Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do I get that deal too, or is it just for Wonk?

Only for him.. I'm in-house now, so the supply is limited.

Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. I don't hate Bush. I don't think I'd like him personally, and I think his policies are wrong for the country, but hate is a strong word and I don't think it applies. I'd rather Iraq looked like Connecticut and Bush was coasting with a 30-point lead in the polls, but I don't think it's just happenstance that we don't find ourselves in that situation. Fuck you for debasing what ties us together as Americans and exploiting it for narrow political purposes. Fuck you for thinking that you political party has some sort of monopoly on love of country. Fuck you for being so caught up in the political fight here that you can't even see that you are doing what you condemn.

I can see clearly what I condemn. I condemn people who, for political gain, are willing to attack, and maybe stop, the progress that was expected to be slow and gradual, but has turned out to be slow and gradual. I condemn people who, for the sake of their candidate, are willing to turn public opinion against a long, hard fight, and are willing to do so on the public basis that it's been a long and hard fight.

Fuck you, too. This is why your choices cannot, and should not, prevail. Oh, poor us, it's taken more than a few months, and LOOK, bad guys are still fighting!, and so it's a failure.

It's not a failure. Just to remind you, National Geographic said, five to seven million murdered during your sanctions. That's what you're protesting - the ending of a holocaust. Take that position seriously? Not a chance. What won't you do to get Kerry in place?

. . . . . .

Okay, we have to tone this down. I don't seriously think, fuck you Ty. I don't think you do, either. I apologize if you thought I was, or am, saying that. (Edit - wrong words - ) I apologize for saying that. . . . . . But, damn, I do feel strongly about this. I know you do too. Is there any chance for dialogue between the factions anymore?

(Edit again) - I don't have a horse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can see clearly what I condemn. I condemn people who, for political gain, are willing to attack, and maybe stop, the progress that was expected to be slow and gradual, but has turned out to be slow and gradual. I condemn people who, for the sake of their candidate, are willing to turn public opinion against a long, hard fight, and are willing to do so on the public basis that it's been a long and hard fight.

Here again, what you "see" is attacks calculated for political gain. Look, it's no secret what my politics are, but that's because of where the Democrats stand on my issues, not vice versa. I've been in contexts where I disagreed with most of the lefties, and I can live with that, too.

If you going to start with the assumption that the other side is saying what they're saying merely for political gain, then you ought to be questioning our patriotism. If that's what you think, why be coy.

There are a lot of Dems who supported the invasion and but have recently turned against the Bush Iraq policy, and have come to think that the invasion was a mistake. Many of the bloggers I link to most frequently fall into this category, including Marshall, Drum, and Yglesias, just to name a few. You probably think that these folks have decided to change their tune because it's campaign season.

It's particularly galling to hear this crap when Bush has used the war on terror and Iraq as a political stick for two and a half years. The flip-flop on Homeland Defense and then the use of it against Dems in the 2002 elections. Landing on the carrier in a flight suit and using troops as a backdrop at every chance. The suggestion that if you criticize his policies you aid and abet the enemy -- nauseating. It goes on and on. You guys seem to have a blind eye for this stuff. There was this terrific national unity after 9/11, and by and large Bush squandered and exploited it. I don't hate him for, but "let down" doesn't begin to capture it.

Fuck you, too. This is why your choices cannot, and should not, prevail. Oh, poor us, it's taken more than a few months, and LOOK, bad guys are still fighting!, and so it's a failure.

You have to admit that things have gone poorly. Not. According. To. Plan. About exactly a year ago, Richard Perle was suggesting that by this time, there'd be a square in Baghdad named after a President Bush. So let's just say we're a little behind schedule.

If you can't see this, then I can see why you'd be perplexed by criticism of the President. If everything is peachy, the carping must be partisan.

It's not a failure. Just to remind you, National Geographic said, five to seven million murdered during your sanctions. That's what you're protesting - the ending of a holocaust. Take that position seriously? Not a chance. What won't you do to get Kerry in place?

It's not a failure yet. But it looks more and more like one every day. There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that we can all be glad that Hussein is gone. That is not, and never was the question. But I say this fortnightly, and you never seem to get this. You keep coming back to this "soft on Hitler" sort of crap. This is the real world.

And I just don't find that National Geographic number credible. The population of Iraq in 1997 was about 22 million. He killed a third to a fourth of the population? Um, no.

In fact, I suspect that more people have died since we started shooting than would have died had we done nothing. Of course this isn't the final answer to anything, but while we're kicking around the many deaths ignored, how about all the people we've killed? I can't point you to a number, because we didn't count, but we're talking many thousands.

Okay, we have to tone this down. I don't seriously think, fuck you Ty. I don't think you do, either. I apologize if you thought I was, or am, saying that. (Edit - wrong words - ) I apologize for saying that. . . . . . But, damn, I do feel strongly about this. I know you do too. Is there any chance for dialogue between the factions anymore?

Done. Toned down.

If you want dialogue, it starts with respecting in good faith the views on the other side. Accusing Dems of wanting our country to lose a war because it will benefit our party is Not Showing That Respect. Try again.

I don't have a horse.

That smell must be something else, then.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you going to start with the assumption that the other side is saying what they're saying merely for political gain, then you ought to be questioning our patriotism. If that's what you think, why be coy.

I'm stuck here with the question of, what is patriotism? I think the answer is, wishing for a good outcome for our country. I understand that winning wars is the easy answer to this - but I also understand that the eventual alignment of the rest of the world can also be good, or bad, for our country. So, I'm left with the idea that "patriotism" means, necessarily, agreeing with my views as to how to accomplish all of that. Back when Kerry was being his antiwar self, I thought he was being a great patriot - fighting for the vision he - and I - had of how our country should fit in with the rest of the world. (I've since decided that he, like me, was wrong at that point.) I can accept divergent views of how we should progress as patriotic. I could accept a Leiberman's fight to limit the war, and bring in the world, as patriotic.

I can't accept Kerry's views that way. I've known Kerry since I was fifteen, and he's always stood for . . . Kerry. I think he's unprincipled. I can accept divergent principles easier than I can accept a lack of them. He's a pollster at heart. He will do whatever he thinks is needed to win. Why is he a "good closer"? Because, in many of his races, he finally comes to a position in the last days, or he even reverses positions in those day, to win. And then, he acts differently than he indicated he would act. He doesn't serve his country, as I think a patriot should. He serves himself. There's no patriotism in Kerry.

There are a lot of Dems who supported the invasion and but have recently turned against the Bush Iraq policy . . .

I disagree. The public outcry against the invasion followed about the same numbers we see today.

It's particularly galling to hear this crap when Bush has used the war on terror and Iraq as a political stick for two and a half years. The flip-flop on Homeland Defense and then the use of it against Dems in the 2002 elections. Landing on the carrier in a flight suit and using troops as a backdrop at every chance. The suggestion that if you criticize his policies you aid and abet the enemy -- nauseating. It goes on and on. You guys seem to have a blind eye for this stuff. There was this terrific national unity after 9/11, and by and large Bush squandered and exploited it. I don't hate him for, but "let down" doesn't begin to capture it.

All I can say is, I think he's much less sophisticated about this stuff than you do. I think he just does what he thinks is right. If he was political, he would never have invaded Iraq. Think about it - if he had merely gone into Afg., and won there, he'd be on top of the world right now. Going into Iraq guaranteed that he'd be vilified by a big pile of people. But, he thought it was right. I think you can attack the correctness, but to accuse him of playing politics with the invasion is sort of dumb. He'd be at 80% had he not done that.

You have to admit that things have gone poorly. Not. According. To. Plan. About exactly a year ago, Richard Perle was suggesting that by this time, there'd be a square in Baghdad named after a President Bush. So let's just say we're a little behind schedule. . . . . It's not a failure yet. But it looks more and more like one every day. There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that we can all be glad that Hussein is gone. That is not, and never was the question. But I say this fortnightly, and you never seem to get this. You keep coming back to this "soft on Hitler" sort of crap. This is the real world.

Did you read the blog? Do you read other in-Iraq blogs? I sincerely question your theme here.

And I just don't find that National Geographic number credible. The population of Iraq in 1997 was about 22 million. He killed a third to a fourth of the population? Um, no.

It's in line with other estimates, and NG isn't a real partisan hack group. Heck, Rather has said good things about it.

In fact, I suspect that more people have died since we started shooting than would have died had we done nothing.

Don't go there. We're keeping this civil.

Of course this isn't the final answer to anything, but while we're kicking around the many deaths ignored, how about all the people we've killed? I can't point you to a number, because we didn't count, but we're talking many thousands.

Yeah, those suicide bombers of ours are a real pain. C'mon, we're offering them a chance for democratic governance. The only people fighting this are the ones opposed to letting the people choose who leads them. If we fight too gently, you say we're losing badly. If we fight too hard, and the civilian cost goes up, you say we're murderers. Exactly how hard should we fight? We're eager to know this.

If you want dialogue, it starts with respecting in good faith the views on the other side. Accusing Dems of wanting our country to lose a war because it will benefit our party is Not Showing That Respect. Try again.

It's hard, after months and months of "he LIED!!" following what I thought were good-faith moves by Bush, and your complete acceptance of the crowning of King Moore. There's not much good-faith belief left for the liberal wing at this point. I've been called a lying asshole too many times to now merely bury the sword that quickly. You seem to expect me to live to a standard that you never felt the need of. My fear is that there is now so much bitterness and hatred - yeah, hatred - between the groups that things are never going to be amicable again. It's always going to be "those lying thieving assholes", when both sides truly have worthwhile things to say.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've known Kerry since I was fifteen, and he's always stood for . . . Kerry. I think he's unprincipled. I can accept divergent principles easier than I can accept a lack of them.

I haven't known Kerry since I was 15, but I agree with your characterization of him. He stands for nothing but himself. Ty knows that but hates the fact that the Dems are out of power (in all 3 branches of government) so much, that he will cling to obviously forged documents in a pathetic attempt to to discredit GWB to win back power for the Dems. That I can't respect. That is like Gloria Stienem saying it was OK for Clinton to rip Kathleen Wiley's blouse because he gets one free grope. Not to mention completeling ignoring that he raped and punched Wanita Broderick in the face

I have seen nothing but partisanship and hypocrisy from Ty. His behavior qualifies as unpatriotic because he cares more that his party regains power than he cares about the good of the country. It is all about who is in power. That I can't respect.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore .
All I can say is, I think he's much less sophisticated about this stuff than you do. I think he just does what he thinks is right. If he was political, he would never have invaded Iraq. Think about it - if he had merely gone into Afg., and won there, he'd be on top of the world right now. Going into Iraq guaranteed that he'd be vilified by a big pile of people. But, he thought it was right. I think you can attack the correctness, but to accuse him of playing politics with the invasion is sort of dumb. He'd be at 80% had he not done that.

2. GWB is your typical simpleton who is a member of an organized religion. But compare that to Kerry. A man who only cares about what is good for Kerry. The only person more self-centered than John Kerry is his wife.

[bilmore]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
2. GWB is your typical simpleton who is a member of an organized religion.

I don't think that simpletons get to the presidency of the United States. I think that he is fairly open, and transparent, and certainly not nuanced. But not a simpleton.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Atticus, I'd ask you to take responsibility for the position of your candidate, if I could only figure out what his position is.

How are any of the quoted statements inconsistent with (1) states have a right to permit or ban gay marriage; (2) I personally believe we should not call it gay marriage, and would vote against any initiative to call it gay "marriage," but that's a done deal in my own state; (3) the Constitution says what it says about full faith and credit, and Congress has no power to change it; and (4) I am opposed to the Amendment because it (a.) amends the Constitution; (b.) intrudes on state family law; and (c.) bans civil unions?

This is pretty close to my own position, except I would insist that we stop having any government, state or federal, call the union between man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, "marriage." As far as the government is concerned, we're all domestic partners and joint filers, period.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

This was a good passage:

• As frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. When someone detonates a suicide bomb, that person does not have career prospects.
  
  And no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an air force.

It is not just the weapon of losers. It is the weapon of Islam. We will prevail because Islam is vile in its teachings. Islam will either abandon and modify the teachings of that foul pedophile muhammad, or it will be crushed. By the good people. You are either with us or against us.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think that simpletons get to the presidency of the United States. I think that he is fairly open, and transparent, and certainly not nuanced.

That is my definition of a simpleton. If want to argue semantics with me, bilmore, see you in court. I argue claim construction for a living. Praise be to Markman.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can't accept Kerry's views that way. I've known Kerry since I was fifteen, and he's always stood for . . . Kerry. I think he's unprincipled.

Brooks agrees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/op...brooks.html?hp

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is pretty close to my own position, except I would insist that we stop having any government, state or federal, call the union between man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, "marriage." As far as the government is concerned, we're all domestic partners and joint filers, period.

I would go even further. Government get out of the marriage business. There should be no government derived benefits and no government imposed penalities associated with whom you choose to spend your time. The only exception is when children are the product of a union, the child's interest is the only thing that should control and the government should enforce it as necessary.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is my definition of a simpleton. If want to argue semantics with me, bilmore, see you in court. I argue claim construction for a living. Praise be to Markman.

The best part about Markman is that, if you think you've been in front of an idiot, you can always go de novo in front of somebody smarter.

I think that sums up Bush's religious views, too.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
The best part about Markman is that, if you think you've been in front of an idiot, you can always go de novo in front of somebody smarter.

I think that sums up Bush's religious views, too.

What if Newman is on the panel? What if God is like Newman????

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm stuck here with the question of, what is patriotism? I think the answer is, wishing for a good outcome for our country. I understand that winning wars is the easy answer to this - but I also understand that the eventual alignment of the rest of the world can also be good, or bad, for our country. So, I'm left with the idea that "patriotism" means, necessarily, agreeing with my views as to how to accomplish all of that.

I think you missed a couple of steps in between your next-to-last and last sentences. There are some respects in which left and right differ about how the world should be aligned, and fundamental disagreements about the best means.

Back when Kerry was being his antiwar self, I thought he was being a great patriot - fighting for the vision he - and I - had of how our country should fit in with the rest of the world. (I've since decided that he, like me, was wrong at that point.) I can accept divergent views of how we should progress as patriotic. I could accept a Leiberman's fight to limit the war, and bring in the world, as patriotic.

You weren't challenging Kerry's patriotism. You were challenging Democrats. If "changing the tone" means dumping on Kerry and not saying what you think about the rest of us, OK.

I can't accept Kerry's views that way. I've known Kerry since I was fifteen, and he's always stood for . . . Kerry. I think he's unprincipled. I can accept divergent principles easier than I can accept a lack of them. He's a pollster at heart. He will do whatever he thinks is needed to win. Why is he a "good closer"? Because, in many of his races, he finally comes to a position in the last days, or he even reverses positions in those day, to win. And then, he acts differently than he indicated he would act. He doesn't serve his country, as I think a patriot should. He serves himself. There's no patriotism in Kerry.

Look, I'm not going to defend Kerry, for a whole host of reasons. Suffice it for now to say that the same sort of things can be said against Bush. He makes principled noises, but his actions lack principles. Fallujah is only the most recent example. Just as I'm not going to defend Kerry, I don't expect you to bother to defend Bush. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. And there is no one involved in politics who is not in it, in part, for the wrong reasons. Surely a conservative needn't be told that. But it's a long way from there to questioning the other side's patriotism.

I disagree. The public outcry against the invasion followed about the same numbers we see today.

I don't know polling numbers, but I do know that a lot of the Dems whose views I value were in favor of the war and have come to see that as a mistake.

All I can say is, I think he's much less sophisticated about this stuff than you do. I think he just does what he thinks is right. If he was political, he would never have invaded Iraq. Think about it - if he had merely gone into Afg., and won there, he'd be on top of the world right now. Going into Iraq guaranteed that he'd be vilified by a big pile of people. But, he thought it was right. I think you can attack the correctness, but to accuse him of playing politics with the invasion is sort of dumb. He'd be at 80% had he not done that.

I don't think he invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq for political reasons, nor did I say so, but it's fairly transparent that he's done a bunch of things for political reasons, and he's certainly not shy about exploiting them that way, either. I note you don't address any of the examples I did give. But the specifics aren't the point. You are accusing Democrats of wishing ill upon the nation for political reasons, while we feel very strongly that this President has exploited policy that way. I don't really want to discuss the examples of it, because we have these conversations on the board and you guys just refuse to see it.

Did you read the blog? Do you read other in-Iraq blogs? I sincerely question your theme here.

Yes I did, but he's one man, and he's standing very close to a particular part of the elephant. I hope he's right, but I don't think so. In this, I believe I am being conservative in the traditional sense. It used to be that conservatives were skeptical about the government's ability to effect social change in a net-beneficial way. With Iraq, this sort of conservatism has gone out the window.

It's in line with other estimates, and NG isn't a real partisan hack group. Heck, Rather has said good things about it.

I don't think it is. I hardly think NG is a bunch of hacks, but that's out of line with what else I've seen. I hope I'm right, but I certainly may be wrong. The question, in any event, is one of degree, and -- like I said -- we agree that Hussein was a bad man.

I don't overlook that Hussein is a bad man. But I think Iraq -- politically, economically, culturally, religiously -- is disposed to produce bad men who do bad things. The country has strong forces pulling it apart, and I'm afraid that it takes some brutality to hold it together. So I'm probably more likely that Hussein is closer to what we're going to be left with at the end of the day than you are. Let's have that conversation instead of this snide crap about ignoring the holocaust.

Don't go there. We're keeping this civil.

Are you kidding me? If you want to talk about the war, you can't just say it's impolite or something to talk about the people we killed. For the love of God.

Yeah, those suicide bombers of ours are a real pain. C'mon, we're offering them a chance for democratic governance. The only people fighting this are the ones opposed to letting the people choose who leads them. If we fight too gently, you say we're losing badly. If we fight too hard, and the civilian cost goes up, you say we're murderers. Exactly how hard should we fight? We're eager to know this.

I don't think that you or I or many Americans have a very good handle on why so many Iraqs want to kill Americans, but the reasons almost certainly include nationalism, religious extremism, and jockeying for political control within the country. I would put moral opposition to democracy way down at the bottom of the list. I think less of the President for repeatedly suggesting that this is the insurgents' motivation, and every time he says it I worry that he actually believes it. I don't think there are actually very many people in the world who are willing to blow themselves up to stop democratic elections, and you need more than a few of them to get to where we are now in Iraq.

I didn't criticize the President for pulling back in Fallujah -- I said I thought the first decision was wrong and the second was right, more or less. So accusing me of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is a load of crap. If you want to have a civil dialogue with someone on the other side about Iraq, you're going to have to listen to what they actually say about stuff, and not respond to straw men.

And why do you give a shit what I or anyone else says about how hard we fight? The real question is, how do we win? If we level Fallujah, we're not winning hearts and minds. If we surround the town and leave it to the Fallujah Brigade, well, that didn't seem to turn out well either. There may be no good answers. (But it's probably not a question of how "hard" we fight. Tactics matter. Strategy matters.)

It's hard, after months and months of "he LIED!!" following what I thought were good-faith moves by Bush, and your complete acceptance of the crowning of King Moore. There's not much good-faith belief left for the liberal wing at this point.

You know, you can kiss my ass for every time I've said here that I don't like Michael Moore and won't watch his movie. Get some Chapstick, because you're in for a lot of ass-kissing.

I respect Bush's motives. But I think he believes the end justifies the means, and his means abusing the truth more than a President should. I've said this before, but you would rather keep the conversation at the secondi-grade ("he LIED!!") level.

I've been called a lying asshole too many times to now merely bury the sword that quickly. You seem to expect me to live to a standard that you never felt the need of. My fear is that there is now so much bitterness and hatred - yeah, hatred - between the groups that things are never going to be amicable again. It's always going to be "those lying thieving assholes", when both sides truly have worthwhile things to say.

I agree with the latter concern. But let's be clear: I don't recall calling you a lying asshole tonight, and this conversation started with you questioning my patriotism. Not subtly, either. I don't think of you as a lying asshole; I think of you as someone who is sincerely conservative, more cynical than I am about other people's motives, and perhaps too glib in ascribing views or beliefs to the other side. Any one of these three things can piss me off, but none of them makes you a lying asshole.