Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
nibs:
you can't compare "liberals" to "republicans". "liberals" isn't a political party. most democrats with an actual voice and power are averse to calling themselves liberal. other than maybe ted kennedy.
democrats will probably run hillary clinton who is basically a bush light. compare her rhetoric or bill clinton's rhetoric to bush's rhetoric now or in 2000. eerily similar.
the democratic party cannot claim a moral high ground. they're comparably bad. "liberal" is some sort of meaningless ideal. and frankly, liberals can't claim a moral high ground here either. there have been many honestly mean spirted and hateful comments flung in the direction of george w bush from liberals. and he certainly deserves their ire and wrath. but i don't think there is any defineable group that can assume the absolute high ground here. it's almost childish to turn these arguments into moral arguments, which they are not.
finally, his comment was a joke.
you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.
Ant:
--- Quote from: nibs on March 03, 2005, 07:19:19 PM ---you can't compare "liberals" to "republicans". "liberals" isn't a political party. most democrats with an actual voice and power are averse to calling themselves liberal. other than maybe ted kennedy.
--- End quote ---
We have to use some sort of naming convention to refer to things. When this guy was referring to liberals I'm pretty sure he was also referring to democrats. Most people mangle the meaning of words like liberal, conservative, neo-con, democrat, republican, but at this point the meaning of these words is so distorted it seems silly to argue that when making comparisons between two parties I can't use the world 'liberal' and must say the word 'democrat' instead just like its silly to criticize someone for substituting conservative for republican or vice-versa. Its a silly semantic argument that is not applicable to online discourse.
--- Quote from: nibs on March 03, 2005, 07:19:19 PM ---democrats will probably run hillary clinton who is basically a bush light. compare her rhetoric or bill clinton's rhetoric to bush's rhetoric now or in 2000. eerily similar.
--- End quote ---
This often-used argument is always misguided. Its been argued that Clinton turned democrats into republicans time and time again, but while both Clintons are centrists to call either of them Bush-lite or republican-lite is ridiculous. People in general simply are not that similiar, and much of the criticism directed towards the Bush admistration concerns matters of execution. If my high school football team uses the same playbook as the patriots its certainly sounds silly to call the patriots "high-school football lite." The bush administration has a record of poor execution..... the tendency when speaking of politics to say "well these people ahve similiar opinions so they are the same" is foolish. First of all, the Clintons and the Bushes certainly have different opinions on some topics, but also theory is nothing with out practice.
--- Quote from: nibs on March 03, 2005, 07:19:19 PM ---the democratic party cannot claim a moral high ground. they're comparably bad. "liberal" is some sort of meaningless ideal. and frankly, liberals can't claim a moral high ground here either. there have been many honestly mean spirted and hateful comments flung in the direction of george w bush from liberals. and he certainly deserves their ire and wrath. but i don't think there is any defineable group that can assume the absolute high ground here. it's almost childish to turn these arguments into moral arguments, which they are not.
--- End quote ---
I agree both parties have done things that many would consider immoral. But you are comparing apples to oranges. You said liberals have said "mean spirited and hateful comments" about GWB. Well yes, that is true, average everday american citizens have said plenty of nasty things about GWB. But I was referring to an elected official. When an elected official behaves improperly you cannot justify his actions by saying "hey well joe down at the corner store said mean shit about bush last week." But in this case, you have an elected official joking that republicans should pay to have liberal citizens killed. A few weeks ago republicans were up in arms over dean's comment that "he hates republicans." I thought his coments were inappropriate at the time, and was sort of embarassed that he made them, but he certainly didn't go so far as to suggest that liberals should be paying to have republicans killed.
--- Quote from: nibs on March 03, 2005, 07:19:19 PM ---finally, his comment was a joke.
--- End quote ---
yes it was a joke, that much is obvious. But what exactly does that matter? If I made jokes about 'blacks' 'jews' or 'spics' that were obviously hateful do I get to say "hey well it was just a joke." There is no rule that says "you can say anything you want as long as its said in the form of a joke"
--- Quote from: nibs on March 03, 2005, 07:19:19 PM ---you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.
--- End quote ---
this is not news.
nibs:
Ant:
We have to use some sort of naming convention to refer to things.
i think it makes more sense to contrast "liberals" with "conservatives" than "liberals" with "republicans".
This often-used argument is always misguided. Its been argued that Clinton turned democrats into republicans time and time again, but while both Clintons are centrists to call either of them Bush-lite or republican-lite is ridiculous. People in general simply are not that similiar, and much of the criticism directed towards the Bush admistration concerns matters of execution.
it's not ridiculous. i don't understand why "liberals" give the clintons a pass and hold them to such high exultation; however when you contrast the bushian and clintonian policies the two aren't that far apart.
let's look at some clinton policies:
nafta - this isn't liberal, this undermined environmental concerns as well as labor and workers issues. clinton and bush are very close on trade issues.
media deregulation - you hear liberals complaining all the time about how a small group of individuals control the media; bill clinton was a big part of this, relaxing restrictions that dictated how many and what types of media outlets an entity can control in a market place
welfare "reform" - this was largely criticized because of the limitations it placed on how long people can receive benefits
defense spending - privatization and the military industrial complex grew steadily under clinton as he continued programs started under g h w bush and dick cheney sec of defense.
the clinton administration is often blamed for the selling out of the democratic party to corporate america to boost fund raising.
clinton and bush use the same rhetoric, support the same agenda's, bush's policies are simply much much worse. this is why i label clinton "bush lite". it's not like clintonian policies starkly contrast with bushian policies.
If my high school football team uses the same playbook as the patriots its certainly sounds silly to call the patriots "high-school football lite."
of course not. your high school would be patriots-lite. your high school is the one doing the copying. just like how many high schools have embraced june jones/ mouse davis' run & shoot offense, after it's successes at the collegiate and pro levels.
The bush administration has a record of poor execution...
the bush administration has actually had pretty good execution. just poor policies.
But you are comparing apples to oranges. You said liberals have said "mean spirited and hateful comments" about GWB. Well yes, that is true, average everday american citizens have said plenty of nasty things about GWB. But I was referring to an elected official.
people play hardball politics. both sides get their hands dirty. barbara boxer told condi that her loyalty to the administration overwhelmed her respect for the truth. basically calling her a flat out liar to her face.
After a union rally in Chicago, Illinois, on Wednesday Kerry told a worker that "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."
Kerry, who was on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Congressional Democrats, he told CNN, "I didn't say it about the Republicans, I said it about the attack dogs."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/kerry.comment/
and those are true statements. but still mean spirited.
When an elected official behaves improperly you cannot justify his actions by saying "hey well joe down at the corner store said mean shit about bush last week."
i'm saying his policies are not inconsistent with his peers. they all get their hands dirty. many of these elected officials are not honarable people.
But in this case, you have an elected official joking that republicans should pay to have liberal citizens killed.
that's a gross exxaggeration of what this guy actually said.
A few weeks ago republicans were up in arms over dean's comment that "he hates republicans." I thought his coments were inappropriate at the time, and was sort of embarassed that he made them, but he certainly didn't go so far as to suggest that liberals should be paying to have republicans killed.
i don't see why you were embarassed with dean's comments. let dean stand up for his own comments. and again you are exxaggerating about what this guy said.
he was calling the liberals hypocrites. he was suggesting that people willing to die to protect a dictator with a hideous human rights track record would be dying in vain and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions. this is a mean spirited thing to say, yes. but it's not like saying "we should have them assassinated" which is the equivalent of what you said.
yes it was a joke, that much is obvious. But what exactly does that matter?
it matters because you are overstating the significance and meaning of his joke.
If I made jokes about 'blacks' 'jews' or 'spics' that were obviously hateful do I get to say "hey well it was just a joke."
he didn't make a racial or ethnic joke. he was basically making a "stupid" joke, as in "if these people are too stupid to realize they are risking their lives for a cause not worth that commitment level, why stand in their way"
and that is not a racist attitude. your metaphor breaks down because it is not the same.
There is no rule that says "you can say anything you want as long as its said in the form of a joke"
i never said there was. i agree with you there.
you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.
this is not news.
they aren't divorced from reality then.
nibs:
--- Quote from: Ant on March 02, 2005, 05:42:08 PM ---Excerpts from a speech by republican Jim Gibbons... member of house of representatives.
--- End quote ---
he plagiarized the fucking speech
http://www.elkodaily.com/articles/2005/03/03/news/local/news1.txt
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3033323&nav=168XX7U0
it's from some alabama chick:
http://www.bethchapman.com/thespeech.html
hateful and unoriginal. lol!!!
Ant:
I'm not going to reargue this whole thing point-by-point but a few clarifications:
your high school would be patriots-lite. your high school is the one doing the copying.
It depends on the point you are trying to make with an analogy. My point was a) Clinton could execute better than Bush just like the Patriots can execute their plays better than a high-school team using the same playbook and b) Bush was the one who originally tried to copy Clintons centrism with his whole 'compassionate conservative' bit of course it turned out to be bullshit. So yes if you are ranking people on their capacity for poor policy making then Clinton is Bush-Lite in that regard, but I was making a different comparison.
the bush administration has actually had pretty good execution. just poor policies
If that is your opinion then this point seems to be beyond argument. But a few reminders:
1. Iraq cost 200 Billion so far... we were told it would cost 87$ billion and we would make our money back in one year.
2. We were told the Iraqis would welcome us with open-arms... instead 2 years after the war is over we have 800 injuries per month and about a hundred deaths.
3. We were told we had to cut taxes to avoid an exessive surplus and to save us from recession... instead we've destroyed the value of the dollar and at least according to a few economists we've significantly increased the risk of a global financial crisis
4. We were told the president doesn't believe in nation building only to later be told nation building is the centerpiece of his second term agenda.
5. We were told the U.N. was wrong, the inspectors were wrong, and the whole world would eventually realize we were right about Iraq. Instead we were wrong and anti-americanism as at a record high.
exactly what have they executed well?
people play hardball politics. both sides get their hands dirty. barbara boxer told condi that her loyalty to the administration overwhelmed her respect for the truth. basically calling her a flat out liar to her face.
Many would argue that statement is grounded in truth. Of course even if it is complete BS it is a lot different than going out and gettin republicans all riled up about liberals being shot to death in Iraq. If you want to read the recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine they have a lengthy article addressing the relationship between Bush and Condi. Boxer isnt the only one in Washington to share that sentiment. Same goes for Kerry's comment... calling people crooked or joking about sponsoring their death is a lot different.
he was calling the liberals hypocrites. he was suggesting that people willing to die to protect a dictator with a hideous human rights track record would be dying in vain and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions. this is a mean spirited thing to say, yes. but it's not like saying "we should have them assassinated" which is the equivalent of what you said.
hence my statement that republicans/conservatives are divorced from reality. I'm unaware of any 'liberals' or democrats that want to use themselves as human shields to protect iraqi insurgents. democrats and liberals do not support the enemy. to suggest they do is absolutely absurd.
i don't see why you were embarassed with dean's comments. let dean stand up for his own comments. and again you are exxaggerating about what this guy said.
I was embarassed/upset with deans comments because given the pitiful state of our republican party, and the two party nature of the american political system I am more inclined to support democrats than republicans. However, I agree with conservatives on a number of issues and I disagree with liberals on a number of issues. Am I right in alll my beliefs? Probably not. But if I'm going to choose to support the democratic party I'd rather not hear democratic leaders saying things like "I hate republicans and everythign they stand for." I think its immature to think that your side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and if that is the attitude of a democratic leader than I find that upsetting given my support of his party.
it matters because you are overstating the significance and meaning of his joke.
That's an obvious matter of opinion. You seem to think the joke was acceptable because he was making fun of liberals who "wanted to use themsleves as human shields to save saddam and defend our enemies" In reality, he was making up stuff about liberals so that he could say hateful things about the other half of american society. There are no (or perhaps very few, but I'm unaware of any) liberals or democarts who want to use themselves as human shields to save saddam.
he didn't make a racial or ethnic joke... your metaphor breaks down because it is not the same.
It is obvious that he wasn't making a racial joke. How could he possibly have been. But racial jokes are hateful, and his joke was hateful. That was my point. Its irresponsible for a politician to make hateful comments towards an entire segment of american society.
you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.
this is not news.
they aren't divorced from reality then.
Since when does majority opinion dictate truth and reality? 90% of children under the age of 6 think santa claus visits them. Does that mean santa claus is real?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version