Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
In a perhaps futile attempt to divert the Board's attention from turkey-related bickering, does anybody have any thoughts about this Geneva Accord Isreali-Palestine peace agreement?

Yes. It is currently unworkable just like the other 1007 plans for the middle east. A legitimate peace agreement cannot be reached, at a minimum, until Araphat is gone.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed, but why is it fair for you to mock the national guard?

It isn't fair, but that's not really what I'm doing.

Remember also that the role of the NG in the 1960's - 1980s wasn't like the role of the NG now in Iraq. The post-Cold War restructuring of our military has greatly increased the role/active service/pressure on the Reserve and the NG.

The focus of my opprobrium is not the Guard itself, but those individuals who, when faced with the risk of being called to serve our nation in war (a) jump into Guard units that are nearly 100% certain not to deploy into harm's way (e.g., Quayle and Bush), and (b) then come out the other side as conservative uber-patriots and all-around tough guys (e.g. the same). I find folks like Cheney -- who didn't even go into the Guard, but ended up in the same role afterwards -- somewhat worse.

To complete the list -- Bush's apparent failure as a young man to complete his NG obligation kicks him a few notches down that pole in my view, and Clinton's machinations in that regard were simply embarassing. Note that, in my view, military service is not required -- but standing up and being counted honestly in a critical time should be required. I have much more respect for those who demonstrated in the streets on the other side and/or took conscientious objector status than I do for the so-called "chickenhawks".

P.S. Part of it may also be the residuum of the unkind (and often unfair) attitude that active duty soldiers traditionally take towards the competence, toughness, etc. of the national Guardsmen (the old joke is that NG stands for "No Good").

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes. It is currently unworkable just like the other 1007 plans for the middle east. A legitimate peace agreement cannot be reached, at a minimum, until Araphat is gone.

Peace will not occur in the Middle East until something is done about the anti-semitism rampant in the Arab world.

The majority of Arabs not only want to see the complete destruction of Israel, they want to see all jews everywhere dead. The problem in the Middle East isn't Israel; the problem is the virulent anti-semitism that is widespread in the Arab world.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
My friend, surely we are holding different parts of the same elephant. I am at the front end, looking the elephant in the eye, and holding the trunk. You think you have the trunk, and yet you're at the opposite end of the beast. I post links to the trunk all the time, and I invite you regularly to link to the part of the elephant you are groping, but you are content simply to tell us all how wonderful your end of the elephant is. Which is your birthright, because you are an American. But don't kid yourself that you have some special revealed wisdom -- you may find yourself standing at the wrong end of an elephant.



Likewise, I say this in a friendly way.

This was pretty good.

No, check that - this was very good.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus takes a story that the turkey Bush is holding STANDING NEXT TO ACTUAL SOLDIERS, wasn't really served to those soldiers, and extrapolates that Bush governs by photo op. I cite one example of governing not by photo op.

Let's look at the tape, shall we? [The contents of your screen have been modified to provide emphasis.]

No, it's not. I would want the GOP faction to call bullshit when they see a Dem president governing by photo op, because if no one calls bullshit it will quickly subsume the entire role of the presidency (the media being what it is --- lazy, and the public being what it is --- um, "visually oriented," to put it charitably). Of course, that's not all of what Bush does in a given day, but using gobs of taxpayer money to create situations so the President (whoever it may be) can present a particular image is not in the best traditions of this country. It reduces all leadership to campaigning, with the party in power having the advantage of staging more dramatic backdrops for its candidate.

If the opposition party didn't call bullshit on excessive use of these things, the President might as well close the Oval Office and instead conduct the nation's business on a rotating basis on the deck of an aircraft carrier, on a factory line, and in an elementary school classroom.

I think all fakeness should be blown open to the maximum degree by the media. Whether that means pointing out that a vial of crack used in a policy speech was not actually purchased 300 yards from the White House, or pointing out that the turkey the President was portrayed offering to the troops was in fact thrown away uneaten, embarassment for disclosure of an appearance/reality departure is the only thing politicians have left to fear.

I pointed out one occasion that was inarguably a photo op. Not the entire trip, but the ceremonial presentation of food that was not in fact food. For the cameras. I also noted that this is not all of what Bush does. The extrapolation from this that "Bush {currently} governs by photo op" is yours, not mine. I pointed out an occasion on which it occurred, and thanked the media for pointing out what in particular was fake about it, because doing so stops photo ops from subsuming the entire role of the presidency. Is the media overstepping bounds by saying "The following things about the photograph you see are not real"?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't get my "media is ignoring it" rant, either. I don't even remember it! What did I say?

You're right. You didn't say that at all. Hank frequently, and Bilmore sometimes, reflexively respond to what they _think_ you must have said, because it is post by Tyrone.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch The extrapolation from this that "Bush {currently} governs by photo op" is yours, not mine.

Perhaps, but i read it differently. My post you now quote was a defense from a rabid attack; that I had turned the turkey story into some Nuremburg rally to celebrate the brave President Bush. Of course, I did need to respond, and provided the charecterization of your post that I did. My charecterization of your post? - collateral damage. In the end, you should blame the rabid, not the one bit. You guys control her, not me.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I guess I misread

Yes, completely. Ty said NOT that "the press isn't covering it - they should be all over the story" -- he was saying that the only interetsing part here is that it shows reporters getting PO'd (probably unfairly) at being handled by the Administration.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yes, completely. Ty said NOT that "the press isn't covering it - they should be all over the story" -- he was saying that the only interetsing part here is that it shows reporters getting PO'd (probably unfairly) at being handled by the Administration.

S_A_M

I'm first to admit my education was second rate, but i do genrally understand thoughts put forth in simple declarative english. Was there some "white type" cloaking in Ty's post or something?

the Dean quotes from yesterday; on your computers is there like a George McGovern image winking at you while you read them? are you guys having us on?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It isn't fair, but that's not really what I'm doing.

Remember also that the role of the NG in the 1960's - 1980s wasn't like the role of the NG now in Iraq. The post-Cold War restructuring of our military has greatly increased the role/active service/pressure on the Reserve and the NG.

The focus of my opprobrium is not the Guard itself, but those individuals who, when faced with the risk of being called to serve our nation in war (a) jump into Guard units that are nearly 100% certain not to deploy into harm's way (e.g., Quayle and Bush), and (b) then come out the other side as conservative uber-patriots and all-around tough guys (e.g. the same). I find folks like Cheney -- who didn't even go into the Guard, but ended up in the same role afterwards -- somewhat worse.

To complete the list -- Bush's apparent failure as a young man to complete his NG obligation kicks him a few notches down that pole in my view, and Clinton's machinations in that regard were simply embarassing. Note that, in my view, military service is not required -- but standing up and being counted honestly in a critical time should be required. I have much more respect for those who demonstrated in the streets on the other side and/or took conscientious objector status than I do for the so-called "chickenhawks".

P.S. Part of it may also be the residuum of the unkind (and often unfair) attitude that active duty soldiers traditionally take towards the competence, toughness, etc. of the national Guardsmen (the old joke is that NG stands for "No Good").

S_A_M

Fair enough, but I think military service as a prerequisite for being president is, since Clinton, losing its luster. And I would submit that it really won't be an issue going forward, though I understand your point regarding hypocricy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Fringey, no complaints about this kind of post?

Oh, sorry. Wrong ox.

Fuck off. I was busy doing shit besides hanging out on the board. And if you look, I bitched at Atticus (but not as much because it was last night, not this morning, and I was in a more pleasant mood last night) and SAM as well as at club (I think it was him) and Hank.

so you can suck my left one, asshole.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Fuck off. I was busy doing shit besides hanging out on the board. And if you look, I bitched at Atticus (but not as much because it was last night, not this morning, and I was in a more pleasant mood last night) and SAM as well as at club (I think it was him) and Hank.

so you can suck my left one, asshole.

Wait, don't you have multiple left ones (assuming you are a cuddly girl kitten)? THis also is not a nice sentiment, sweetie. THe offer is fine, but the delivery is a bit terse.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop President Dispenses Fake Turkey is not a great American story, let alone a great AMERICAN story.

I haven't read the news today, but what is all this about Bush and a fake turkey? By the way, can you spot the fake turkey?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Wait, don't you have multiple left ones (assuming you are a cuddly girl kitten)? THis also is not a nice sentiment, sweetie. THe offer is fine, but the delivery is a bit terse.

I have decided that the niceness does not extend to posters whose posts I abhor. Particularly when such posters accuse me of things I haven't done in a snarky condescending way.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I have decided that the niceness does not extend to posters whose posts I abhor. Particularly when such posters accuse me of things I haven't done in a snarky condescending way.

"Haven't done"? As in, you haven't been decrying conservative rants and agreeing with liberal rants? You haven't been decrying tone when what is really bothering you is content? Bullshit.

This is what a politics board is. You need to find a board on which everyone takes turn praising each other's candidates and exchanging bread recipes. I'm not sure this here is good for your emotional health.