enough to combat terrorism in the 233 days he was in office before 9/11."
Interestingly enough, all democrats would have wanted was for Bush to not have cancelled all the anti-terrorism programs that Clinton put in place following the attack on the Cole that Clinton willingly took resposibility for though it happened almost immediately followinghis election to office. Bush comes into office, puts terrorism on the back-burner, cancels the anti-terrorist programs Clinton set up, shelves the investigation of the Cole, ignores information warning of a terrorist attack on American soil, then when one takes place he says, "well it can't be my fault I've only bee in office 233, and most of them I spent on vacation!"
"Let me go one further for you and point out that the people who are criticizing Bush's choices and actions without presenting a credible alternative (and that includes John F. Kerry) have made it painfully clear that they consider a victory for America to be mutually exclusive to a victory for their party/candidate/platform."
People who have criticized Bush offer numerous other choices (the only problem being that there are so many alternatives the democratic party has not been able to unify behind one specific choice as the best). A victory for America is inherently the defeat of Bush. America stands for Freedom, Bush is the antithesis of freedom, therefore, America cannot and will not survive as it once did if Bush is allowed to stay in office.
Carsen,
You know, heck with it, I was going to write a response to your post - but I'll just state that anyone who thinks that President Bush sought the Patriot Act so that he could become dictator is the biggest fucking idiot the world has ever seen.
Congratulations - we were wondering who it was.
I'll second that remark.
Shep, Mark Adams and Ara,
Carsen is on your side. HA HA! Our extremists might be looney but at least their IQ's are higher than sheep.
Carsen,
BAA baaaaaaa baaa baaaaaa. Baaaa.
" America cannot and will not survive as it once did if Bush is allowed to stay in office."
Oh please. I'm with Mark. Carsen, you're a big league schmuck. Seriously.
Carsen,
You're running late. April Fool's Day was a week ago.
"Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made," Mr. Kerry said on Wednesday on CNN.
Does Kerry think that since Bush screwed this up, Bush should be the one to fix it? Vote for Bush in November. Make him fix his own mistake.
With all due respect to the late Mr. Utter, he should be described as an ex-McGovern supporter, for he had come to believe that McGovern was wrong and Nixon was right. He also expressed tremendous admiration for both Nixon and also for Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Utter became convinced that Nixon was involved only in the coverup, a very dubious proposition.
Ara, what's this thing you have about metaphors? I have on a couple of occasions blogged about an essayist having nailed a subject. Would you like to suggest a connection between my use of that word and my wee wifey having been for a time a carpenter?
LOL, Question: how do you know when the opposition is unable to answer your statments with facts? Answer: They start hurling insults.
I could easily start hurling insults back at you, but I prefer to deal in fact.
Fact #1: December 18th, 2000, in a CNN interview George W Bush claims he would like to be the dictator of the United States. This is one of several similiar comments that he has said in public and on recorded media.
Fact #2: Combined with the Patriot Act, the failed Patriot Act II (or the Domestic Security Enhancement Act) would legally make dissent against the government a crime punishable by death.
Hell, I'll settle for Carson just giving us the quotes for the two times that Bush has said he wants to crush dissent, and become dictator... :)
I'm glad to see the article, because there's a particular issue that, up to now, I thought was just me.
When have any of the regular anti-Bush crowd ever said anything positive about the man at all? Have ever said that action X, decision Y, or bill Z was a good thing?
Besides never?
I'm just asking...
Whoa, wait while I get my tinfoil hat on.
I doubt Bush was being serious when he made that remark.
http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121800/gen_1218007459.shtml
I've often wished that Limbaugh would have a "Credit Where It's Due" segment once in a while highlighting things Democrats get right. Hey, he says he loves a challenge.
I believe CZ provided you with the quote you were looking for.
I suppose I'm considered one of the "anti-Bush crowd" and I will be happy to tell you that Bush did something good as soon as it happens.
"Hell, I'll settle for Carson just giving us the quotes for the two times that Bush has said he wants to crush dissent, and become dictator... :)"
How many times does Bush have to say it until you believe that he said it? It's like saying the war on the Talibans and on the Iraqis can't be validated as Wars On Terror until there's a third war. Marcos and Aristide were dictators in their own country. Bush on the other hand, is a dictator not only inside but outside his own country. He ignored the U.N.'s decision about not going to war by going to war. That to me makes him the #1 dictator anyone has encountered.
"When have any of the regular anti-Bush crowd ever said anything positive about the man at all?"
That's why they're called "anti-Bush." Anti-Kerrys don't say anything positive about Kerry either. It's like you're implying that a priest who's anti-Satan should say something nice about Satan.
Marko,
That isn't true at all. I think Kerry has good hair.
He ignored the U.N.'s decision about not going to war by going to war. That to me makes him the #1 dictator anyone has encountered.
Ha! That is like saying I'm a bad mother because I defy the wishes of my children...
I just checked the Constitution, I find that the U.N. isn't mentioned as a supervisor to the President.
Rosemary:
By defying the wishes of your children, does that include killing them? Bush has done more then defy the majority.
Moreover...If your country is a member of the U.N., should you not abide by the rules of the U.N.?
Deep breath. Think of your happy place. Dean did not just call you a treasonous political hack. Don't take it so personal. Because you are good enough, smart enough, and dog gone it, people like you.
As for the "rudeness" of the partisan hacks. Had Rice been a witness in a court of law, or before a grand jury (oops, got to clean up the drool from my keyboard, hang on a moment...), she would never have been permitted to filibuster, she would have been instructed to answer the question as presented and her time-wasting "speech-ettes" would have been stricken from the record as non-responsive. Of course in a court, the witnesses do get a chance to have their say, and their side can fully rebut, because there is no arbitrary time limit on the length of time to interview the witness. The urgency was doubled today in that Condi cannot be called again, nor any other administration official, as part of the agreement which laid the groundwork for the upcoming Bush/Cheney ventriloquist act.
This was not a court. And it was never going to be nonpartisan. Nothing in Washington is free of partisanship. This commission is Bi-partisan, not non-partisan and made up of very thoughtful and responsible public figures who take their jobs seriously. To expect non-partisanship in the political process is folly. Our system is flawed, but superior to anything else. Democracy is messy to say the least. Former prosecutor Ben Venista and the (as of yesterday) praise worthy Bob Kerry were dutifully playing their assigned roles.
It would have been very telling to have witnessed the afternoon session with Bill Clinton in the hot seat, just to watch the rancor switch sides. Alas it was probably more civil with the cameras off. Had they been on, I'm positive that it would be very reminiscent of a certain judiciary impeachment hearing. Condi's appearance did make for decent theater. Not as riveting as Clarke's, but that's because Condi didn't have anything new to say.
This was all about her being grilled. Designed that way. That's what it was for. It was to display Condi in front of America and the relatives of 9/11 victims whose effort alone made sure the commission was formed at all. They were the peanut gallery who applauded, not some nameless democratic partisans. They deserve answers and Condi and the rest of the administration stonewalled them at every opportunity. Naturally they applauded when Dr. Rice was given some hard questions. I'm disappointed she didn't get more.
As for coming up with a thoughtful plan to deal with terrorism, let's make sure we have our terms straight. If is the act of bombing innocents we are to prevent, I would humbly submit that the Likud has been grappling with this problem, and failing to finally eliminate it, for quite some time now. Their policies are not unlike the Bush Administration's. Their success not nearly as apparent. A couple of answers to the disparity in success rates could be that: 1. As has been suggested of the Clinton administration, maybe Bush & Co. got lucky. 2. Maybe they are more than lucky, and with UBL run completely underground and most of his henchman "taken care of," al Qaeda is no longer able to coordinate a transatlantic operation.
If terrorism is to be considered merely a tactic, symptomatic of anti-western sentiment and/or islamofascism, then the enemy is the entire culture, and more specifically the regimes and leadership of the majority of middle eastern nations. These are the hornets nest Bush should and seems to desire to deal with, instead of the flies buzzing out of individual terrorists groups.
Maybe America is mature enough to apply quantum physics to politics. Maybe the "Quantum Candidate" has a point that is far more sophisticated than the republicans would have us believe. The "Flip/Flop canard has been repeatedly debunked. If you're interested, check out the The D-Bunker. Also take a look at FactCheck.org.
The Quantum Candidate accusation might have more substance if the Bush administration could grasp simple Newtonian physics, that every action demands an equal and opposite reaction. If so, then there might have been more desire to avenge the Cole and more recently, there would be no surprise that our heavy handed handling of Sadr's militia would cause additional unrest to spread.
Personally I suspect that the military/intelligence community is playing a rather high risk game which will reap considerable rewards, and has used the Fallujah situation as the trigger mechanism to engage in reconnaissance by fire. As Sadr, who was always identified as a lightning rod and was bound to cause trouble sooner or later, began to raise a ruckus; coalition forces could count on his heretofore closet sympathizers to be emboldened, thus now identified and easier pickings. This was an essential step before any sense of sovereignty could be turned over to whomever. The bad apples had to be thrown out of the barrel.
The reason the criticisms of the Bush administration may seem to be coming from differing, and sometimes mutually exclusive rationale is because there are a great host of people out there who are less than satisfied with the present administration's policies, and they do not always coordinate. It is not only specious to attribute all criticism of POTUS to John Kerry, but it gives the lie to the argument that there is a concerted, coordinated conspiracy of the left to oust Bush & Co.
UPDATE:
"Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made," Mr. Kerry said on Wednesday on CNN.
Bush is to be given a pass for waiting 8 months before coming up with a strategy against terrorism. Fine. Then don't expect a comprehensive plan out of Kerry which will only be attacked for eight months before he even is elected.
marko,
By your definition, Clinton was a dictator not once, but twice! Twice!
Clinton was two dictators in one!
If you have to ask, why? Then you are just demostrating publicly what an ass-hat you are.
Can you say Kosovo?
Can you say Operation Desert Fox?
Can you say ass-hat?
I saw a video clip today on MSNBC-TV's Chris Matthews interviewing 4 9/11 widows. One of the widows said that some airlines were ordered to stop flying prior to 9/11, which led her and her group to believe that the Bush Administration knew that the attack would happen on American soil. Can anyone confirm if that is indeed true about certain airlines being ordered not to fly? This is the first time I have heard of it.
Lonestar:
Name calling from a Republican again. Is that all you can say?
Did UN not approve Kosovo?
Did UN not approve Kosovo?
No, they did not.
Rosemary:
By defying the wishes of your children, does that include killing them? Bush has done more then defy the majority.
Obviously not. Which majority would that be?
Moreover...If your country is a member of the U.N., should you not abide by the rules of the U.N.?
He did follow the rules. He tried, in fact, to get the U.N. to follow their own threats. The U.N. failed us not the other way around. One more thing, the U.N. does not have sovereignty over us though.
marko,
Hell no they didn't!
The UN never got involved in Kosovo, until after NATO went in pre-emptively, or uni-laterally, or choose your favorite adjective, under Clinton and Albright who stopped the ethnic cleansing.
What grade are you in anyway?
Rosemary:
Thanks for the explanation.
"Obviously not. Which majority would that be?"
# of countries in support of the War on Iraq vs. # of countries against it.
Lonestar:
I can see the veins in your forehead popping up.
An excerpt taken from the site below:
"With a failed UN mission, the credibility of NATO waning, and facing a retreat of UN peacekeepers, President Clinton took the lead in August 1995 and launched a limited bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb positions."
If this is true, then the UN was there before the U.S. got involved.
http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/edu_kos.html
"He did follow the rules. He tried, in fact, to get the U.N. to follow their own threats. The U.N. failed us not the other way around. One more thing, the U.N. does not have sovereignty over us though."
Amen Rosemary...
Condi would be proud!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's official: Carson is an idiot.
At least, if one takes at face value that he seriously believes a flippant remark from George Bush four years ago indicates the President's actual agenda.
NATO Schmato, I'd take that over the UN peacekeepers anyway. Much more effective as a cohesive fighting unit than any ad hoc UN mission. If Iraq was a NATO operation I'd be all for it. I never had a problem with Afghanistan, still don't in principle, maybe I'd quibble with tactics and forces in theater. But I will never accept that Iraq was anything else but a maverick mission. Perhaps a good one, but not for the primary reasons presented, and justification matters when trying to justify something as aweful as war.
Throw the lables at me, I can take it. It will not change my mind because I stand on my personal principles. They're mine, I'll share them so you can make a copy. But I get to take them home when you're though.
I'd like to thank Mark Adams for bringing some real discussion to these issues. (Shouts of "asshat!" can get somewhat tiring around here.) Although I think Dean will continue with his "The Democrats have no ideas other than they hate Bush" tack until the sun blinks out.
I'm also enjoying the new "Can you name something you like about George Bush?" challenge around here. Like that's a useful gauge of anything. It's just another diversionary tactic. Criticisms of Bush's policies can stand on their own, and I invite Dean and anyone else to look at some lefty sites (including my own) for detailed discussions of these criticisms. After all, I'm not here to regurgitate this stuff just for his benefit. :-)
I personally have given up posting detailed rebuttals here, because they are either ignored or derided out of hand.
Finally, as for Condi "2008" Rice, my favorite moment in her testimony was when she said the August PDB was "historical information," and that it didn't say anything about bin Laden attacking inside the U.S. Then she had to admit that the title was "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States." Nice.
Mark, you are full of it! No, really, I admire your ability to BS an entire room, it's true.
Oh, wait a minute, I forgot: you're a lawyer. Silly me, of course you can BS an entire room. What was I thinking? :)
So you consider Rice's attempts to answer antagonistic filibusters, disguised as questions, to be filibusting. Typical.
And then we bring in the martyr Saint Clinton; "What Would Clinton Do?," he wonders. Aaack. Very simple Mark, he'd like his ass off like the last time he was under oath. Nice try at changing the subject, by the way. (and yes, that was a cheap shot; I get some too ya know! {g})
As for that lame attempt to pre-excuse Kerry:
"Bush is to be given a pass for waiting 8 months before coming up with a strategy against terrorism. Fine. Then don't expect a comprehensive plan out of Kerry which will only be attacked for eight months before he even is elected."
Are you that stupid? Or do you think the people here are that stupid? Bush's first 8 months followed the same plan as the Clinton administration because they shared similar assessments. I'm not going to address the claims that the new team had already decided to pursure AQ more agresssively. Main point being is that, at the time, the standard analysis was that terrorism was a law enforcement issue.
I hate to tell you bunky, but it's four years, 3,000 lives, and a $1 trillion later. Today, here, now, the standard analysis is that AQ (and associated groups) have declared war on the United States.
Don't even try to twist things around, like Kerry didn't know any better. Hell, a major part of his campaign is claiming that Bush is screwing the whole "War on Terror" up, and that Kerry has a better plan.
So if we listen to you, he's a lying sack of shit right now, because we can't expect him to have a better plan right now, hm?
And then, after all that, Mark has the balls to try and hijack the entire dialog! "Let's define our terms.," and then trying to channel the discussion into something he likes.
Alas for Mark, he makes the same ignorant mistakes that squishy liberal/Democrats, as well as Europeans, have made for years. Negotiate, determine "root causes," involve the UN.
Negotiating with Arafat worked a treat, didn't it?
Root causes? What, you're finally glomming onto the idea that there are major parts of MidEast culture that are completely screwed up? Gee, Mark, why did you think the Bush administration decided to remake Iraq in the first place!? Oh, I forgot; "daddy's war," "blood for oil," "Halliburton," blah blah... The root causes are very simple: a medieval fascist kleptocracy represses over one-quarter the people on the globe, and resents the fact that the West has all money, power, and fun. Negotiate that!
Involve the UN? The UN that cut and ran like the chickenshits they are after one bomb attack? The UN witless wonders that did nothing about Bosnia, et.al., until Clinton showed some cojones and took "unilateral action" that was approved after the fact by NATO? (ok, I'm glad to give Willie credit on this one; and yes, major GOP leaders at the time were asshats for opposing the war just because it was Clinton) The same UN that kicked back and watched the Rwanda genocide after a dozen agencies across the globe said, in no uncertain terms, that genocide was about to occur?
The same UN that puts Libya on the Human Rights commission, but blackballs Israel at every opportunity?
THAT UN??
You sure know how to pick 'em, Mark. :)
Are you that stupid? Or do you think the people here are that stupid? Bush's first 8 months followed the same plan as the Clinton administration because they shared similar assessments.
Beg to differ. Refer to the " 'Shake the Trees' when similar chatter volume was detected prior to the millenium" argument.
As for NATO/Kosovo, see above post.
"hijack the entire dialog"
Better than ad hom's and "asshat." Really, you're better than that aren't you?
Rwanda? Unforgivable, lots of blame to go around. Nice diversion.
Back on topic: Israel? My perception is that things have somewhat heated up as of late. If you have another explaination other that tit for tat, I'm all ears. I'd rather the parties engage in "fruitless" talks than spend their energy blowing each other up. Both are exhausting. One method kills children.
I do have to give Casey some credit though. medieval fascist kleptocracy is fantastic terminology. Your's? or borrowed. Either way: Love it!
Too bad you screwed it up with the "Oh, I forgot; "daddy's war," "blood for oil," "Halliburton," blah blah... : preface.
Strawman, much?
Mark Adams,
To give you a bit of credit, you do at least take a stab at offering an alternate vision - of course, I'd like for you to enter this negotiation:
The starting point of one side is that they'd like to stay alive.
The starting point of the other side is that they'd like the first side dead.
Negotiate a settlement which will make both sides happy.
Adam,
You apparantly didn't take note of Condi's incredulous look when asked that - it was a big "no duh" moment; trust me, if there was a report which had been handed to any Democrat anywhere which had stated that the President and/or his senior advisors had been specifically warned of an impending terrorist attack upon US soil prior to 9/11, it would have been leaked to the press a long, long time ago...ben Veniste just wanted to get that title out there with no other explanation attached to it; because he knew there were just enough very stupid people out there who would be gulled by it.
Mark Adams,
Oh, as a bit of an addendum to my above - you've got to remember that while on both sides there are those who wish the other side entirely dead, the first side is a democracy and thus the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" types lack the political power to effect their views - the other side, on the other hand, is not a democracy and thus the "kill 'em all, etc" crowd, being in possession of the guns, gets to decide what negotiating line should be pursued.
Have fun. Get back to us when you've worked out a solution. I'm sure President Bush would be pleased as punch to implement it.
2. Negotiate with our NATO comrades to share the security burden in Iraq. Invited them, shame them, expose them, cajole them with assurances that the peaceful transformation of Iraq is more important than US hegemony in the region. If the Japanese, Poles, and Britons are with us, there is absolutely no reason France and Germany, and even Russia are not on board, except as punishment for their lack of previous support.
If the French were capable of shame this might work. The fact that their stonewlling in the Security Council was the result of their receipt of wealth from the UN "Oil for Palaces" program does not seem to embarras them at all. Of course, calling the French our allies at all is to use that term loosely. Just because the ruling elite of France does not see the democratization of Iraq to be in their best interest is no reason to abandon the effort.
Mr. Noooonam:
Someone has got to defend the "liberal tradition" around here, or it is simply a useless exercise and an echo chamber of "asshats." Our beloved host has long since abandoned the effort.
Query: do you thing the spinless French would have stood up alone with their veto had we convincted the German's or the recalcitrant Russians. The most we could have expected out of them would have been a very forceful "abstain."
With that kind of result, nobody would have stood a chance to effectively challenge your exhalted "W" in the election. Astoundingly wasteful, he squandered not only the goodwill of the planet, but an astronomical domestic approval rating. To think that Monsieur Kerry, a Massachusetts Liberal of all things, is actually giving him a run for his overwhelming money. The gods do indeed have a sense of irony.
Oh and to aswer your first question, either you believe the situation is hopeless short of near genocide by one side or the other, or you would rather watch children be mutilated than even try to exhaust all negotiation avenues. Must be depressing to live in your world.
Mark, why bother?
Look I have not called anybody on this site a single name. I've been polite, presented facts, and civilly voiced opinions. What has been the response. NOT ONE person has replied to me civilly, I've been called "the biggest f*cking idiot," had my IQ (of 136 for those interested) claimed to be lower than sheep, been called a "big league schmuck", and finally an "idiot"(the last one wasnt' really all that creative since it'd already had been used.
Point being, these people here coudl care less about facts. They don't want intelligent discussion. They simply want to call names and attack people who disagree with them. While I suppose that is easier than having to back your beliefs, it doesn't leave much room for growth through discussion. So save your digital breath Mark. Believe me, there are some conservative sites out there where you can present your ideas and civilly discuss them to the benefit of all involved. This simply isn't one of them.
That to me makes him the #1 dictator anyone has encountered.
Adolf Hitler
Josef Stalin
Idi Amin
Saddam Hussein
Fidel Castro
Pol Pot
Augusto Pinochet
General Suharto
The Turkmenbashi
Mao Zedong
Mobuto Sese Seko
Jean Claude Duvalier
Kim Jong Il
Ferdinand Marcos
Need I go on? Hyperbole is all well and good, but please don't trivialize the horrors experienced by innocent citizens held hostage by brutal despots by claiming that we live under anything even remotely resembling a dictatorship.
Regardless of your IQ, Carsen, if you start from the axiom of "George Bush is Evil no matter what happens, what he does, or what he says", you're being intentionally stupid.
That's all there is to it. A willful refusal to even re-evaluate your axioms to see if they are accurate is willful stupidity.
Carsen,
I think that it is more of a sense of, "How do you argue with someone who claims the sky is red?"
The two facts that you present at the beginning of the debate inticate that you operate on a different view of reality from most of us here, which makes it difficult to even have an argument.
First you make the claim that President Bush said in a CNN interview that he would like to be dictator of the United States. First of all that is not what he said. The actual quote was the following:
"On the closely divided Congress, Bush said he told the congressional leaders that 'there are going to be some times when we don't agree with each other.'
'If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier,' Bush said, pausing and then joking, 'just so long as I'm the dictator.'"
Hardly a serious claim that he wants to be dictator and certainly not the sinister quote you implied.
Your fact on Patriot II is similarly puzzing to me. What provision of Patriot II do you believe " legally make dissent against the government a crime punishable by death."? I can find nothing that I could even imagine someone defining that way. The Patriot Act II did not create new punishments or define new behaviors as illegal (unless I really missed something, which I hope you will point out specifically), it merely increased the ability of the government to intrude into the private lives of people in order to gather evidence. I'm not saying it was harmless or that it should have passed, however, I see nothing to indicate that it would make dissent a crime, much less one punishable by death.
Your other facts and opinions are similar, I find no legetimate basis for them and cannot imiage how someon looking at the same people, events, and places can logically come to the conclusions you have. That makes it very difficult to argue with you, not because you are right, but because we seem to have little common basis in the same reality.
Good on you, Mark Adams. You’ve proved once again that Dean is just blowing smoke out his ass when he challenges Democrats to put up a plan. You’ve also proved (again) which is the forward-looking, idea party and which one is stuck in pedantic ideology. Carry on.
Interesting to come into a comment thread long after it's devolved far away from the original post. I just want to say that Evan Coyne Maloney makes a frightening load of very clear and concise sense to me. Without question, run-of-the-mill liberal Dems' dogma is solely in opposition to whatever W did, does, will do. They have no vision and no logical consistency, as Maloney says, and this has been illuminated by Kerry's flip-flops, Kerrey's flip-flops, Kennedy's slide into rage-filled incoherence, Ben-Veniste looking like he's actively working for our enemies, etc. We saw something extremely important on display yesterday: part of our government trying to come to terms with what's happened to us in a war to the death declared by our enemies, and how best to fight it, and the other part of our government bent on casting blame and resisting the fight to prevent more of the same. Left to their own devices, the Dems absolutely would cause (welcome?) more attacks by our enemies through their moral and logical weaknesses and their craven natures.
The Dems fought loud and hard for Condi's public testimony. They got what they asked for, in spades. Be careful what you wish for...
Dave: You're post shoudl not be directed at me as it does not apply to me. I have never once said that "Bush is Evil no matter what happens, what he does, or what he says" If you would like to prove me wrong please find the quote where I stated that. Otherwise your "point" is invalid. On the contray I specifically stated (on a another thread on this site) that I would happily applaud Bush for anythign positive I had seen him do. In fact I praised Bush for his AIDS and his Education Bills(until he cut funding for both rendering them nearly worthless). I will not applaud someone for doing what I strongly feel is wrong however. I constantly an reevaluated my beliefs and views and do not consider myself "stupid" simply because my beliefs do not line up with yours. The difference between the two of us is I do not inherently consider you stupid because you don't agree with me.
-----------------------------------------
Aaron:
I remember makign no claims about the sky and I think there is but one reality that we are living in.
You tell me I'm wrong in what I said that Bush said, then offer the exact quote I was refering to. Never did I say he meant it as a threat and in fact I think he intended it as a joke however I think there are certian things it's inappropriate for the president to joke about. I also think that were there no truth behind the statement at all it would not have been repeated by him several times when he time it was greeted coldly and without laughter.
Title V Section 501 of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (also known as the Patriot II) allows the government to take away the citizenship of an American if he/she speaks out against the government. According to the DSEA this is called reliquishing nationality by conduct. Once a person is no longer an American citizen a host of rights goes out the window. Thanks to W's Military Tribunals, a non-citizen can be caputred, tried, and excuted without a jury, and without anyone being notified (in otherwords the person can simply "disappear"). This strongly leaves open the question of if a charge is actually needed, since no one would know anyways. Let's say for example that Bush is just such a nice guy that he would follow the new law to the letter and not just pick somebody up and have them killed because he didn't like them. Even still the law provides him with a way to "permanently silence" the dissenter. Combining the Patriot Act with the DSEA means that all "terrorist" crimes are punishable by death and that the government can define ANY crime as a "terrorist" crime at it's own dicreation and on a case by case basis. Therefore if the said dissenter has so much as driven a mile over the speed limit, jay-walked, etc. it would be perfectly legal to put them to death as a "terrorist."
Too bad Mark Adams isn't running for president. He'd be a better choice than Kerry.
Carsen,
Mark, why bother?
Look I have not called anybody on this site a single name. I've been polite, presented facts, and civilly voiced opinions. What has been the response. NOT ONE person has replied to me civilly, I've been called "the biggest f*cking idiot," had my IQ (of 136 for those interested) claimed to be lower than sheep, been called a "big league schmuck", and finally an "idiot"(the last one wasnt' really all that creative since it'd already had been used.
Mark bothers because most of us don't think he's closed minded and purposely stupid. We don't know you.
You make your appearance by stating that Bush is the #1 dictator. My six year old could blast your argument to pieces and then you are surprised by the responses? If your I.Q. is truely 136, you wouldn't be so surprised that we responded the way we did.
I.Q. scores don't really mean a whole lot, anyway. You can still say stupid things, be uninformed and have a high I.Q.
The last time I had an I.Q. test it was 183. That score hasn't prevented me from spewing stupidity on occasion. I do it plenty. So?
We won't let you slide.
This isn't a conservative site. It's just that a lot of us hang out here.
Carsen,
Stupid is as stupid does - President Bush is a moderately conservative Republican President; he's not exactly Adolf Hitler....this is a self-evident truth; to say otherwise reveals either mental instability or idiocy. You pick.
Mark Adams,
Hardly - we don't have to think in terms of genocide; thats what our enemies think in terms of...
What we have to do is to convince the broad mass of the Arab/Moslem world that we offer a better future and that we are infinitely more powerful than anyone else in the area. Abdul on the streets wants out of this sparrow-flight called life the same things you want - to do pretty much what he wants to do, try and make things a little better for himself, maybe raise a family....you know, he doesn't really dream of his son being a Martyr - they really aren't happy when their kids blow themselves to shit just to kill a couple Jews.
They have a gun to their head, are fearful for their other children and thus will go out and say to the western news camera that they are happy their pride and joy is a grease-spot in Tel Aviv...but unless you think you'd be happy with that result for a child of yours, then you simply must understand that this is not how they view the matter.
A few very cruel and ruthless thugs have gotten control over the Arab/Moslem world - they will kill anyone who steps out of line, without regard to age, sex or condition. Faced with this immediate threat and a far-off United States, what do you think you'd do?
Well, while we are in Iraq, we are not far-off; we're right there. They're actually happy about this - not happy/happy, joy/joy and don't we want our daughter to marry an American...but happy we're there because we don't rape their daughters, steal their money and strab bomb-belts on their sons. The whole process is a contest bewteen us and the Islamo-fascists with the Arab/Moslem masses in the part of spectators at the arena - they'll go whichever way the winds blow...and increasingly the winds are blowing our way....for all the hand-wringing over a few thousands Baathists/Sadrites in arms against us, the tens of thousands in arms on our side shows that the masses of the Arab world are just starting to realise that the United States is just a little bit bigger and a little bit badder than the Islamo-fascists.
This is why its the most important time to stick it out - and the worse, downright treasonous time for, say, a Ted Kennedy to call the President a liar over the war.
# of countries in support of the War on Iraq vs. # of countries against it.
Marko,
Okay. When we defend ourselves, we don't usually ask for permission. Sometimes we ask for assistance. Sometimes we get it and sometimes we don't.
I certainly didn't expect Syria to wave a flag and say sure, did you? The only thing that really matters is did this country support the president's decision? Yes, by an overwhelming majority.
With obvious approval, Dean quotes a ‘Evan Coyne Maloney’:
“If you want to test this assertion in the real world, try this: next time you run across a partisan Democrat, ask whether President Bush has done anything right. Odds are, the response will contain less than one item.”
Bush has done two things right. He trashed (1) Trent Lott & (2) the Taliban.
But he hasn’t quite yet got the guy that killed thousands of Americans in cold blood, has he? I put it to you that Gore would have, without (a) going into a billion dollar blunder in Iraq (b) squandering world wide sympathy we had after 9-11, or (c) launching a class war with his tax policy.
As for “spanking”? You know where to find me.
Rosemary:
An "overwhelming majority" of Americans supported Bush's war in Iraq? We have somewhat different recollections. Not sure what "overwhelming" means, though.
We also disagree on how this war was sold to those Americans, and hindsight is 20/20. But I wonder what the support would have been if the case had been, say, solely humanitarian. Or if the public had known how far off the threat assessment of the administration was.
Carsen,
My reference to the sky color and realities where analogies, try to remain rational.
You were wrong in your claims about Bush's quote. You claimed that he said he wanted to be a dictator, when, in fact, he said that the process of getting his agenda passed with a closely divide congress would be easier if this were a dictatorship, assuming that he was the dictator. Hardly the same as saying "I want to be Dictator of America." I'm also sorry to hear you have no sense of humor.
Your claim about the Patriot Act II is equally a tremendous distortion of the truth. Section 501 of the act defines that it is possible for someone to give up their citizenship to this country, not only through a sworn declaration as is currently law, but also through actions. It then defines what such an action would be. The definintion that it lays out is very similar to the leagle definition of treason which people can already be executed for.
The only substantial difference is that Patriot II specifies trasonous activity related to terrorist orginizations. It says specifically "with the intent to relinquish nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a 'terrorist organization,' if that group is engaged in hostilities against the United States."
It also states, "Specifically, this proposal would make service in a hostile army or terrorist group prima facie evidence of an intent to renounce citizenship."
That is a far cry from the claim that it empowers the government of the United States to execute citizens for dissenting, at least by any definition I have for dissent.
Perhaps I should give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you have not acutally read the proposal for Patriot Act II, but instead relied on the commentary of others to define it. either way, your descriptions bear little resemblence to reality, which was, essentially my original point.
For those who are interested the text of the Patriot II draft can be found at http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/patriot2draft.html
An "overwhelming majority" of Americans supported Bush's war in Iraq? We have somewhat different recollections. Not sure what "overwhelming" means, though.
About 70% is what I remember.
Vigilante,
You can't seriously believe that Gore would have been a better president. After sitting as Clinton's laptog for 8 years, he would have been no better prepared for the threats than Bush, probably even less, as we found out that the New Admin was keeping a closer watch on AQ.
Also remember that Gore's tax policy would have been to raise them. There is no class war. Tax cuts are universal. Oops.
--As a side note, being a conservative, I don't especially like the way Democrats run things. But it doesn't mean that I'm especially happy with the way Republicans do things either. For example, on taxes, there should be a flat rate tax, say 5%, which everyone, regardless of income, should pay. That's it. You make more, you pay more. You make less, you pay less. --
Once again, I humbly thank you Rose. However, if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve, BUT if "selected" the line for the gutlag starts on the "Right." :-)
Rosemary:
"Mark bothers because most of us don't think he's closed minded and purposely stupid. We don't know you. "
Well do you attempt to get to know everyone by insulting them without basis? I'd imagine that's not an effective way of making friends.
"You make your appearance by stating that Bush is the #1 dictator."
Please quote friend. If you're going to claim I said somethign be prepared to quote where I said it. Right now you're putting words into my mouth unless you can show me where I said "Bush is the #1 dictator" or even that Bush is a dictator. It's true I think that the possibility he will take such power if given the opportunity is very real, but no where have I said that he is let alone hae I used the term "#1 dictator."
"My six year old could blast your argument to pieces "
Your six year old perhaps, yet nobody on this site seemed willing to give it a try... interesting...
"The last time I had an I.Q. test it was 183."
Well that is definately impressive. I'm quite surprised I haven't heard of you before. What is your field? Eistien's IQ is estimated to have been about 160 so I am very flattered to even be speaking to such a genious as yourself.
"This isn't a conservative site. It's just that a lot of us hang out here."
I define a political blog by the views expressed in the posts, therefore from what I have read, this is not only a conservative site but it is a far-right conservative site.
------------------------------------
Mark:
"Stupid is as stupid does"
I get it, you think that I who you have never met in your life am stupid. That's fine, you're entitled to cast judgement without basis, however if all you are capable of doing is calling names you probabyl ought not to participate in debates.
"President Bush is a moderately conservative Republican President"
President Bush is is in no way moderate. Look at his policies so far, he's a a far-right ultra conservative.
"he's not exactly Adolf Hitler"
No he's not, and I would be thrilled if you could quote where I said he was. You people do love to put words in my mouth. However, since YOU and NOT I brought it up, a quick look through history will show striking similarities in the riegn of Hitler and in the Reign of Bush.
"to say otherwise reveals either mental instability or idiocy. You pick."
Disagreeing with you does not make me either mentally ill nor an idiot. If you are going to participate in debate, I'd recommend you learn that not everybody is gonna agree with you, and get used to it.
-------------------------------------
Aaron:
"Your claim about the Patriot Act II is equally a tremendous distortion of the truth. Section 501 of the act defines that it is possible for someone to give up their citizenship to this country, not only through a sworn declaration as is currently law, but also through actions."
Such as being a memebr or contributing to an organization that the government considers a "terrorist organization." Bush has already spewed forth the "you're either with us or against us" lie and in that and his echos since then he has labeled all dissenters essentially as terrorists. Therefore the Patriot Act II could very easily be interpreted by the Bush Administration as a way to silence dissent if the Bush Administration's past record is a hint of what's to come. By the way, I've read everyword of the DSEA.
Bush is famous for trying to silence all dissent. In TX he pushed through all kinds of legislation to severely limit where individuals coudl peacefully assemble to protest his actions. All fo the places he left available were far from his sight. Now has President he has labeled dissenters as terrorists. He has created "free speech zones" which are the only place dissenters are allowed to protest and those "free speech zones" are always miles from the President. Also interesting to note is that the only people bound to these "free speech zones" are dissenters. People giving a anti-peace rally for instance are free to meet where they wish. In one instance a man was arrested by the FBI because he was simply peaceflly hold a sign that was anti-Bush outside of the free-speech zone. Interestingly enough he was in the middle of Bush supporters all holding pro-bush signs aroudn him. NONE of the pro-bush individuals were arrested.
Rosemary:
"Okay. When we defend ourselves, we don't usually ask for permission. Sometimes we ask for assistance. Sometimes we get it and sometimes we don't."
Defend ourselves? That's really something, isn't it? The Prez sold the Iraq war based on wrongful charges (WMD and 9/11 connection). He is now stuck with Iraq and costing more American, Iraqi and Coalition forces' lives. I had no problem with him attacking Afghanistan...that was justified and that was REALLY "defending ourselves."
"An "overwhelming majority" of Americans supported Bush's war in Iraq? We have somewhat different recollections. Not sure what "overwhelming" means, though.
About 70% is what I remember."
BASED ON WRONGFUL CHARGES. THE PUBLIC BOUGHT IT.
Carsen,
Well do you attempt to get to know everyone by insulting them without basis? I'd imagine that's not an effective way of making friends.
I insult everybody. I'm not here looking for friends. I pick them up by accident. Most of the people here like me and I've insulted dozens of people much worse. :-)
You're right. You never said #1 dictator. My bad. You just said dictator. The only thing the quotes about Bush wanting to be a dictator prove is that many liberals have no sense of humor.
The reason nobody bothered to take apart your argument is because we've done it many, many times before. Answering you would have proven me to be insane. We all know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over expecting a different result. Perhaps, I will try with you later or you could just peruse the archives.
Well that is definately impressive. I'm quite surprised I haven't heard of you before. What is your field? Eistien's IQ is estimated to have been about 160 so I am very flattered to even be speaking to such a genious as yourself.
Well, I surely love nothing more than a little condescension before bedtime. I am a genius (no "o"), so what? I certainly don't care if you believe me. In fact, I don't expect you to. I don't believe you have an I.Q. as high as you stated it. You can make any claim you wish, online there is no real way to prove it.
I define a political blog by the views expressed in the posts, therefore from what I have read, this is not only a conservative site but it is a far-right conservative site.
My threads are "right". I am an unapologetic Republican. I am not "far right" and I'm pretty sure most of our looney liberals will agree with me. How long have you been reading this site to make such a judgement?
I'm curious, how do you define far-right?
Marko,
Cut me a little slack tonight. I promise I will answer you tomorrow. I'm very tired and heading to bed.
I'll be back!
Good night, Rosemary.
Mark:
We obviously evalate that period (late Clinton/early Bush) differently. I doubt we'll change each other's minds. I don't think I'm cutting Bush any particular slack; that's just my analysis.
I still think he should have sacked Tenet, tho.
You lost me completely with the "Shake the trees" reference? Please elucidate?
Yes, I just caught your remarks re:NATO. Missed 'em before. Yes, I would trust a NATO group a lot more than a UN group. My point was that the most popular alternative to Bush's plans involve the UN. I (obviously) do not approve of this.
This was the point of the Rwanda reference. Not a diversion. But see following.
I see I goofed up on my earlier post: I partly missed/partly conflated the remarks re: "cajoling NATO" with "using the UN." Mea culpa. My bad. I can only plead "late a night posting while I'm in a bad mood." My apologies.
In fact, if I seem like an asshole, just let me know. I'll go at the rhetoric with you, but I do respect your opinions. Even if you are a squishy liberal. :)
I also disagree with your evaluation of the board; to my mind this not so much (as you seem to think) a prosecutorial project, as a fact-finding project. Or am I splitting hairs? The armed forces seem to be quite capable of developing "lessons learned" papers from operations. You can see something similar in private business when a particular project goes banana-shaped. Certainly politicians can do the same thing?
As for the ad hominem: I apologize if you think I have done so. Yes, I rag on you pretty hard sometimes (hey, you're a lawyer; it's my duty as a citizen to rag on lawyers!) but the hot air into was meant as tounge-in-cheek. And if memory serves, I don't recall calling anyone an asshat recently.
I do, however, still think Carson is an idiot, unless he's yanking my chain with a straight face about the "Bush wants to be a dictator" crap. Heh.
Ok, I see your point about Israel. But I can also see theirs: "Look, we've tried negotiation, all we get are more dead Israelis. The Palestinians could have had 99% of what they (allegedly) wanted after the Clinton agreement, but Arafat finked out. We can't trust any Pal leader. Sorry."
When you consider that the PA still considers "Palistine" to include all of Israel, maybe they have something to be skeptical about?
But yes, I've seen other commentators (some conservative) call the assassination the Hamas leader a bad idea; mostly because it is not the act of an ethical people.
Sometimes it's hard to know where to draw the line.
Anway, you're welcome for the term. ;) I suppose it isn't completely original. I had "islamofascist" in the back of my mind, certainly.
re: "daddy's war." Urk Sorry. Men should get some neat acronym like the chicks do with PMS; something like LANATBAIFS*, or something. Not so much a strawman as an irritated, sarcastic remark that should not have been aimed at you.
*Late At Night After Three Beers And I'm Fried Syndrome.
triticale:
I may be putting my foot into it, but IIRC, France has been out of NATO since the early 1960s, so that's a moot point now.
Carsen:
"Never did I say he meant it as a threat and in fact I think he intended it as a joke."
Ok, fine. I apologize for calling you an idiot. But I have to say that your first post presented the quote in such a way that it seemed very apparent that you actually believed that Bush really wanted to be a dictator.
'"he's not exactly Adolf Hitler"
No he's not, and I would be thrilled if you could quote where I said he was. You people do love to put words in my mouth. However, since YOU and NOT I brought it up, a quick look through history will show striking similarities in the riegn of Hitler and in the Reign of Bush.'
Uh, oh! The Carsen stock just took a big plunge!
Now maybe, just maybe, you meant that in the sense of "you know, while Bush isn't a fascist, or anything like that, there are some interesting parallels going on..." But please recall we've been seeing "Bush==Hitler" and Swastikas all over the place from the lunatic fringe on the left.
In fact, I'll bet that at least a couple of the folks here reacted to you in a particular way exactly because we've read some of the tripe posted at Democratic Underground, or MoveOn. They really do think that Bush is the new Hitler, the dolts.
In fact, just to make up for calling you an idiot, I'll stand up for you. :)
In case y'all didn't catch it, Carsen did raise a valid point about the free-speech zones. Point being that anti-Bush demonstrators are regularly alloted zones conveniently far from where the President will be speaking. The pro-Bush demonstrators get to be a lot closer.
This is not a good thing. I hope y'all will agree with that. Mind you, I don't agree with a lot of what Carsen had to say on that post, but there's other things I want to blog about to night at my place, so I'm not going to address them right now.
But still, it bothers me that people are allocated a place to speak, based on their point of view.
Just like Colombo: "one more thing..."
Carsen, re: IQ.
Dunno that too many people will be very impressed by that. I know I tested out at "genius" range waaaaay back in elementary/middle school days. Never got tested since. But I did score in the 98% percentile on my ACT scores, and I gained admission to the Phi Kappa Phi honor society, so that's not so bad.
Dean's smart; hell, he's almost as smart as me! heh. Rose ain't not dummy, either. Gotta work hard around her.
So is Arnold, or shep, or Ara, or Mark Adams (ok, I like to pick on lawyers, but most of 'em ain't dumb); not to mention Paul Burgess, or any of the commissioned officers of the US armed forces who have posted here.
In fact, one of the reasons I like this place is the smart people you get to meet. Well, except for the squishy traitor liberals WHO WANT TO TEAR THIS GOD-FEARING COUNTRY DOWN AND BUILD AN ATHIEST UTOPIA, DAMN THEM!!!
Oh, I'm sorry; was the microphone on? Just kidding, guys. I'm agnostic myself. :)
Marko makes an excellent point about the phrase "defending ourselves." Considering that Iraq had no WMDs, no nuclear program, no ties to al Qaeda, and a pitiful military, I'm not sure exactly what we were "defending ourselves" from.
Rosemary:
"The reason nobody bothered to take apart your argument is because we've done it many, many times before."
Then why respond at all? I'm sure you've insulted those who disagreed with you many many many times before. Second, I'm curious why one hosts a politicalblog when they don't like to talk politics?
"I am a genius (no "o"), so what? I certainly don't care if you believe me."
I have no problem believing you? Why? Do you think I should not believe you?
"I dI don't believe you have an I.Q. as high as you stated it."
That's fine, I'm not asking you to believe it, It remains the truth whether you believe it or not. Besides there's nothing all that special about 136. I'm bright, but big deal, there are lots of bright people out there, 136 is at right about 2 standard deviations above the mean for IQ across the human population whcih is good, but ceratianly not genius and certainly doesnt' even compare to your over 5 standard deviations above the mean.
"How long have you been reading this site to make such a judgement?"
You are right, until just a few days ago I had not read this site since )sometime towards the end of 2003. Alot can change in several months, however, let's just say that thus far I've seen no evidence to suggest that anythign has and have seen strong evidence to the contrary.
"I'm curious, how do you define far-right?"
I'm gonna get attacked for saying this for sure. Hatred defines the far right. sure there is hatred for various minority groups (most notably in the current world, that against gay people), but I'm not claiming that kind of hate as the sole kind of hatred (though I do remmeber resonding to a post bashing gay people on here at one time). I've refering to the hatred of varying opinion. The hatred that causes oen to lash out with verbal violence and often (in the real world) physical violence at the slightest hint that someone disagrees. That's what defines the far-right, the urgent desire to silence everyone who disagrees. For instance, a great example of a far right individual woudl be one who compared the intellgence of someone she disagreed with with that of a sheep or bragged about "I insult everybody."
That's far right.
------------------------------------------
Casey:
"Uh, oh! The Carsen stock just took a big plunge!"
Why is that one might ask. Because I said something you disagree with!
"Now maybe, just maybe, you meant that in the sense of 'you know, while Bush isn't a fascist, or anything like that, there are some interesting parallels going on...'"
That woudl be the only possible way to interpret the statement I made. I specifically stated Bush was not like Hitler but there were several similarities between there rules thus far. How else would you interpret that?
"In fact, I'll bet that at least a couple of the folks here reacted to you in a particular way exactly because we've read some of the tripe posted at Democratic Underground, or MoveOn. They really do think that Bush is the new Hitler, the dolts."
Well beside the fact that I strongly disagree with the insunateion that MoveOn.org as an organization believes that Bush is Hitler (unless you ask the RNC because they are the only one's who seem to hold that opinion). I would like to ask that I'm not lumped in with any group of people unless I state that I am a part of that group. The KKK almost exclusively contains conservatives, would you like me to lump all of you into that group?
"In fact, just to make up for calling you an idiot, I'll stand up for you."
Agree with me if you happen to agree with me on soemthing, just as I'll do to you. But don't "stand up for me."
"Dunno that too many people will be very impressed by that."
You people took that WAY the wrong way. I'm not trying to impress anybody, 136 is bright, but not all that impressive, in fact it's only a few points above George W. Bush. I mentioned it because I was so plainly informed (by somebody who has never met me before and doesnt' know ANYTHING about me) that my IQ was less than that of a sheep. Now I don't know what the average IQ of a sheep is but I'm willing to bet it's not higher than 136. That was the point of the post. Someone made a clearly invalid statement and so I corrected them. If anybody was trying to impress anyone it was Rosemary with her 183 IQ. I actually was very impressed that she was over 1 standard deviation above Eistien's IQ.
Carsen:
I made my remarks about the "Hitler parallels" comment exactly because it can be taken in more than one way, not because you disagree with me.
It is quite easy to read your remarks as a simple attempt at disinformation thru similarity. Bush's career has parallels to Hitler's, ergo Bush is similar to Hitler. I've seen that approach dozens of times, although they're usually more explicit in establishing the linkage.
This is why I took the time to ask what you meant, but even so it looks a lot like yet another character assassination attempt on Bush. And that is why I said something about your stock plunging. Ok? Ok.
Me, I rarely assume that a particular statement can be interpreted in only one way. Perhaps this point of view is what has rubbed more than a couple of folks here the wrong way.
As for "standing up for you," lighten up, bud! I was a)trying to inject a little tounge in cheek, and b)using that remark as a transition to highlight the point you brought up about the free-speech zones. That's all.
Oh, by the way, I'm not a conservative. People seem to think I am around here, but that's probably because I'm not trying to lynch Dubya every chance I get, or something. I'm funny that way. Heh.
I just double-checked my post; I don't recall saying that you belonged to, or were associated with those forums. All I did was point out that some pretty far-out (and very negative) things have been said about Bush, and Republicans in general, in those forums. And that (as I said above) one could easily interpret your remarks about parallels in that manner exactly because of the inflammatory comments elsewhere.
Ok?
As for the whole IQ thing, I posted my remarks after your response to Rose, and I reacted the same way she did:
"Well, I surely love nothing more than a little condescension before bedtime," because it sure sounded condescending.
But maybe you think there was only way to interpret that statement as well? :)
In closing, your definition of "far right" is really very, very funny. Go read up on the PC atmosphere on college campuses, to see what passes for "tolerance for dissent."
Conservative groups host "race cookie sales" as an act of political commentary, and the authorities shut them down as racist. The students are threatened and sometimes attacked, but no one is prosecuted.
"Liberal" activists disrupt conservative speakers to general approbation, while a young lady protesting the treatment of activists in China is physically attacked when she tries to speak up at a gathering. Again, no attempt is made to prosecute the attackers.
Conservative groups on many campuses find themselves hampered at every turn (denial of official status, denial of university funds, petty bureaucratic harassment, etc., etc.), while what can be fairly labled "extreme left" groups are nourished and fawned over.
Major liberal university professors publish studies that intend to show real similarities between Hitler, Reagan, and Bush (there it is again!). Other professors publish papers that conclude that people who hold conservative opinions are, well, stupid.
And on, and on... And you're going to tell me that the "far right" has a problem differing opinion!?
Oh, don't you think it's a little disengenous to say you're going to get "attacked" (with the unspoken implication of "unfairly attacked") for calling Rose "far right."
If nothing else, have the balls to name names, amigo! And if you haven't, by now, glommed onto why we reacted the way we did, I suspect you are the one who is inflexible.
Me, when I realize I said something dumb, I'll stand up, admit it, and apologize if necessary. Then I'll try to figure out what went wrong, and where.
With you, I misread your original post about the "Bush dictator" comment. It seemed that you believed that Bush meant it. Later you clarified what you meant. The same thing follows with the "Bush/Hitler parallels."
Again, we've heard this kind of stuff from the lunatic fringe, over and over again for several years. It gets old. So don't be too surprised when you make comments that sound similar to theirs and people react as if you agree with, or belong to that fringe.
"I've seen that approach dozens of times, although they're usually more explicit in establishing the linkage."
THe strongest parallel between Bush and Hitler and the one that most bothers me is this:
Hitler comes to power (note: legally, though not truely elected) and there is a terrorist attack on the Riechstach(sp?), the German Capital Building. Hitler's reponse is to scream "terrorist this" and "terrorist that" to the German people. Using "keeping people safe from terrorism" he manages to push through legislation that takes away the civil liberties of the German people and ultimately establishs himself as dictator and the rest is history.
Now
Bush comes power (note: legally, though not truely elected) and there is a terrorist attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. Bush's response is to scream "terrorist this" and "terrorist that" to the American people. Using "keeping people safe from terrorism" he manages to push through legislation that takes away the civil liberties of the American people (Patriot Act, and failed attempt at pushign through the DSEA).
"Go read up on the PC atmosphere on college campuses"
I shouldn't have to read up on hat goes on on college campuses, I live on one. Let me tell you what goes on a modern college campus. College Republican's wallpaper the campus with a very poor attempt at attacking John Kerry. Later when denied a place in teh school paper for space issues (note no deomcratic group was allowed in either), they create an independant paper where they attack one professor verbally simply because he had a bumper sticker on his car that read "Anybody but Bush." Also in this independant paper they libel one of my fraternity brothers for arguing against them as part of a CLASS ASSIGNMENT. Yet another article trashes the school for their failre to re-admit an expelled student who was expelled for behavior violations. Also during the lead up to the Iraq war, the chaplain of the school, myself, and about 4 other students attempt a peaceful protest in which we simply stood outside of the cafteria during lunch time holding signs and singing songs about peace. During this time, we were flicked off and yelled at by numerous students, scowled at by several professors, etc. That is what a modern day college campus is like, so if you're interested in convincing me of how wonderfully tolerant conservatives are in considering other people's ideas, you'll have to choose an example other than college campuses.
Carsen,
Just a few things.
1. I'm not hosting this blog. I contribute. This blog is Dean's baby.
2. Hatred defines the "far left" as much as it does the "far right". I'm not far right, I am impatient and easily annoyed by slanderous innuendo. [Bush=dictator]
3. I don't know you from a hole in the ground. You are "new" to me. My point about the I.Q. crapola was simple, you can say you are Santa Claus or anything you want. I have no way to judge your honesty until you've been around a while. Of course, if you said you were Santa I'd know with a degree of certainty that you were full of it. You start off insinuating the same old Bush wants to be a dictator crap and my gut screams, "This dude/dudette is a joke".
4. If I wanted to impress people I would have been bragging about my many accomplishments, long before now. I don't care about that sort of thing, you seemed to so I told ya.
That's it.
Carsen,
What college?