Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Historic in the sense that a platform advocating Eugenics, or Communism, or National Socialism is historic. There are very few regular everyday Americans who would take such a platform seriously. Yet the Democratic party continues aligning itself closer and closer to it. Why?

Because Teddy aint dead yet. And Hilliary wants to be the next President. So the Democrats are stuck with this platform.

Did Jeremy Scahill really spout that garbage? And the libeiral media wonders why people aint paying them no mind anymore. This crap borders on slander.
BTW, I reckon you’ve heard that the idiot mayor wants to start letting people back into the city even though it’s not safe yet. And when some of them get sick or worse he’ll blame Bush for it.

Eric-
You hamstring yourself with this:

Where does Cindy Sheehan get her information? My guess is that it’s not FOX News. (Which is too bad, a good dose of FOX might help her regain a sense of reality.) My guess is that she gets her ‘news’ from ‘independent’ media who postulate that the U.S. military enforces the fascism of the capitalist oligarchy, or some such, and like to put out reports like this one about how New Orleans has been ‘militarized’.

Later on, you talk as if it’s proven fact:

So this is where Cindy gets her information. Very very frightening indeed.

Do yourself a favor next time. Get her on record as saying that she gets her news from these folks before you start building up your partisan outrage. Don’t tell us you guess she gets her news from these folks, then act like you’ve got ironclad evidence.

Actually, she’s told us where she gets her news, she has her own site at DailyKOS. That tells a lot there I think…

Sort of the same as people getting their news from freerepublic or druge, isn’t it?

Rhinehold,

“Sort of the same as people getting their news from freerepublic or druge, isn’t it?”

Or Fox.

“Or Fox”

How can there be so many people watching it? What drives them to watch it when there are so many other “good” broadcasts available…

They must be using some brainwashing techniques that keep people tuned in…

Discerner,

Please discern sarcasm.

Cindy Sheehan is going to be a gift that keeps on giving. A creation of the far left that like Frankenstein rises up to destroy its creator.

It’s no accident that the left doesn’t want to talk about her now after pinning all their hopes on her earlier this summer. But it will be very hard to make her go away after previously annointing her.

Check this out. After the above debate about FOX, I’ve chosen to link to a source that even our left-wing friends can admire.

If Sheehan’s cheerful association with antisemites, Black Panthers and other assorted whackos isn’t embarrassing enough, she’s now threatening Hillary Clinton.

Key quote: “Ms. Sheehan, speaking of Senator Clinton, said, “She knows that the war is a lie but she is waiting for the right time to say it.”

Then, as the crowd cheered, she issued a challenge to Senator Clinton, saying, “You say it or you are losing your job.”

Agitating against Hillary Clinton now? If she keeps THAT up, you can be sure that the media will lift their blackout on reporting the truth about Sheehan. “Lady, you do not MESS with OUR top presidential hopeful.”

Eric, Rhinehold-
You’re alleging she’s getting brainwashed by the left. Problem is, your last post dealt with her as a primary source, a person with an actually grounds-eye view of things. You guys tend to oversimplify things when it suits your purpose, and really, you have to. The Rhetorical tools that people on the Right get mainly center around discrediting people, so she has to either be a dupe or a radical from the beginning.

My personal view is that if she is a radical, it’s only because Bush’s policies pushed her in that direction, especially in getting her son killed, and his treating her presence a mere photo-op. She evolved to this perspective over time, as already existing doubts about the war were magnified by her son’s death, and the subsequent, publicly known debacles in the waging of this war.

She wouldn’t be out protesting if it weren’t for these things: her son’s death, the deteriorating Bush policy, and ulimately, the sense that Bush doesn’t care for changing his policy despite it’s bad condition.

But I guess she’s just got to be evil. If it takes portraying a woman who’s made no anti-semitic remarks as a jew-hater, that’s what the right does. If it takes treating her like a dupe or a traitor, that’s what you do. Why? Because people on the right are not taught how to argue things from a standpoint of the other side being an equal participant in the debate.

Eric want’s to argue this the cheap way. I call the cheap way because it doesn’t require facts or reference, just a snide little insinuation that consists of taking a militantly liberal position, and then guessing that Cindy Sheehan takes this position based on such reporting. I don’t have to guess, as I recall from the previous post that she actually took a trip down to Lousiana. I can work off of what I know for a fact about her, and give you a reasonable balanced argument for why she is the way she is. All Eric is doing at this point is employing a very obvious Ad Hominem argument against her previous first hand account.

There are facts out there that we can’t necessarily get from neutral sources, that might be reported by or around people with their own points of view. It’s inevitable.

Regardless, there are facts to be learned, facts that can be corroborated and contextualized by other sources.

Eric? Eric believes in throwing away facts presented by Democrats, Liberals, and anybody else who doesn’t toe the line. Of course, this conveniently gets his people off the hook, everytime. Never mind whether it’s the truth. That might get in the way of a good argument.

Eric,
It sort of like the far right of the Republicans who if they would have their why we would all be praying to their Judeo-Christian God Right? As far as getting News from Fox, maybe when they grow up and start reporting the news instead of giving the viewers their daily dose of what they most think.

Extreme is extreme no matter what side of the proverbial “Coin of Life” you want to come from. One of these days we’ll have to teach them how debate based on the Third Side of the Coin.

Wow, Stephen, lumping me in now? *I*’m trying to portray her as ‘evil’?

Please show me where I said anything of the sort? I only pointed out the FACT that she does spend time on DailyKOS, hardly a bastion of non-partisan reporting.

And what happens? *I* am now trying to wreck her ‘good name’, portray her as XXXX. Don’t deal with what is said, just attack the person who pointed out something and denegrate them for it, deflecting the arguments…

And you wonder who is attacking who? I think I’ve figured it out myself. The left complains about the attack dogs of the right only because they are afraid that they might do as good of a job as their own pumped up dogs are performing.

Eric,

This lady’s 15 minutes were up 20 minutes ago, and yet you continue to bring her up.

This shows me more about the right’s paranoia, than it shows me about the left’s use of this lady to make a point.

Rocky,

Please discern reverse sarcasm.

Eric,

I’m confused by the emphasis you put on the transcripts you posted. Maybe I don’t watch enough Fox News, but who is reporting that New Orleans is NOT “depopulated”, that there are NOT “soldiers all over the city”, that it does NOT look like the aftermath of “a massacre or war zone”, etc. etc.?

Who is reporting that those things are false? What color is the sky on Fox News?

Rhinehold-
I didn’t specifically said you were evil, and I wasn’t using the word in it’s strongest sense. Rather, the notion I was trying to get across is the Right’s portrayal of her as a villain with whom there is no compromise.

Even if you don’t fling the more scurrilous or nasty of charges her way, you’re still not dealing with her with the understanding that her behavior could be justified, that it’s not some moral failing or psychological weakness exploited by others.

In short, you and others are not acknowledging that Bush could have made an enemy of her before she made an enemy of him. There’s this unfortunate sense among the right that everybody must like the president, despite all the behavior people have encountered from Bush and his defenders specifically intended to annoy and enrage his opponents.

The Right has to realize that the Left is populated by people not unlike them in temperament and psychology, and that when you continually insult and malign people from a position of power, you build up deep reserves of resentment and even hatred. It’s ironic, but the Right is recreating a mirror image of it’s own rise in the left. Once upon a time, the conservatives were the punching bag, and the party completely out of power. Now it’s our turn, and if you read the polls, you can see the resentment stewing against Bush.

It’s this refusal to acknowledge that people could have a legitimate greivance against Bush that has made it so difficult to calm folks on the left down. Few Americans of any ideological stripe are willing to be that submissive to a leader they believe isn’t doing his job right.

Bush could have solved a great number of political problems simply by solving a lot of his practical problems. It’s a lot easier to persuade people to support a person doing things right, than to garner support for a person screwing things up.

All President Bush would have to do to be liked by the left is to change parties. If he was a Dem, the left would embrace him like a mom does a small child.

Tomd,
It may be a little more difficult than that. We don’t let screwups like Bush into the democratic party. You have to attain at least Ted Kennedy level. Maybe he can apply again next year.

I find it funny. Repubs get angry when we quote Pat Robertson and Coulter as a fair representation of the true right, yet they have no problem quoting Moore and Sheehan as representation of the left. Play fair, I wont quote your wingnuts if you don’t quote mine.

Stephen and chantico: spot-on comments. Thus, the partisan divide continues. And will continue, I predict, as Bush will eventually come back to two other fiascos the country can ill-afford at this time: making tax cuts permamnet and privatizing Social Security. The public didn’t want them before, and they sure don’t want them now…but Bush is too arrogant to admit defeat, and will continue to plunge this country into an economic abyss in his attempts to further an agenda that more and more people on both sides of the aisle see as reckless, if not downright dangerous. In other words, Eric, Cindy Sheehan isn’t the problem.

WOW! FOX is doing news now? When did that start? When did they move away from the opinion colomn?

Ha! Now you liberal hacks are in an unfortunate position indeed! You have to draw attention away from the increasing insanity of the far left. It’s pretty obvious that the author is making an ASSUMPTION about where Cindy Shitcan gets her information, since they are the only two prominent figures who have spouted this lunacy so far. “Oh my god! Haliburton is being called into Louisians? They probably want to get all those oil refineries back in operation! Criminals! How dare the US send American companies to rebuild New Orleans. Bring in the UN Observers!” Of course, you’re not even trying to defend Scahill. You’re just attacking the messenger. “You don’t know where Cindy gets her information, so get your facts straight.” I’ll save the author some trouble, and tell you exactly where Cindy gets her daily briefings. She receives mind rays, directly from the planet Omicron Persei 7.

It’s only a matter of time, before this bullshit catches on, and it turns into an actual movement. We’re going to be hearing lots of this stupid bullshit from the far left in the coming months, mark my words.

Only a few weeks ago Cindy Sheehan was the hope of the left. Supported by a myriad of Democratic groups and political figures

LOL! I read that linked article, and the only supporter I saw was Ben, from the Ben & Jerry’s ice cream company. :D

Eric, once again, thanks for keeping an eye on the two aging hippies smokin a doob and plotting in their VW van. Who knew one of them would be the ice cream guy.

madmatt7g: Liberals are not in an unfortunate position. This country is. Responsible liberals AND conservatives are now seeing that. But it appears to me the only thing you see is hatred. Your comments would be better suited on another blog.

ericsimonson,
What is this tired, lame post supposed to be? Is it supposed to be a defense of Bush policy by innuendo and character assassination against Cindy Sheehan? This post has no basis in either fact or logic. It’s just another example of right wing vitriol. It’s inflammatory and hate-filled.

Using your logic, I have a question. President Bush might be getting his news from this source. How could he possibly listen to a ghost? See how stupid he is!

tomd-
After all we Democrats have been through, I think that would be very unlikely. It would be like an accountant who embezzled from you asking to be your personal bookkeeper. No, Tom, there are real reasons we don’t like Bush. That he is a Republican is incidental. Had a Democrat performed this poorly, I would have voted for the Republican or stayed home on election day.

Sooner or later, you will have to understand that the consequences of this president’s actions, and the negative response he gets from people, are more than simply political reactions.

Perhaps you are projecting on us your willingness to make excuses for him because he is a Republican. But then, perhaps you too, when push comes to shove, would recognize that the problems of the real world overrule political concerns in the end. I hope there’s a point at which you too would be outraged.

Okay, I’m going to set all you guys straight. As for Fox news. The only reason you jackasses complain about foxnews is because they actually have the gall to include programming that has conservative EDITORIAL commentary, along with their news programs. You try to point to bias, but I know you’re just complaining about Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. You preferred it, when the Networks had the tv news monopoly, and our side was NEVER heard ANYWHERE! That’s good reporting. As for the militarization of NO, Steven Daugherty, so what if soldiers are patrolling the streets. Scahill wasn’t just making an observation. There was opinion in that article. He was trying to say that was a negative thing! That’s what’s so absurd about it! First, he wasn’t quick enough to move them in. Now that they’re there, he should never have sent them at all! I can see the logic there. Imagine how low rent would be if we didn’t do ANY reconstruction! If we don’t rebuild any stores. Who needs those capitalist entities, anyway? This is the left’s dream, right? Don’t rebuild New Orleans, so that we can bring back life and commerce, and gasp, Capitalism! It’s a third-world mecca as it is! I envision brown people casting out fishing nets and living in huts. Beautiful. This is truly god’s country! So inspiring. We could all learn from their example.

And Chantico, I love Ann Coulter. She’s probably one of the funniest political writers out there! Clever, intuitive, and hilarious. Pat Robertson is a hardcore christian. That’s the main reason he’s attacked by people like you. “How dare he hold such Christian views. He is after all, a Christian!” Some of his views are more, shall we say, secular. Like his approach to Marxist Venezuelan dictators. I agreed with him whole-heartedly about Chavez. Take the dirty bastard out!

And in response to your final post, Stephen, I will say this. Most of Bush’s detractors can’t even name a single one of Bush’s policies, “execpt for his war of capitalist oppression!” How can you read the article in question and draw any other conclusion than the fact that this is indeed a political reaction. You’re not fooling anybody.

Fox News = dose of reality???? ROFLMAO!!!! Bill O’liely and the rest of the self appointed Christo-publican ‘expert’ toadies on that outrageous travesty posing it’s blatant coercive nitwit agenda as “news”? Ubetcha, and I’m the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

Goebbels should have been so good at propaganda!

Common sense isn’t so common: If you would like reality and ‘news’ to equate, there are 3 essential prerequisites:

1. The ability to think critically and without assumption.
2. Enough devoted time to check the veracity of information posing as ‘news’.
3. The ability (nomatter how much it hurts) to apply critical thought.

Do those 3 steps honestly, and you will find Fox News and SpongeBob Squarepants in a dead heat in the reality race.

Madmatt7g-
Let’s take that embezzling accountant out for another spin. When your boss hires for a new job a firm you know overcharged and perhaps defrauded you the last time, and that firm use to employ the CEO’s chief VP, wouldn’t that seem kind of off?

We on the left are not that masochistic. There are plenty of qualified businesses out there without a track record of making taxpayer dollars disappear without attendant work being done. Put them in to do the work that everybody wants done. Don’t hire a company that’s forfeited the people’s trust and done nothing to earn it back.

As for eric, he did make an assumption, and then a guess. He didn’t however provide evidence. He also didn’t address the fact that Cindy Sheehan had plenty of opportunity to see things for herself early on, and therefore did not need to get all her news from DKos.

Additionally, though DKos is sometimes too partisan on sources for its own good, it also catches a lot of information earlier than the media gets it. I’m not saying take every Democrat/Liberal blog and take it at face value. I’m saying people should use their critical faculties and not just deny what the Dems or Cindy Sheehan say because it’s contaminated by politics they don’t like. Why? Because the facts are the facts, and you can always adjust for a bias. Not knowing or acknowledging the facts, though, means you can’t get an accurate grasp on the issue, and therefore have to resort to fallacious or unsound arguments, in which case you’ll never be able to resolve most of your disputes.

Take Gretna. Instead of denying that prejudice against mostly black inner city folks was a factor(not necessarily racially based), say, yes it was a problem, and next time they should escort these people to help, not block off bridges and shoot over the heads of women and children. trying to escape a drowning city.

Too many on the Right don’t want to see the disputes end. They want to keep on fighting, not thinking that perhaps their actions are prolonging and entrenching problems, rather than resolving them.

It’s time to stop this useless fighting, and turn the debates towards clearing things up, rather than beating people up with words.

addendum to the last post:

What a thing to say, MadMatt. Read down our archives, and you’ll get an absolute laundry list. Liberals of my age group have shown much more awareness in studies of current events than our conservative counterparts.

My problem isn’t that he makes the guess. My problem is that he turns his guess into verified facts so he can go into high dudgeon about the issue. My reaction is political, but so is yours and that of everybody’s on this site. In additional to my political reaction there’s my reaction as a person who knows what the fallacies are. This is a circular argument, MadMatt. It starts from the premise that Cindy Sheehan gets her stuff from somewhere, and then asserts that it’s well proven now that she got it from somewhere. It’s bad logic that it doesn’t even take a college degree to register.

Moreover, it leads to an ad hominem argument, even if it’s otherwise not fallacious. I doesn’t rebut Cindy Sheehan on the facts she uses, but the political company she keeps. The right and wrong of of her facts should be what he’s arguing. Only, he’d have to argue against her personal account of heading into New Orleans, the account he just happened to criticized the last time he posted an entry. That, of course, being a mostly eyewitness account. He could argue that she was slanted, but to avoid that being an ad hominem argument, he would have to research other eyewitness and news accounts. He’s not doing that, he’s just settling for a lazy, fallacious approach.

Elliotbay — love the photo from that source!

AP:
“Eric, once again, thanks for keeping an eye on the two aging hippies smokin a doob and plotting in their VW van.”

Uh, hate to burst your bubble AP, but this there is going to be a massive demonstration against the Iraq war in DC this coming Saturday. Sure, aging hippies will be there, along with every age group older and younger. I’m going to the march being held in San Francisco since I can’t get to DC. Last one I went to in SF, many thousands of people marched — and this one is expected to be really gigantic.
I think what rightwingers like Eric don’t understand is that you don’t have to agree with every word that Cindy Sheehan says to get out and protest against Bush’s optional war based on lies. In fact, I’ve been hitting the streets to protest the unnecessary death of our soldiers since the start of this war — and that was a long time before anyone heard a word of anguished protest from the mouths of the family members of our dead or permanently disabled soldiers.

Most of Bush’s detractors can’t even name a single one of Bush’s policies, “execpt for his war of capitalist oppression!”

It’s a third-world mecca as it is! I envision brown people casting out fishing nets and living in huts. Beautiful.

Bill O’liely and the rest of the self appointed Christo-publican ‘expert’ toadies on that outrageous travesty posing it’s blatant coercive nitwit agenda as “news”?

Liberals of my age group have shown much more awareness in studies of current events than our conservative counterparts.

And people wonder what happened to ‘political debate’. I say it’s going down the toilet myself… Division? I wonder.

Why listen to your enemy when you have villified them beyond any reasonable humanity.

Stephen,

You’re alleging she’s getting brainwashed by the left. Problem is, your last post dealt with her as a primary source, a person with an actually grounds-eye view of things. You guys tend to oversimplify things when it suits your purpose, and really, you have to.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. I don’t think she is getting brainwashed by the left, I assume she was left to begin with. The point is not that I’m impugning her, the point is to research what her policy pronouncements really mean, what they are based on and what kind of policy she is advocating. And by extension in as much as the left propels her forward as a ‘symbol’ what they are in fact advocating.

The democratic party, by electing Howard Dean, and choosing to fund and put forward people like Cindy Sheehan are choosing a road for the democratic party that is actually going backwards.

My personal view is that if she is a radical, it’s only because Bush’s policies pushed her in that direction, especially in getting her son killed, and his treating her presence a mere photo-op. She evolved to this perspective over time, as already existing doubts about the war were magnified by her son’s death, and the subsequent, publicly known debacles in the waging of this war.

She wouldn’t be out protesting if it weren’t for these things: her son’s death, the deteriorating Bush policy, and ulimately, the sense that Bush doesn’t care for changing his policy despite it’s bad condition.

Amazing. If only Bush had never existed… then the left wouldn’t have to be radical?

Eric want’s to argue this the cheap way. I call the cheap way because it doesn’t require facts or reference, just a snide little insinuation that consists of taking a militantly liberal position, and then guessing that Cindy Sheehan takes this position based on such reporting.

I’m not sure how quoting people is the ‘cheap’ way to argue. If you want to argue that this is not the belief of the left then you can. But since the full embrace by the democratic party of Michael Moore and his radical beliefs during the election you can’t very well say that it doesn’t exist or doesn’t pertain to the left at all.

Rhinehold,

I think you’re correct, each side (R v. L) has vilified the other. A friend of ours highlighted to us the other day that we are not now, nor have we ever really been a united nation. It’s been Federalists vs. States, North vs. South, Coasts vs. Mid-west, etc… since day one. In contemporary America, the wealthy (sub)urban liberal coasts share little with the rural middle class religious conservative midwest other than the fact we live in the same country. She also reminded us how conservative we’ve become. The right whines laughingl about how radical the left is yet todays liberals are the moderates of the 50’s and todays hard conservatives are the near fascists of the 40’s.

Furthermore, the spin monsters who invaded DC back in the 80’s have perverted our political system into a divide and conquer one, rather than a best-man-win one. Bush’s power does not rest in a strength of intellect but in a strength of desire. He wanted to be president and was wiling to do anything to get it, including 2 vile and disgusting smear campaigns. Campaigns that left behind in its wake a hate and anger between our fellow citizens not seen since the carpetbaggers. Campaigns that created patterns of speech like we see here.

So our system creates Fox news as the liars for the right and leaves the remainder of the fourth estate looking for its focus. Unfortunately, it has taken Sheehan and Katrina to get them to find it.

Todays liberals are the moderates of the 50’s and todays hard conservatives are the near fascists of the 40’s.

Yeah, right. Remember those halycon days of the fifites when American moderates were calling for abortion on demand, gay-marriage and speech codes in universites? Remember how they all got together to march against Truman’s imperialist/fascist war in Korea? Remember the chants of “No Blood for Kimchee? How the entertainment industry made movies like Farenheit 9-11, the media forged documents to attack Truman, and the mothers of those killed in Korea were used in publicity campaigns against the administration?

Since there were few fascists to speak of in America in the forties, I assume you mean that today’s conservatives are like the the fascists of Germany in the forties—a charge so ridiculous I won’t bother enumerating the reasons why, except to say that tossing out such a charge is one more example of how low (and how irrelevent) the left has become in America.

Rhinehold-
While we actually agree that the discourse has both become more vicious and less substantive, I don’t think my comment can be seen in that light, insofar as it was an actual study taken during the campaign.

Take note of how much channels like FOXNews and other publications rely on commentary to fill their time. Practically every FOXNews correspondent turns around and gives Commentary on the issues, which the right considers its balance. Because they’re supposedly not in journalist mode at that point, they get to lay out interpretations of events without having to gather sound facts into a valid argument, or leave conclusions tentative. Contrast this with CNN or PBS, where commentary and opinion mongering are rarer.

Also contrast their reporting with that of a PBS show like Frontline. With that show, you actually get somewhat ahead of the curve on different issues. One example is Pharmaceuticals. A year or two before the Vioxx scandal blew up, they did a report called Dangerous Prescription, which detail some of the conflicts of interest that have grown in the FDA with the industry.

Fact of the matter is, most Democrats feel an affinity because of their culture for information rich sources. It makes us feel like we’re in greater control, on account of our cultural distrust of authority. Recall, if you will, our attitudes towards Clinton.

Republicans need to build a culture of self-made political awareness from the grassroots. Reliance on the higher echelons of the GOP and their talking points for information has gotten them into a situation where they have to argue on the defensive, and that is bad both for accountability for our government, and for the political fortunes of the GOP as a whole.

Dave,

“Campaigns that left behind in its wake a hate and anger between our fellow citizens not seen since the carpetbaggers.”

By that statement, did you mean when the Clintons resided in the WH ?
After all, everyone knows who the NY carpetbaggers are.

Contrast this with CNN or PBS, where commentary and opinion mongering are rarer.

Whether you fall on the left or right of the political spectrum, you don’t tend to hear the “opinion mongering” which supports your own ideological views. You think you’re just hearing “the truth.” If presented with a cold hard fact that contradicts your own ideological wish to believe something untrue, you’re likely to consider that fact another example of opinion mongering.

How else explain how someone could watch CNN or PBS and not see the extreme left-wing bias?

I imagine there probably are those who are far enough gone that they could sit down and watch NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS and think they’re just getting the facts.

I don’t know who rob is, but I’d hereby like to disavow his comments as ignorant and baseless. While he hasnt attacked any specific poster, I’d suggest that he adds nothing of substance to the debate. In fact, he detracts from it.

Stephen:

Its interesting that I keep hearing voices from the left side of the spectrum bemoaning the upcoming fate of the Republican party, as you did in your 2:12 post. Yet I’ve been hearing it for years now. The only time I’ve seen it come true in the last decade was when Clinton won re-election, but he was, after all, only running against Bob Dole who did not have the charisma to win.

But Dems have lost the last two Presidential elections, they’ve lost ground in the House and Senate, in the governor’s offices etc. When Jeb Bush ran for re-election, I heard how badly he would lose…but he didn’t.

I truly think the Democrats have been running against someone, rather than for something. Their message often hasn’t been heard, and when it has, it has been with shrill undertones.

The Republican strategies have been working. Of course, politics has a bit of a pendulum to it, especially in the White House and governors’ offices. So we shall see. But the episodic bemoaning of the fate of the GOP is silly. Eventually, if you say it often enough, it will come true. But that won’t count as prognostication….it will just be luck derived from repetition.

Erm, Rob…

I would like to point out the basic tennent of this blog:

Critique the Message, not the Messenger

While I may not agree with some of the things that Stephen says, that does NOT mean that you can come on here and act like a seven year old kid on the playground. I imagine if you keep up the level of discourse you are engaging in you will most likely not be around here long…

This isn’t DailyKOS or Freerepublic, you might find more luck plying your form of discussion on one of those sites…

Hey, if you take away ad-hominem attack, you take away half the fun of politics! I wouldn’t want to live in such a world. And naturally, since it’s become quite popular and acceptable in our pop culture to vilify and demonize conservatives, including the President, you should consider any conservative backlash as a natural reaction. You take a lot of time to understand the motivations of lunatics who make outrageous charges against our government, but make no attempt at understanding the perspective of those who disagree with you. And that’s why you guys lose, time and time again. You need to analyze the voting constituency, and understand what they want. Then you’ll understand why you lost the house, the senate, and the whitehouse. Only then will you have any hope of taking it back!

Can we all at least agree, that Cindy Sheehan and the hack who wrote the article in question today, are both a little off the deep end? The thing that ties them both together, is that they refer to the national guard as “a military occupation.” That’s just plain nuts! Can you agree? Or will you continue to call it a “natural reaction from people who perceive that Bush doesn’t care about their problems.” Despite the fact that he was no slower in his response to this disastor than any previous president in a similar situation. Remember the heat wave of 1995? 739 Chicagoans died. FEMA was nowhere to be seen. It took Bill Clinton 8 days, while poor people, sick and elderly were dropping like flies. 739 people in Chicago, and hundreds in the surrounding areas. And when he finally did respond, Clinton pledged 100 million in FEMA reimbursement to be divided between 19 states. Pathetic, compared to the Katrina response.

Hay rhinestone cow girl dont worry bout me I’m fine. Hell I’m great I’m a Republican Team Leader the best party in the land.

Oh, by the way, that post about ad hominem attack was a response to Stephen. But it still stands. And I find it amusing that you even deign to compare yourself to free republic. Ha!

And Mike Jackson:

Did you even read my post? You complain that Bill O’Reilly is biased, so this means foxnews is biased? Don’t you understand what the word EDITORIAL means? That means bias. It’s opinion, which is by it’s very nature biased. That’s what Bill O’Reilly does. It’s editorial opinion. Not news. I can see where you get confused by this, since most of the MSM seems to confuse editorial journalism with news reporting. Perhaps that’s what gives you liberals the erroneous assumption that your views are in some way, “main-stream,” and hence the rhetoric about the “true majority.”

I wish someone here was interested in what is actually happening in Lousiana and Mississippi.

Maybe all of you should actually see what things are like on the ground. There are a few people here who actuallly live in the areas that have been hit. But you can continue making up what you think is going on and debating that if you prefer.

Or you can actually look at the real world, and what is happening, and talk about how to make it better.

Personally, I appreciate the resources that the government has, but it doesn’t do a damn bit of good if they screw up what we’re doing now. I appreciate 50 helicopters and what 50 helicopters can do, but when they evacuate healthy 20 year old secretaries from private hospitals before evacuating the terminally ill at public hospitals, and use up the airspace that the others need to evacuate… I’m not so certain that they’re helpful.

When national guard are disbursed and draw their weapons on locals who are coordinating evacuation efforts, and tell them that they aren’t authorized to help… I’m not so certain they are improving the situation.

People aren’t competent just because they have high ideals. Again, I know military guys who are going above and beyond. And I know guys who are screwing things up.

Leadership is important. Organization is important. Churches can do a good job, but they aren’t supposed to be a large scale answer.

The guard is only as competent as those who are in charge of the guard.

It doesn’t matter what you THINK is happening, your opinions on what reality is doesn’t change what is actually happening on the ground.

You won’t be able to silence millions of people who are seeing this incompetence first hand. Stop trying to spin, and start trying to see what the truth really is.

There are idiotic people at all levels of government. They are democrats and they are republicans. The most competent people I’ve seen have been the mayors on the coast of Mississippi. and they are from both parties.

Competence and common sense is a human trait, not a party trait. It’s time to start noticing which of your elected officials have it, and which do not.

Well lets see the Dems are in charge of N.O. and the national guard so hummmm I think the blame lies with the libs. Sounds right to me.

ericsimonson,

Well, dude, you did it again. You started another flame war. Aren’t you proud of yourself? There was no point for this thread. No hope of any kind of civilized discourse. This was just one more hate-filled, vitriolic right wing attack on all things liberal.

Hey kids! Wanna learn a fun new game?? It’s called the right wing slime time blame game, and it’s easy to play. All you need is an overwhelming hatred for those of your fellow Americans who disagree with the policies of the current president. You don’t need facts! You don’t need logic! that’s what makes it so easy!

All you need to do is follow these simple rules:

1. Speculate about what Cindy Sheehan MIGHT have read, and then publish extensive quotes. You don’t need PROOF that she read what you quoted, just the implication ought to be enough to slime her. “My guess is that she gets her ‘news’ from ‘independent’ media who postulate that the U.S. military enforces the fascism of the capitalist oligarchy, or some such, and like to put out reports like this one about how New Orleans has been ‘militarized’.” (ericsimonson) It also helps to put ‘words’ into ‘quotes’ so ‘people’ will think that they don’t ‘mean’ ‘anything’.
2. Use the quote to accuse EVERYONE on the left of being wrong: “Cindy Sheehan is a symbol … of the left’s utter failure” (ericsimonson)
3. Link the left with Communism and Hitler - at the same time if possible! “a platform advocating Eugenics, or Communism, or National Socialism…” (ericsimonson)
4. Call the liberals positions “garbage” and use the term “idiot”. (Ron Brown)
5. Call Cindy Sheehan a monster (“Frankenstein”), and accuse her of being anti-Semitic and a “whacko” (sanger)
6. If all else fails, start name-calling: “you liberal hacks”, “the increasing insanity of the far left”, “Cindy Shitcan … spouted this lunacy”, “stupid bullshit from the far left”, “you jackasses”. (madmatt7g)
7. Accuse the left themselves of being the name-callers by saying that “you have villified them beyond any reasonable humanity.” (Rhinehold)
8. Deny that quoting someone who had no association with Cindy Sheehan was wrong. Feign innocence: “I’m not sure how quoting people is the ‘cheap’ way to argue.” (ericsimonson)
9. Completely ignore other arguments from the left with snide comments “Yeah, right” and “so ridiculous I won�t bother [with] the reasons” (sanger)
10. Throw in that tired old “biased media” lie (sanger and madmatt7g)
11. Go back to the name-calling: “lunatics”, “just plain nuts” (maddmatt7g)

For more easy-to-follow rules on how to slime liberals, send $5,000,000 in unmarked bills to

The Karl Rove Skool for Slime
PO Box 123
Washington, DC

Sanger-

How else explain how someone could watch CNN or PBS and not see the extreme left-wing bias?

I imagine there probably are those who are far enough gone that they could sit down and watch NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS and think they’re just getting the facts.

I look at Now with Bill Moyers, and it gets on my nerves. I don’t like anybody trying to hand me my point of view, like they’re giving me the news.

As for everything else, I think you’re judging things relative from your position and expecting us to do so as well.

Joe-
Look, we partisans just about always predict a win for our side. But I’m talking to you outside of my partisan role. I’m telling you guys that your numbers are dropping, people are getting scared about the quality of your leadership, and your politicians are just not getting it. When it happened to us, we started losing elections. This was about what was happening before Newt and his bunch raised your fortunes at our expense. You folks have motivated us too well, and every small victory has contributed to a critical mass of resentment. Now, events are beginning to vindicate our point of view.

I think your side might be better served to have our wins be earlier, and less. The less resentment you keep going, the smaller our gains.

Eric-
There’s nothing research-oriented about your post, as far as Cindy Sheehan’s views go. You simply make an assumption about who she reads, and then use that as a basis for an ad hominem attack on her. That may work in the conservative blogosphere, but with folks who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid it’s not going to wash. You are impugning her, and you’ve been impugning her in your polemics since the issue came up.

As for the Radicalism of the Left, I think you misread what I say. I’m saying resentment among moderates and extremists alike in my party have some roots in the objective effects of Bush’s behavior in office.

As for Michael Moore, Anybody watching Frontline probably anticipated half of all the material he put forward, and stuff Moore didn’t even cover.

Michael Moore is more the beneficiary of anti-Bush resentment than necessarily its creator. If you understood that, you’d understand why it’s so difficult to discourage Liberals from their positions.

MadMatt7g-
A heat wave? Look, you’re talking about people with pre-existing health problems getting dropped by the heat. This is not a massive storm surge and catastrophic wind speeds.

I’m sitting here writing from the Texas Gulf Coast. We’re about to get hit by a massive hurricane, so I find the suggestion that this heatwave was the equal of a Katrina or Rita absurd. What do you suggest, airdropping window AC units?

chantico
I find it funny. Repubs get angry when we quote Pat Robertson and Coulter as a fair representation of the true right, yet they have no problem quoting Moore and Sheehan as representation of the left. Play fair, I wont quote your wingnuts if you don’t quote mine.

Youall made them a fair representation of the true left when youall annoited them King and Queen of the Anti War Movement.

tomd
All President Bush would have to do to be liked by the left is to change parties. If he was a Dem, the left would embrace him like a mom does a small child.

HOW TRUE! But then most of the right would hate him.

So, elliott bay, your inference that we studied at the Karl Rove slime school makes you guilty of what you accuse us of: unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack. You ignore the original post that this story was based on: the editorial opinion of Jeremy Scahill that the military occupation of New Orleans is “scary.” Why not comment on that? Hmmmm. Because it’s indefensibly absurd. Here, I’ll say it again, just for the jackasses. It’s freakin’ bonkers! It’s insane! It’s nuts. You’re all being intellectually dishonest with your selective criticism, and you should all go take a nap!

Please, tell me, resident liberal nabob malcontents, what is your take on the military occupation of New Orleans? Let’s debate the subject of the author’s post, shall we, instead of hurling foregone conclusions, like elliott bay, and his smarmy Karl Rove comment. And Stephen Daugherty, how does a heat wave where 700 people die in a week not compare to the current situation? Sure, a heat wave isn’t a hurricane. Tell that to the people that died. Where was Clinton? Now I know, Clinton isn’t the president, and has little relevance in this discussion, unless you’re guaging the performance of the current commander in chief, in which case, I’d give Bush a grade of B+. Sure, he oversaw the largest and swiftest federal response to a natural disastor in our nation’s history, but he failed to wrestle that hurricane into submission with his bare hands, like a texas steer, and therefore gets docked a few points. Certainly, he could have at least overstepped his constitutional authority, and deployed the national guard BEFORE the hurricane hit, so they’d all be washed out to sea, and you liberals could chalk that up as yet another bush failure! I’m beginning to understand how you nabobs think. It’s fun being a liberal!

You’re right, elliott. The left never calls anybody names, especially not Karl Rove or Bush. I’ve never seen the phrase “bushitler”, “bushbot”, “neocon”, or my personal favorite, “chickenhawk.” That’s all my imagination. Cindy Sheehan is a model of temperance and reason. Even though she called the people who murdered her son while he was working to restore basic human needs to the people of Iraq, “freedom fighters.” Even though she spouts off antisemitic rhetoric. This Scahill guy is obviously an experienced and well educated military analyst, who draws upon the deep well of knowledge he possesses to decry the “military occupation” of New Orleans. You’ve set me straight, let me tell you!

madmatt7g-
Your argument might hold water if his first and last paragraphs and everything inbetween talked about Cindy Sheehan’s impression of things.

Eric could have done himself the favor of actually sticking to criticizing Jeremy Scahill, and left Cindy Sheehan out of it, but that would have required foregoing the Pavlovian reactions Eric wants from the right. Nobody knows him, really, but everybody knows that poor grieving mother, now don’t they?

What is my take on the what? You know it’s funny, but if you want deafening silence, you’ll get it on any such charges of “occupation” from the Blue Column. We haven’t posted one solitary entry on the subject. Check for yourself, if you dare. Most Democrats welcome the institution of martial law in New Orleans, and wonder why it didn’t happen sooner.

As for Cindy Sheehan’s opinion on the subject, she’s entitled to it. Being afraid of her opinion is more likely to get people to take it seriously, as always.

As for why the Chicago Heat Wave doesn’t count as so terrible a thing, the answer is, Chicago is neither underwater, nor flattened by a storm surge. Here’s wikipedia’s take on it.

It is a disaster, but it’s one more influenced by social changes than otherwise. Wikipedia puts it in perspective-

Most of the heat wave victims were the elderly poor living in the heart of the city, who either had no air conditioning or could not afford to turn it on. Many older citizens were also hesitant to open windows and doors at night for fear of crime. Elderly women were less vulnerable than elderly men. By contrast, in the heat waves of the 1930s, many residents slept outside in the parks or along the shore of Lake Michigan.

Really, with something like this, there is no sudden onset to tell you, “hey, this is a deadly heat wave!” There’s no eye of the storm, simply hot summer temperatures that don’t stop.

Besides, you’re working off of old figures. The death toll on the gulf coast is officially 973 as of monday. That’s expected to go higher. Where authorities had little warning about the heat wave in 1995, Bush had at least two days advanced notice on this hurricane being the massive monster it was, and he didn’t even come home from his vacation until a day or two afterwards. How do you explain that, from a guy who’s supposed to be all about leadership?

You are in the vast minority of people who actually believe that Bush did all he could, and for good reason. The evidence is stacked against you.

But that’s never discouraged you before.

Additionally from the the article:

Although the scale was shocking, the event itself may not have been unusual. An expert has noted that in the U.S., the loss of human life in hot spells in summer exceeds that caused by all other weather events in the United States combined, including lightning, rain, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

—-
Even though she spouts off antisemitic rhetoric.
—-
Oh, yea right… she has issues with Israeli policy, but only a great fool would consider that anti-Semitic. It’s better if you read up/researched your talking points before taking them to heart.

…but please, keep beating up the mother of a dead soldier… I’m sure you can get loads more political bang for your effort. (If only your leaders would put half the effort into finding Bin Laden as they have in giving you guys talking points… maybe you’d have your first success…)

Stephen
Remember last year when 2000 died in Europe in a heat wave?
I don?t remember how many in France. Maybe 300?

You said:

Let?s take that embezzling accountant out for another spin. When your boss hires for a new job a firm you know overcharged and perhaps defrauded you the last time, and that firm use to employ the CEO?s chief VP, wouldn?t that seem kind of off?
We on the left are not that masochistic. There are plenty of qualified businesses out there without a track record of making taxpayer dollars disappear without attendant work being done. Put them in to do the work that everybody wants done. Don?t hire a company that?s forfeited the people?s trust and done nothing to earn it back.

It?s time to stop this useless fighting, and turn the debates towards clearing things up, rather than beating people up with words.

Need to be Qualified and post bond and low bid.

These are the jobs that Kellogg, brown and Root bid on last june. They have their hands full now and would welcome the help.

more from Covington, LA.
Eric, when you’re finished pulling your head out of your greedy ass maybe you’ll hear us folks in Louisiana saying thank you to Cindy and all of her friends who packed up their shit in Crawford and came here to help because they believed that that was more important than following your hate machine around for a month. I’m sure that putting the American peace movement on hold was not an easy thing to do. Especially considering that Katrina did not put the war on hold.

For those of us who do not support wars against the impoverished of the world, including in our own country, fought only for the gain of our greediest elite, our pascifism does not automatically imply that we will not get pissed off and respond. Our fight is for humantity, not material gain for ourselves or our country. We see beyond God bless America, we recognize that unless God’s blessings are universal we cannot expect ourselves to stand in his grace.

Our soft side has become more callous and we do know how to be haters like you. Shit, some of used to be like you. We still sometimes let durogatory statements slip passed our lips. Sometimes we don’t even think to feel sorry for having made them. Like my opening remarks. We are not pussies that don’t know how to fight, we are humans who know what is worth fighting for.

Thanks to Cindy, her crew, the good soldiers like Casey, the few FEMA reps that have been sent, the Red Cross workers, utillity workers and every other human being that has come to our aid during this crisis, as for the rest of you, well, we know who you are and we will vote accordingly.

We all saw how things went when NO was ‘demilitarized’ before the NG arrived. I guess Sheehan prefers ‘freedom fighters’ run NO?

madmatt7g-
Congratulations on your self destruction.

Matt:

Interesting post….a little over the top, but interesting. I think perhaps Cindy Sheehan is so angry that she has stopped using rational thought in her rhetoric, and her anger has taken over. That might explain why she says some of the things you posted.

On that note, perhaps you might explain the reason for some of your over the top comments. What are you angry about?

For the record, Cindy Sheehan deserves our respect for being the mother of an honorable son killed in the line of duty. This does not allow her the right to speak without getting any criticism for her viewpoints when they are invalid. There are many in her same situation who have different viewpoints than hers….theirs are no more or less important. Interesting to note that they do get less media attention…hmmm.

Ms Sheehan appears to be gravitating to the far anti war left. And these people are happy to have her. They are happy any time a camera points their direction. But, they are so far from rational that they actually hurt their cause, in the same way that Operation Rescue hurt the anti abortion cause. By showing themselves to be beyond reason and rationality, they become caricatures of their own movements, and end up losing support for their cause.

I do think, though, that its time to let Hurricane Cindy blow herself out. Given time, her rhetoric will show who she truly is and what her intent truly is.

she has stopped using rational thought in her rhetoric

Um, I don’t think she has ever used rational thought, at least in any of the interviews or quotes I’ve seen from her. Maybe I’m only seeing the sensionalized, but many of these quotes were before she took up camp in Crawford and are largely the reason why anyone even heard of her.

Ms Sheehan appears to be gravitating to the far anti war left.

I think here also that she was firmly entrenched there long before her visit to Crawford.

MadMatt7g,
You can certainly dish out the vitriol and the name-calling, can’t you? Karl Rove would be so proud. You need to read the top of this column again, where it says to critique the message, not the messenger. Almost all of your posts violate that standard - I’d be surprised if you’re here much longer.

JBOD,
I agree that SOME of the leftists have gone overboard. And I agree that SOME of the things that Cindy Sheehan has said could be construed as extreme. But I also think that you’d have to agree that SOME of the extreme rightists (including at least one or two in this thread) have also gone overboard.

I have a real issue when the general response from the right to ANY criticism of President Bush’s policies is to attack those who speak up, instead of defending the man and/or the policy being criticized. “Attacking the liberals” seems to have become a prime component in the right’s arsenal, and this very thread is a good example of it.

I agree that Ms Sheehan is getting more attention than others who also lost loved ones in Iraq. I think the reason that the others aren’t getting as much publicity is because they didn’t actively seek it by camping out at Bush’s ranch. I doubt if there’s any other reason.

jbod:
“Ms Sheehan appears to be gravitating to the far anti war left. And these people are happy to have her. They are happy any time a camera points their direction. But, they are so far from rational that they actually hurt their cause, in the same way that Operation Rescue hurt the anti abortion cause.”

What you’re failing to grasp is that the people who are protesting the War in Iraq are made up of:
1. Pacifists who take to the streets to protest every war.
2. Those who doubted Bush’s judgement on the necessity for the Iraq war in the first place.
3. Those whose minds were changed when no WMD’s were found in Iraq.
4. Those whose minds were changed since the appearance of the Downing Street Memos.
But go ahead, lump everyone together if it makes you feel better.

“By showing themselves to be beyond reason and rationality, they become caricatures of their own movements, and end up losing support for their cause.”

Reason and Rationality. Hilarious! Meanwhile, the majority of Republican’s continue to go along with every reason and rationale your leader’s have told you — long, long after the truth of their lies has been completely exposed. Long, long after it’s become clear that our soldiers haven’t had enough numbers or the equipment they’ve needed to actually win their optional war based on those lies.
Caricatures, indeed. Caricatures of blind obeisance to political party over fact. Caricatures of gullibility.

Elliotbay:
“I have a real issue when the general response from the right to ANY criticism of President Bush�s policies is to attack those who speak up, instead of defending the man and/or the policy being criticized. �Attacking the liberals� seems to have become a prime component in the right�s arsenal, and this very thread is a good example of it.”

So true.

“I agree that Ms Sheehan is getting more attention than others who also lost loved ones in Iraq. I think the reason that the others aren�t getting as much publicity is because they didn�t actively seek it by camping out at Bush�s ranch. I doubt if there�s any other reason.”

It’s also why many folks can admire Ms. Sheehan, even though they might not agree with every word out of her mouth. Because she’s had the guts and the stamina to try to hold this president accountable for his unnecessary war. She knew she’d be making a spectacle of herself, and she knew she would be unmercifully attacked by the Rightwing Slime Machine, but since her son died for no good reason, she decided to go sit out there in the blazing heat of a Texas summer anyway. And by doing so, she embarrassed the president, and therefore, angered the hell out of all the Rightwingers. And that’s why they can’t help but keep bringing her up.

The Red Column is debating the persons and not the issues. Never mind if people are justified in being nervous about a military presence in an American city. Never mind if the evidence for taking this nation into war didn’t justify the invasion. Never mind that Bush and the GOP rewrote their original intentions for the war midfight. No, what matters here is labelling every person who doesn’t support the war a dirty liberal, and thereby preventing the political damage. Allege that there only motivations are political, and irrational at that.

In this way, you never have to directly argue the points, because you’ve already ruled them out as valid contributors to the discussion. Remind people on your side that their loyalty depends on their ability to not to get discourage by negative signs, and make it clear that there is little tolerance for that failure of loyalty, and you will almost never have to face your constituents and your intended audience with embarassing or discouraging facts. about their leader’s policy.

Which is exactly the problem. Democracy works by feedback. When it is stifled to the degree that the Republicans have stifled it, accountability suffers, and with it job performance by our politicians.

Americans are beginning to discover just what the reasons people like me and other liberals have been hollering for all these years. They are beginning to count the cost of Republican leadership, and they are getting some major sticker shock.

Madmatt7g, your comments are no longer welcome here due to your blatant violation of our policy regarding Critiquing the Message, Not the Messenger.

Stephen said:

“Republicans need to build a culture of self-made political awareness from the grassroots.”

The majority of Governors are Republicans, the majority of the State Houses are Republican-controlled, the majority in both houses of Congress are Republican controlled, the Presidency has been in the hands of the GOP 28 out of the last 40 years.

The roots are just fine Stephen, and the leaves strongly and consistently lean to the right.

You see, you miss the obvious because you believe that liberalism is the mainstream of American political thinking…it isn’t now, and never has been.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. — William F. Buckley Jr.”

“the Presidency has been in the hands of the GOP 28 out of the last 40 years”

Clarification…at the end of President Bush’s term, the Presidency will have been in the hands of the GOP 28 out of 40 years.

“Never mind if people are justified in being nervous about a military presence in an American city.”

In the aftermath of Katrina, when everyone was braying about the lack of response from the Federal government, who exactly did you think was going to show up?

What other sizable, organized manpower does the Federal government have to respond to a disaster of this magnitude?

The GAO?

Ted Kennedy and the Congressional Black Caucus?

Stephen,

The Red Column is debating the persons and not the issues.

…No, what matters here is labelling every person who doesn’t support the war a dirty liberal, and thereby preventing the political damage. Allege that there only motivations are political, and irrational at that.

…In this way, you never have to directly argue the points, because you’ve already ruled them out as valid contributors to the discussion.

I’m sorry Stephen, but how can exposing the views of the left be somehow debating the person? Exactly how do you expect one to debate the issues without bringing up the people who are expressing them? This seems a bit hypocritical to me considering that a majority of the blue column posts are about one person— Bush!

Are you now saying that any effort to paint Bush as a liar, a failure, Republicans as chickenhawks, Bush as incompetent, etc etc ad infinitum is in fact entirely wrong? Glad to hear it.

Remind people on your side that their loyalty depends on their ability to not to get discourage by negative signs, and make it clear that there is little tolerance for that failure of loyalty, and you will almost never have to face your constituents and your intended audience with embarassing or discouraging facts. about their leader’s policy.

In other words, we are free to hate Bush for ‘failure’ but don’t criticize the left.

Which is exactly the problem. Democracy works by feedback. When it is stifled to the degree that the Republicans have stifled it, accountability suffers, and with it job performance by our politicians.

News flash: There has been no shortage of feedback from the left, and certainly no shortage of criticism of Bush. The feedback is on full force from the left! There’s no denying that. You may not feel that it has effected the President the way you wish it to, but you cannot say that it is “stifled” in any way. No one in this country is unheard. Least of all the left. As the meteoric rise of Cindy Sheehan demonstrates. No one has shut her up.

ElliotBay,

I have a real issue when the general response from the right to ANY criticism of President Bush’s policies is to attack those who speak up, instead of defending the man and/or the policy being criticized. “Attacking the liberals” seems to have become a prime component in the right’s arsenal, and this very thread is a good example of it.

I take issue with this. How is it that the left never “attacks” but responding to ‘criticism’ is automatically an “attack”? Why is it off limits to point out the extremeness of Bush’s critics?

john,

Eric, when you’re finished pulling your head out of your greedy ass…

And just what is it that makes me greedy?

…because they believed that that was more important than following your hate machine around for a month.

Please define: What ‘hate machine’?

For those of us who do not support wars against the impoverished of the world, including in our own country, fought only for the gain of our greediest elite,

Saddam Hussein certainly wasn’t impovrished. For that matter neither was Osama Bin Laden. Exactly how does removing a brutal dictator (a fascist one at that) who kept his people in extreme poverty while he had billions, and helping the people of Iraq create a democracy somehow ‘impoverish the world’?

our pascifism does not automatically imply that we will not get pissed off and respond. Our fight is for humantity, not material gain for ourselves or our country. We see beyond God bless America, we recognize that unless God’s blessings are universal we cannot expect ourselves to stand in his grace.

My fight is for humanity too, john. If those like Cindy Sheehan had their way we might all be speaking Russian today because the left has been on the wrong side of history for the last hundred years. Sure communism is great in theory, but do you really think that it’s great in practice?

not material gain for ourselves or our country. We see beyond God bless America, we recognize that unless God’s blessings are universal we cannot expect ourselves to stand in his grace.

Let’s see… not material gain for yourselves? Let’s talk about survival. People can’t eat your good intentions. They especially can’t eat food that isn’t produced because you do not like the profit motive and passed a law to remove it. Capitalism has feed more hungry bellies and eradicated more poverty than all the socialist welfare programs throughout history. It’s an undeniable fact.

God’s blessings are universal. So why does the left condemn the Iraqi people to slavery in a fascist state because they don’t like George Bush?

Our soft side has become more callous and we do know how to be haters like you. Shit, some of used to be like you. We still sometimes let durogatory statements slip passed our lips. Sometimes we don’t even think to feel sorry for having made them. Like my opening remarks. We are not pussies that don’t know how to fight, we are humans who know what is worth fighting for.

Who said you were? You’re angry because I have an opposing view. Instead of rationally talking about your view you call me a hater. Though I don’t see how you could possibly say I hate anyone.

Thanks to Cindy, her crew, the good soldiers like Casey, the few FEMA reps that have been sent, the Red Cross workers, utillity workers and every other human being that has come to our aid during this crisis, as for the rest of you, well, we know who you are and we will vote accordingly.

I would suspect that there are alot of republicans there too, john. Not to mention the many people across the nation who are willing to take people into their homes.

“For those of us who do not support wars against the impoverished of the world, including in our own country, fought only for the gain of our greediest elite”

Interesting comment John.

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate

by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
August 29th, 2000

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy’s plans will “destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land,” according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental’s planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn’t only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy’s plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

I hope you read that whole article John. You may wish to rethink your definition of “greediest elite.”

Wow. I’m amazed that this old chestnut has resurfaced. Really brings back old times!

Luis:
“But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.”

Al Gore had nothing to do with that sale — the govt. had been trying to unload that land since the Reagan administration, and when they finally did, the sale was competitively bid on and was handled by the Energy Dept.
The connection they’ve tried to make with Gore having something to do with Occidental making the highest bid is because his father obviously did own a little bit of stock in the company — stock which passed to his wife when he died.

From a New York Times article dated Sunday, 19 March 2000:

Mr. Gore’s connections to Occidental resurfaced this year after the company bought the federal government’s share of a huge oil field near Bakersfield, Calif., known as Elk Hills. The 47,000-acre tract was acquired by the government in 1912 to ensure that the Navy had plenty of oil reserves, but it was deemed no longer necessary.

The government had tried to sell Elk Hills since the Reagan administration, but succeeded only two years ago as part of Mr. Gore’s initiative to streamline the bureaucracy and “reinvent government.”

The Energy Department sold the property to Occidental for $3.65 billion in cash through a competitive bidding process that drew 22 offers. Department officials said Occidental’s price was twice the next-highest bid and double what the government had estimated. The sale was announced in October 1997 and completed in February 1998.

Questions were raised earlier this year about the extent of Mr. Gore’s role in the sale in a book, “The Buying of the President 2000,” by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington nonprofit organization.

Energy Department officials provided some records but declined to release the bid documents, saying they remain confidential.

Patricia Fry Godley, who oversaw the sale as an assistant secretary of the Energy Department, said Elk Hills had been put on the block because the Navy no longer needed its oil reserves. She said the selection had been made under the general orders of the “reinventing government” program, but that neither Mr. Gore nor anyone from his office had been involved in the choice of Elk Hills or its sale.

Records show other federal agencies had concerns about the sale. The Environmental Protection Agency complained to the Energy Department that the E.P.A. had insufficient information to assess the impact of the sale. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service questioned the impact of developing the oil field on several endangered species within the 47,000 acres.

Energy Department officials went ahead with the sale because they said they were under pressure to meet a sale deadline imposed by Congress and that all environmental concerns had been met before the deal was closed.

The Elk Hills purchase sent Occidental’s share price up about 10 percent at the time, which increased the value of stock held by Mr. Gore Sr. Since his death, the stock has remained in his estate, whose primary beneficiary is his wife. The vice president’s most recent financial disclosure report valued the stock at $250,000 to $500,000.

Mr. Gore is executor of the estate, but his aides say that he exercises no control over the stock in the estate and has never owned Occidental stock himself. But it is the estate holding that is making him a target of environmental groups protesting Occidental’s activities in Colombia.

Stephen Kretzmann of Amazon Watch, one of the groups, said Mr. Gore met with him and several other environmentalists last month. Mr. Kretzmann said Mr. Gore explained that he could not interfere in a Colombian internal issue or Occidental’s practices.

I’m on to you guys. You selectively enforce your “no personal attack” policy to ban all conservatives from commenting here, effectively making this a liberal echo chamber intended to discredit conservatism. Don’t believe me? Then why are there no conservatives commenting in here?

ericsimonson,

There you go again. It is NOT “exposing the views of the left” to take a quote from ONE PERSON and use it to try to villify ALL liberals. But that is EXACTLY what you’re doing. If you think it’s a valid tactic, then you would have no problem with me finding a quote from the Klu Klux Klan and using it to show how evil all conservatives are, would you?

I guess that’s the difference between the two of us. I wouldn’t stoop that low.

My advice for you Eric: Start your own blog or find one with a friendlier managing editor. You’re not going to get any back-up in here, because all the conservative commentors get banned, like yours truly. What we’re left with is so many liberal comments, it’s nearly impossible to respond to them all, giving them credibility by default. A useless enterprise under these conditions.

Matt Johnson:
“You’re not going to get any back-up in here, because all the conservative commentors get banned, like yours truly.”

If you were banned, it’s because you broke the “message not messenger” rule of this blog. Should that be changed just for those Conservatives who can’t help but attack people individually? Of course not - that would be entirely unfair.
But uh, how can you claim to be banned if you’re still posting?

Matt,

“My advice for you Eric: Start your own blog or find one with a friendlier managing editor. You?re not going to get any back-up in here, because all the conservative commentors get banned, like yours truly. What we?re left with is so many liberal comments, it?s nearly impossible to respond to them all, giving them credibility by default. A useless enterprise under these conditions.”

If the Reds were more capable of debating without spewing invective, or resorting to juvenile personal character asssasinations, they would stand a better chance of getting their opinions accross.

Doesn’t it make you wonder sometimes, how Jack or Dawn are able to invoke intellegent discussion without provoking the immature personal attacks that seem to be a greater part of many of the threads here?

How am I still posting? I’m posting from a different IP address. And come on, all these thinly veiled attacks, like suggesting Eric’s greedy head is up his ass and referring to our “hate machine” qualify as personal attacks if you ask me. I use provocative language, sure. I call people jackasses and nabobs and malcontents. I’ll admit that. But I feel that the editor is being very selective in how he enforces the rules. And the fact is, conservatives can be pretty reactionary. It makes our blood boil to see people obfuscate like the liberals in here do.

And all you guys are doing is attacking the messenger. Sure, it’s unfair to hold all liberals responsible for the comments of a few lunatics. But it’s these few lunatics that are the subject of the author’s post, not all liberals. You’re trying to cloud the issue. And the thing we’re supposed to be debating here are the merits of the arguments presented by Cindy sheehan and this other guy, who’s name I can’t recall at the moment. Scalliwag? No, that’s not it. Scahill, yeah that’s right. Anyway, it seems that the only thing we have established is that we all agree that very concept of New Orleans being a military occupation is absurd. Am I right?

I guess Gore Sr. position in the board of directors of Occi doesn’t make the Gore an oil family.

P.S. U’Wa.

Oh yeah, and to the managing editor. I’ve got something you can ban right here! (points to you know where)

“I guess Gore Sr. position in the board of directors of Occi doesn’t make the Gore an oil family.”

Gore Sr. is dead.

“The connection they’ve tried to make with Gore having something to do with Occidental making the highest bid is because his father obviously did own a little bit of stock in the company.”

Monday, August 14 — If there needs to be more proof (beyond cops in riot
gear and constant helicopter surveillance) that the protests surrounding the
Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles have scared government
authorities, then one must only look to the recent denial of visas to a
delegation of the U’wa people of Colombia. Leaders of the U’wa, a 5,000-member
tribe who live in the Colombian cloudforest, were denied entry visas today to
participate in a downtown Los Angeles rally and march, apparently because their
threats — to stop the Occidental Petroleum Company from drilling on their
homeland and, barring that, to commit collective suicide — are not good
publicity for Al Gore.

To put it mildly, the U’wa are a touchy issue for Gore. The presidential
candidate owns between $500,000 and $1 million in Occidental stock and his
father, Al Gore Sr., served as chair of the board for 28 years, earning an
annual salary of $500,000. The elder Gore was such a close political ally of the
company that Armand Hammer, Occidental’s founder and CEO, liked to say that he
had Gore “in my back pocket.”

For several years now, U’wa leaders and allies have urged the Vice President
to make good on his promises to protect the environment and divest from
Occidental Petroleum, but Gore has not responded to their pleas. Instead,
according to The Nation, the Clinton Administration has been quietly helping the
company with its Colombian drilling project, which in turn has been a generous
donor to the Democrats. Occidental believes the Samore area, where the U’wa
live, holds 1.4 billion barrels of oil, which at today’s prices would fetch
approximately $35 billion on international markets.

Gore Sr. certainly had more of a connection with Occi than owning a “little bit of stock”, wouldn’t you say?

If you hold the truth in such high esteem, why obfuscate it?

Al and Bill paid off the Colombian government in order to lift all legal blocks stopping Occi from drilling up the U’Wa’s land.

“Gore Sr. is dead.”

Which is how Gore Jr. came into all his “elitist” oil $$$.

“If you hold the truth in such high esteem, why obfuscate it?”

Since you are trying to hold the son guilty for what his father did, you are the one trying to obsfucate.

“Which is how Gore Jr. came into all his “elitist” oil $$$.”

The stock is in his mothers name. Gore owns no stock in Occidental.

Matt,

“It makes our blood boil to see people obfuscate like the liberals in here do.”

Where in this article that Eric quotes does it say that Sheehan, had spoken to or had the support of Howard Dean, except a mention of Trippi’s former relationship with Dean?

“Joe Trippi, the political consultant behind former Vermont governor Howard Dean’s early success in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary race, hosted a conference with Sheehan for liberal Internet bloggers, hoping their online dispatches will draw even wider attention.”

This is the only refference to Dean in the whole article.
Talk about trying to confuse the facts.

The far right pundits that try, through inuendo, to push forth opinion as fact, do even more to “obfuscate” the facts.

Eric says,

“Cindy Sheehan is a symbol, not of a new mass resistance to the war in Iraq, but of the left’s utter failure to come to grips with the fact that the far left’s views are now historic. Historic in the sense that a platform advocating Eugenics, or Communism, or National Socialism is historic. There are very few regular everyday Americans who would take such a platform seriously. Yet the Democratic party continues aligning itself closer and closer to it.”

Where are the facts that would support this baloney?
By throwing in the reference to Eugenics, he totaly confuses the issue with that same inuendo that I spoke of earlier.

Sheehan is entitled to her opinion. If she is capable of mustering support for her position, more power to her. The right does more to damage their position by their personal attacks on her than if they had just criticized her message.

To speak of her and to imply in the same breath that the vast majority of those that support her are also in support of Communism, Socialism, and Eugenics(?), is just wrong.

The point is Adrienne, that “elitists” run deep in BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and that the DNC has run two rather LARGE elitists the past two elections.

The left is POPULATED by society’s elite…high profile preformers, multi millionaires, etc.

The term “American royalty” is most often used when talking about a conerstone of the left.

“The stock is in his mothers name.”

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Officer, I swear that’s not my weed!

Rocky,
I just noticed that both “Matt” and “Luis” have misspelled the word obsfucate as “obfuscate”. Talk about obsfucating! They’re the same damn person. God I hate spammers with all their multiple personalities.

And I went with their spelling.

That’s not true at all! Luis is not me! I’ll not sit idly by and allow such accusations to stand. I am the same person as madmatt7g. But I am not Luis! Obsfucate is a very commonly misspelled word. I am not a spammer! My name is Matt Johnson and I hail from Muncie Indiana. I am a person, with an identity, and I don’t even know who this Luis guy is, and will not take credit for what he posts!

Notice, he spelled performers, “preformers.” I would never make a mistake like that! The very idea!

Oh, and Rocky. It’s spelled OBFUSCATE. I was right the first time. I knew I didn’t misspell that word. Very pretentious of you!
Here’s the proof:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/obfuscate

Adrienne,

I also have been banned from this site, but I took the more humble and time consuming way to get back.

I applied for re-instatement. You get one more chance, that’s it

Ha! Rocky sees proof of a conspiracy in the fact that we both spelled the word obfuscate correctly! Delightful! I must say that your Message is quite absurd! Not the messenger, dare I say it, but the message!

Matt,

“I must say that your Message is quite absurd! Not the messenger, dare I say it, but the message!”

The facts son, where are the facts?