How many conservatives are actually glad with the results?

[Fellowship]

I just have to ask if any of the conservatives here are (at least in the early stages) glad to face the results of these elections?

Might it be something good for the republicans despite the other party winning?

Please contribute any and all thoughts.

Fellows

[southside grabowski]

Many are happy. The RINOs have been run out. This election will force the Republican party to re-focus on its core issues. The wingnut radio folks (did I use that expression?) are extremely happy. There is so much to talk about with Democrats in power!

[SDW2001]

Yeah, you just said wingnut radio...

http://www.loyaldog.nl/uploaded/Hell+freezing+over.jpg

hahaha. Seriously, I was going to post something like this. I know it sounds crazy and I never expected to feel this way, but I'm relieved. I think this is probably good for my party as it lost its way. Too much focus on social wedge issues and not enough on fiscal conservatism and reform, immigration, etc. Maybe something will actually get done now. I've been none too pleased with the party for the last two years, ever since Bush was reelected. That said, I felt they were better than the Dems, particularly in my state. However, the Dems (particularly Pelosi and Schumer) seem to be taking a conciliatory tone, which is good.

I also think it was time for Rumsfeld to go. Between that and what happened on election night, I feel strangely good. Some of what the Dems are proposing sounds fine to me, though I would prefer serious reforms in welfare, taxes and spending. I guess time will tell.

I liked what Rush Limbaugh had to say on the subject, for the most part. He said he feels "liberated." I kind of know what he means. Through it all there was my growing dissatisfaction with the Republican party. Yes, this was offset by what I saw as extremeist, inappropriate rhetoric coming from the Dems, such as from Conyers, Rangle, Kerry, Waxman et al. So what I did was what a lot of Republicans did....as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it." That really hits it on the head. So yes, I feel strangley good, like a weight has been lifted or something. I just hope the Dems keep their word and don't go off the deep end. The moment I see impeachment or subpeona bombs start to go off, that good will is going to dissipate and the honeymoon will end.

Rush's Transcript:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html

[BRussell]

So what I did was what a lot of Republicans did....as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it." You ain't kidding.

[Splinemodel]

I just hope the Dems keep their word and don't go off the deep end.

Not likely, but let's just hope they stick to purely social issues instead of fouling up any further the social welfare programs.

[SDW2001]

Not likely, but let's just hope they stick to purely social issues instead of fouling up any further the social welfare programs.

Yeah, they aren't likely to try and reform anything massively. Those ideas are too conservative, or so one would think. I've long been a proponent of totally changing out welfare, social security and taxation system from the groun up. I've said it before, but I think we ought to end all guarantees....all of them. We ought to have an ability-based welfare system. We should fund SS with a different kind of tax, and allow people to opt out of it for the future and pay less taxes now, all while protecting benefits for current retireees and "almost" retirees. I think it could be done, but the transition to a new system would liekly take a working generation, say 30 years.

I also would like to see a flat tax of 10% across the board, with deductions only for children, housing, college education, and certain consumer purchases to boost our consumer driven economy (% of domestic auto sales, durable consumer goods, etc). Then I'd like to see a 1-3% national sales tax to fund SS and medicare. Repeal the payroll taxes and mandate that employers give the contributions to employees in their salaries, giving them an immediate 12% raise. Take the whole tax individual tax code and BURN it. Burn the fucker and toast marshmallows over it.

[adjective]

If anything, I'm a centralist, but I lean right because I agree with Capitalism.

And I'm happy. (With the National results.)

I'm also very angry that Perry won Gov again in Texas. I'm glad I'll be leaving this state soon, but I doubt I'll be happy anywhere politically. :/

I don't know why Perry won... I really don't... sigh...

[gregmightdothat]

I lean right because I agree with Capitalism.

After all, all democrats, liberals, and moderates are pinko commies. :no:

[Gilsch]

as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it." That really hits it on the head. So yes, I feel strangley good, like a weight has been lifted or something. I just hope the Dems keep their word and don't go off the deep end. The moment I see impeachment or subpeona bombs start to go off, that good will is going to dissipate and the honeymoon will end. :wow: :lol: :lol:

"We were carrying water"??? We??? Ok, listen. I've seen a video of nut Limbaugh saying that. And he didn't say "we". He said I. As in I won't have to lie to make them look good or make excuses for them anymore.

Seriously. The collective blinders-on mentality you guys have going on is fascinating. Limbaugh says I and you all say we?? It's like someone pulling millions of strings at the same time. Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh. :D

Aren't you Republicans interested in holding the people that "represented" you accountable if they broke laws or were corrupt? Because if you aren't, you're still their waterboys. Isn't it time to put the country before the party?

[Gilsch]

But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.Now, I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve itbut there have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. Wow. Just wow.

[Gilsch]

Yeah, they aren't likely to try and reform anything massively. Those ideas are too conservative, or so one would think. I've long been a proponent of totally changing out welfare, social security and taxation system from the groun up. I've said it before, but I think we ought to end all guarantees....all of them. We ought to have an ability-based welfare system. We should fund SS with a different kind of tax, and allow people to opt out of it for the future and pay less taxes now, all while protecting benefits for current retireees and "almost" retirees. I think it could be done, but the transition to a new system would liekly take a working generation, say 30 years.

I also would like to see a flat tax of 10% across the board, with deductions only for children, housing, college education, and certain consumer purchases to boost our consumer driven economy (% of domestic auto sales, durable consumer goods, etc). Then I'd like to see a 1-3% national sales tax to fund SS and medicare. Repeal the payroll taxes and mandate that employers give the contributions to employees in their salaries, giving them an immediate 12% raise. Take the whole tax individual tax code and BURN it. Burn the fucker and toast marshmallows over it. You make some interesting points. Our taxation system could use some help. Some of your suggestions could even be considered socialist there SDW. :err: Other suggestions, well, there's ways to do similar things now. Roth IRAs. Corporations, LLCs.

[groverat]

So what I did was what a lot of Republicans did....as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it."

How does it feel to be completely bankrupt intellectually?

[SDW2001]

:wow: :lol: :lol:

"We were carrying water"??? We??? Ok, listen. I've seen a video of nut Limbaugh saying that. And he didn't say "we". He said I. As in I won't have to lie to make them look good or make excuses for them anymore.

Seriously. The collective blinders-on mentality you guys have going on is fascinating. Limbaugh says I and you all say we?? It's like someone pulling millions of strings at the same time. Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh. :D

Aren't you Republicans interested in holding the people that "represented" you accountable if they broke laws or were corrupt? Because if you aren't, you're still their waterboys. Isn't it time to put the country before the party?

Dude...just stop. I know Rush said "I." I said "we" because I think I and others may have been doing the same thing he felt he was doing.

I don't know whether to be sad or perplexed at your view of conservatives. Actually, I think it's utterly and hilariously delusional in a sort of pathetic way.

Question: Do you really believe that conservatives in general...me inlcuded...are actually affected by a groupthink phenomenon? Do you really believe, in layperson's terms, that we are sheep? Or, is this just your way of goating those you disagree with or avoiding any real discussion of what their arguments are?

[adjective]

After all, all democrats, liberals, and moderates are pinko commies. :no:

Well, I find that the democratic party in itself agrees more with socialism.. something I don't agree with.

Kerry himself supported Socialised Medicine. They [the democratic national party] usually support more welfare type agencies, and also making government "larger". Something I don't agree with.

I'm not saying all of one supports something, as that's a blantent lie. I mean, how do you think I call myself a centralist? I agree with different terms on both sides of the lines. And I'm sure there's others who are the same way.

[SDW2001]

You make some interesting points. Our taxation system could use some help. Some of your suggestions could even be considered socialist there SDW. :err: Other suggestions, well, there's ways to do similar things now. Roth IRAs. Corporations, LLCs.


Thanks for doing what I didn't feel you capable of doing. You'll find that if you examine my positions on the issues, you may not disagree with all or even most of them.

[SDW2001]

How does it feel to be completely bankrupt intellectually?

I'm not sure I understand that point. How do you mean this exactly?

[adjective]

I'm not sure I understand that point. How do you mean this exactly?

I think he's taking a poke at your intellect.

[groverat]

I'm not sure I understand that point. How do you mean this exactly?

I fail to see what's confusing about it.

Why do you carry water for anyone but yourself?
Why are your words worth anything if you will cheerily admit that you are a mouthpiece and a lackey?

[Gilsch]

Dude...just stop. I know Rush said "I." I said "we" because I think I and others may have been doing the same thing he felt he was doing. BS. Sorry, but that is lame. You've defended Bush and this administration passionately and blindly forever and now you go and almost type verbatim what Limbaugh just said about admitting(some have said confessing)he's been lying and making excuses for the administration all this time?? . Give me a break. "We". I don't know whether to be sad or perplexed at your view of conservatives. Actually, I think it's utterly and hilariously delusional in a sort of pathetic way. You know what's pathetic? This is pathetic:we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve itcarry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it One of the above came from Limbaugh....guess which one guys. :no: Question: Do you really believe that conservatives in general...me inlcuded...are actually affected by a groupthink phenomenon? Do you really believe, in layperson's terms, that we are sheep? Well, if there is no group thinking going on there, you sure fooled us. :lol: Baaaahhhh.

[reg]

I also would like to see a flat tax of 10% across the board, with deductions only for children, housing, college education, and certain consumer purchases to boost our consumer driven economy (% of domestic auto sales, durable consumer goods, etc). Then I'd like to see a 1-3% national sales tax to fund SS and medicare. Repeal the payroll taxes and mandate that employers give the contributions to employees in their salaries, giving them an immediate 12% raise.

The problem with the selective exceptions is that the list constantly grows. I also believe in a flat tax but of 15%. I haven't thought about the repel of the payroll tax. It is an interesting idea but there is a lot of money that is now taken away from safety nets for people that are out of work and need it. SS needs to be changed. With people living longer and having kids later ( we had our last when we were in our 40's ) retirement should be moved back to 70.

As for being glad for the change in congress, I won't know till we see how they (congress and Bush) work together. Bush's biggest problem has always been his belief that he is always right and doesn't seem to care how his actions effect others. If the change has caused/forced him to be less unilateral that will be a good start.

[SDW2001]

I fail to see what's confusing about it.

Why do you carry water for anyone but yourself?
Why are your words worth anything if you will cheerily admit that you are a mouthpiece and a lackey?

I see. I'll explain...

We have a two party system. We have a choice of two parties to run the show. Given the choice, I choose the Republican party, despite all it's problems and despite the way I feel the party has gotten away from its principles. Both I and other conservatives have criticized the party, yet also campaigned for them to win. Why? Because the Democrats are worse. At least "we" think so.

That said, the Dem win relieves us of the pressure created by our disagreement with the party and the fact that given the choice, we had to support them. It may be a good thing...it may cause them to get back to their roots. This is what I think Rush meant by "carrying water." We were supporting a party that not only was getting away from its principles, it wasn't fighting for what it stood for very effectively.

I don't see this as an intellectual inconsistency and I'm frankly not sure why you do, unless you believe that I blindly support my party, which I never have. I'm now stepping back to see what happens with both parties. This is why I wondered aloud if I would have a "Reagan moment" in regard to switching parties at some point int he future...or at least leaving the GOP. If the Dems come to the center, get their act together on national security and get rid of their extreme left wing power/money base.... and the GOP continues to be the Big Government Wedge Issue Party, that may just happen.

[SDW2001]

Gilsch

BS. Sorry, but that is lame. You've defended Bush and this administration passionately and blindly forever and now you go and almost type verbatim what Limbaugh just said about admitting(some have said confessing)he's been lying and making excuses for the administration all this time?? . Give me a break. "We".

I wasn't talking about the Bush Admin. I didn't get the impression Rush was either. I also QUOTED Rush, so yes...it was "verbatim." Duh.

Let me say it again since the rest of your post makes light of that same point: I QUOTED LIMBAUGH.

Originally posted by SDW2001:

I liked what Rush Limbaugh had to say on the subject,for the most part. He said he feels "liberated." I kind of know what he means. Through it all there was my growing dissatisfaction with the Republican party. Yes, this was offset by what I saw as extremeist, inappropriate rhetoric coming from the Dems, such as from Conyers, Rangle, Kerry, Waxman et al. So what I did was what a lot of Republicans did....as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it."

But of course you didnt see that and launched into your typical condescension ad hom fest. Pathetic.

[midwinter]

I, for one, am happy to see that our friends on the other side of the political aisle are admitting that they've been liars and hypocrites for the past few years. It must, indeed, feel liberating not to have to lie anymore or to advance arguments that they know are specious, stupid, or dangerous. Maybe they could all get t-shirts that say "I am a liar and a hypocrite" so they wouldn't feel so alone while they're outing themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Perhaps, in an act of purgation, these reformed liars and hypocrites would go through their old posts here and point out the places where they were "carrying water"? We might approach it as a kind of truth and reconciliation.

And by the way, people who feel liberated by not having to lie anymore: the morgues in Baghdad are full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/12/baghdad.morgue.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

Edit: to which I should add the following: how dare Rush Limbaugh, SDW, and Southside and all these other liberated people criticize the government in a time of war. They are providing aid and comfort to the enemy!

[Gilsch]

SDW:

Since I've been coming here, you've defended everything the Reps/Bush admin. have done. So stop playing dumb. Your claim that you have never supported the party blindly is simply hilarious. Even you don't believe that one. You have a very long track record on here of doing exactly that and everyone knows it. Next thing you'll be telling us is that admitting to "carrying the water for others" is being nonpartisan? Stop letting others do your thinking for you.

[Fellowship]

SDW:

Since I've been coming here, you've defended everything the Reps/Bush admin. have done. So stop playing dumb. Your claim that you have never supported the party blindly is simply hilarious. Even you don't believe that one. You have a very long track record on here of doing exactly that and everyone knows it. Next thing you'll be telling us is that admitting to "carrying the water for others" is being nonpartisan? Stop letting others do your thinking for you.


I admire SDW2000 for his candid posts.

I would let SDW2000 be.

God knows I have my views and they have "evolved" over the years.

Peace,

Fellows

[icfireball]

Well, I find that the democratic party in itself agrees more with socialism.. something I don't agree with.

Kerry himself supported Socialised Medicine. They [the democratic national party] usually support more welfare type agencies, and also making government "larger". Something I don't agree with.

I'm not saying all of one supports something, as that's a blantent lie. I mean, how do you think I call myself a centralist? I agree with different terms on both sides of the lines. And I'm sure there's others who are the same way.

Texas? This could be fun ;)

Anyways. There is a very fine line between communist, socialist, and progressivist. And when I'm talking about progvressivist, I am NOT nessesarily talking about "progressives" - far left liberals. The communist philosphy is that everybody should be equal except for me. The socialist philosphy is this hippy "happy hippe share care bear" idealistic shit that is far from likely to ever happen effectivly in a national or global setting. The progressive philosphy is one in which we are constantly trying to improve the quality of life for ourselves by improving society as a whole. Affordable prescription medicine shouldn't be this wack idea that is totally off the mark. Collages and the govornment are like businesses. The real question is, with all that money and power they have, what can they do for you and everybody else? Why would we have a govornment if we could do it all ourselves individually?

[Gilsch]

Fellowship.
It's great that your views have evolved over the years. But I don't recall you telling us now that they've always been the same unlike others. Ahem.
That's what I was alluding to in that post. If you really think the word candid (as in truthful and frank) applies to his posts....I would have to strongly disagree, with the backing of 5000+ posts as proof that that hasn't been the case.

Cheers.

[tonton]

What's worse than stupidity? Stubborn stupidity.

Flip floppers should take control.

Yay for Fellowship for being a flip-flopper. Yay for those Dems who "voted for the war and then voted against it".

Those kind of decisions, reactions to the situation, are very clear signs of one thing...

Integrity.

"Stay the course" is the worst thing someone can do when the course is so clearly wrong.

[icfireball]

Rush is no more than an entertainer with a habit of pissing a few people off. He knows nothing about politics, yet he gets involved, he has many of his own deep personal flaws and he harps at other people about theirs. Don't through stones if you live in a glass house. I don't hate the man, afterall, he's just a radio commentator with an opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybodie's got one and everybody things everyone else's stinks.

Really all concervatives are people who don't like change. And I don't think that's what pisses most people off about them. I think it's the way that many (not all) try to force their opinions upon other people.

[rageous]

...as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it."


:wow: :lol: :lol:

"We were carrying water"??? We??? Ok, listen. I've seen a video of nut Limbaugh saying that. And he didn't say "we". He said I. As in I won't have to lie to make them look good or make excuses for them anymore.




Before you go nuts next tim, READ. He didn't quote the "we" part. IE he was paraphrasing a bit what was said

There'd be a lot less tension around here if people would take the time to pay attention and respond accordingly.

[midwinter]

Rush is no more than an entertainer with a habit of pissing a few people off. He knows nothing about politics, yet he gets involved, he has many of his own deep personal flaws and he harps at other people about theirs. Don't through stones if you live in a glass house. I don't hate the man, afterall, he's just a radio commentator with an opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybodie's got one and everybody things everyone else's stinks.

Rush Limbaugh is hardly a marginal figure.

Really all concervatives are people who don't like change. And I don't think that's what pisses most people off about them. I think it's the way that many (not all) try to force their opinions upon other people.

That's called politics. It's a vision of the way the world ought to be.

[icfireball]

Yes. Very true.

What's worse than stupidity? Stubborn stupidity.

Flip floppers should take control.

Yay for Fellowship for being a flip-flopper. Yay for those Dems who "voted for the war and then voted against it".

Those kind of decisions, reactions to the situation, are very clear signs of one thing...

Integrity.

"Stay the course" is the worst thing someone can do when the course is so clearly wrong.

[Gilsch]

Before you go nuts next tim, READ. He didn't quote the "we" part. IE he was paraphrasing a bit what was said

There'd be a lot less tension around here if people would take the time to pay attention and respond accordingly. That's "going nuts"? Funny. Where were you guys when the fuck yous, fuck off and dies where said on that other thread? :no:

And by the way, I wasn't criticizing his quote, but the group mentality of Limbaugh saying "I" and the rest adopting it as their own. Quite a difference.

[icfireball]

Rush Limbaugh is hardly a marginal figure.
No, he'd just like people think think hes not marginal. I mean no disrepsect towards him, but he probably has a pretty shitty, marginal life. It happens when your dopped up on perscription drugs, divorced, and bitter. He is just loud and someone wants to let broadcast that loudness. It's all his imagine.

That's called politics. It's a vision of the way the world ought to be.
It's just an excuse for people to dress up in business suits walking around drinking crannberry juice thinking they are important. Life itself is important, not them (politicians), or poltics.

[Gilsch]

It's the collective thinking that guy creates that's what puzzles me. Limbaugh says one thing and next thing you know what he said on the air is being repeated all over like gospel.

The funny thing is that the guy basically admitted to lying to his audience in order to make excuses for his party and the lambs just eat it up.

[midwinter]

I admire SDW2000 for his candid posts.

I would let SDW2000 be.


All due respect, Fellows, but no. I refuse to accept conservative talking points filtered down from Rush Limbaugh about how this repudiation of this gang of Republicans is actually liberation as in any way truthful, honest, or accurate. And I refuse to recognize as honorable someone saying that they've been lying for several years about their support for politicians whose actions have led to countless dead. Indeed, if they've been lying for all those years, why should I believe them now? I refuse to accept anyone saying they really didn't mean it when they defended or supported any of the clowns in the Republican party. I especially refuse to accept it when, so often, it was done while painting anyone who opposed them as either stupid or traitorous.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have held power in government in an almost unbroken stretch since 1994. To complain now, after years and years of talk about gay marriage, illegal immigrants, terrorist-appeasers, hatred, and bile, I refuse to accept that, now, all of a sudden, they think maybe that the party lost its way. That's how the party got power. That's how the party maintained power.

And if the Republicans had won last Tuesday, neither SDW nor Rush Limbaugh would be screaming for real conservatives in government and saying that they ought to purge the party. If they really believed that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, they'd have been saying it for years. But they weren't.

Why? Because the "stakes were too high." I call bullshit. If the stakes were so high that you'd be a hypocrite and lie about your support, and now you've found that the worst-case scenario has happened, you wouldn't feel liberated. You'd be utterly terrified. You'd be preparing for the end times. You'd have a gun in your mouth.

No, sir. I will not lay off.

[icfireball]

All due respect, Fellows, but no. I refuse to accept conservative talking points filtered down from Rush Limbaugh about how this repudiation of this gang of Republicans is actually liberation as in any way truthful, honest, or accurate. And I refuse to recognize as honorable someone saying that they've been lying for several years about their support for politicians whose actions have led to countless dead. Indeed, if they've been lying for all those years, why should I believe them now? I refuse to accept anyone saying they really didn't mean it when they defended or supported any of the clowns in the Republican party. I especially refuse to accept it when, so often, it was done while painting anyone who opposed them as either stupid or traitorous.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have held power in government in an almost unbroken stretch since 1994. To complain now, after years and years of talk about gay marriage, illegal immigrants, terrorist-appeasers, hatred, and bile, I refuse to accept that, now, all of a sudden, they think maybe that the party lost its way. That's how the party got power. That's how the party maintained power.

And if the Republicans had won last Tuesday, neither SDW nor Rush Limbaugh would be screaming for real conservatives in government and saying that they ought to purge the party. If they really believed that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, they'd have been saying it for years. But they weren't.

Why? Because the "stakes were too high." I call bullshit. If the stakes were so high that you'd be a hypocrite and lie about your support, and now you've found that the worst-case scenario has happened, you wouldn't feel liberated. You'd be utterly terrified. You'd be preparing for the end times. You'd have a gun in your mouth.

No, sir. I will not lay off.
I do see what your saying, but you shouldn't try to be all high and mighty and demean SDW just because he's stuboorn. He has got a different opinion. Period. It's not one I agree with, but I respect that. When it comes down to it... when people like him have had enough bullshit, they will stop voting republican. And thats what happened this election. Then when the Democrats start laying on the bullshit real thick, people will start voting republican again. And THATS whats great about a democracy.

[addabox]

All due respect, Fellows, but no. I refuse to accept conservative talking points filtered down from Rush Limbaugh about how this repudiation of this gang of Republicans is actually liberation as in any way truthful, honest, or accurate. And I refuse to recognize as honorable someone saying that they've been lying for several years about their support for politicians whose actions have led to countless dead. Indeed, if they've been lying for all those years, why should I believe them now? I refuse to accept anyone saying they really didn't mean it when they defended or supported any of the clowns in the Republican party. I especially refuse to accept it when, so often, it was done while painting anyone who opposed them as either stupid or traitorous.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have held power in government in an almost unbroken stretch since 1994. To complain now, after years and years of talk about gay marriage, illegal immigrants, terrorist-appeasers, hatred, and bile, I refuse to accept that, now, all of a sudden, they think maybe that the party lost its way. That's how the party got power. That's how the party maintained power.

And if the Republicans had won last Tuesday, neither SDW nor Rush Limbaugh would be screaming for real conservatives in government and saying that they ought to purge the party. If they really believed that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, they'd have been saying it for years. But they weren't.

Why? Because the "stakes were too high." I call bullshit. If the stakes were so high that you'd be a hypocrite and lie about your support, and now you've found that the worst-case scenario has happened, you wouldn't feel liberated. You'd be utterly terrified. You'd be preparing for the end times. You'd have a gun in your mouth.

No, sir. I will not lay off.

Thank you very, very much.

[mydo]

Me 2.

[icfireball]

I concur.
That's it guys. Shawn concurs. Argument over. ;-)

[midwinter]

I do see what your saying, but you shouldn't try to be all high and mighty and demean SDW just because he's stuboorn. He has got a different opinion. Period. It's not one I agree with, but I respect that. When it comes down to it... when people like him have had enough bullshit, they will stop voting republican. And thats what happened this election. Then when the Democrats start laying on the bullshit real thick, people will start voting republican again. And THATS whats great about a democracy.

I'm not demeaning SDW. I'm attacking the talking point, which has been floating around since Limbaugh said it the other day. It is appalling that this kind of statement is allowed to go unchallenged, as if the GOP and all its voters are somehow some kind of infirm. Bollocks.

This is the party of "with us or against us." This is the party of "agree with us or you're a terrorist-appeaser." This is the party of flag-burning and gay-marriage amendments every 4 years. This is the party of swift-boating. This is the party of robo-calling. This is the party of the New Hampshire phone-jamming scam. This is the party of Abramoff and of Haggart and Foley—wrapped in the flag and full of patriotism.

And finally, this is the party of Pat Peale:

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg

Excuse me if I don't believe it when they say that, even though this is their worst nightmare, they feel "liberated." Excuse me if I take issue with them saying "Yeah. I lied a lot," because right now, in Baghdad, the morgues are full.

[BRussell]

All due respect, Fellows, but no. I refuse to accept conservative talking points filtered down from Rush Limbaugh about how this repudiation of this gang of Republicans is actually liberation as in any way truthful, honest, or accurate. And I refuse to recognize as honorable someone saying that they've been lying for several years about their support for politicians whose actions have led to countless dead. Indeed, if they've been lying for all those years, why should I believe them now? I refuse to accept anyone saying they really didn't mean it when they defended or supported any of the clowns in the Republican party. I especially refuse to accept it when, so often, it was done while painting anyone who opposed them as either stupid or traitorous.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have held power in government in an almost unbroken stretch since 1994. To complain now, after years and years of talk about gay marriage, illegal immigrants, terrorist-appeasers, hatred, and bile, I refuse to accept that, now, all of a sudden, they think maybe that the party lost its way. That's how the party got power. That's how the party maintained power.

And if the Republicans had won last Tuesday, neither SDW nor Rush Limbaugh would be screaming for real conservatives in government and saying that they ought to purge the party. If they really believed that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, they'd have been saying it for years. But they weren't.

Why? Because the "stakes were too high." I call bullshit. If the stakes were so high that you'd be a hypocrite and lie about your support, and now you've found that the worst-case scenario has happened, you wouldn't feel liberated. You'd be utterly terrified. You'd be preparing for the end times. You'd have a gun in your mouth.

No, sir. I will not lay off. You go, boy.

[SDW2001]

I, for one, am happy to see that our friends on the other side of the political aisle are admitting that they've been liars and hypocrites for the past few years. It must, indeed, feel liberating not to have to lie anymore or to advance arguments that they know are specious, stupid, or dangerous. Maybe they could all get t-shirts that say "I am a liar and a hypocrite" so they wouldn't feel so alone while they're outing themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Perhaps, in an act of purgation, these reformed liars and hypocrites would go through their old posts here and point out the places where they were "carrying water"? We might approach it as a kind of truth and reconciliation.

And by the way, people who feel liberated by not having to lie anymore: the morgues in Baghdad are full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/12/baghdad.morgue.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

Edit: to which I should add the following: how dare Rush Limbaugh, SDW, and Southside and all these other liberated people criticize the government in a time of war. They are providing aid and comfort to the enemy!

Strawman.

The ideals of conservatism and many of the positions "we" (I have to use quotes on that now lest I be attacked) are perfectly defensible and I still stand by them. What I don't stand by is Republicans that refuse to deal wtih immigration, spend like drunken sailors and generally abandon the party's ideals. The "relief" part comes from the realization that "we" ;) no longer have to defend these people because they are at least not as bad as the Dems. It's a shitty position to be in. Now that the Dems have one, we can debate the future of what the party should be.

[SDW2001]

SDW:

Since I've been coming here, you've defended everything the Reps/Bush admin. have done. So stop playing dumb. Your claim that you have never supported the party blindly is simply hilarious. Even you don't believe that one. You have a very long track record on here of doing exactly that and everyone knows it. Next thing you'll be telling us is that admitting to "carrying the water for others" is being nonpartisan? Stop letting others do your thinking for you.

You can't back that up and you know it. It's hilarious that you think you're somehow more of a sophisticated, independent thinker. It's the very definition of liberal elitism.

I defend the Bush Administration when I agree with it. I don't defend it when I don't agree with it. I have been consistent in that regard, whether you perceive it that way or not. I could frankly care less what you think as you view these board and, well, the entire world through your colored glasses as you sip your Kool-Aid.

I have agreed with the Bush Administration on several things. Those include:

-The reasons for going to war, the decision itself.
-The tax cuts and code changes of 2001 and 2003
-The Patriot Act and NSA Program
-Policy on detainees in Guantanamo bay.
-Fighting the WOT through more "offensive" than "defensive" means
-Nomination of Alito and Roberts
-To an extent, the NCLB act

I have disagreed with the Bush Administration on these issues:

-Gay Marriage Amendment
-Number of troops in Iraq
-Detaining US citizens (civilians) without charges, particularly those captured in the US itself
-Immigration policy (I wanted enforcement first, then comprehensive reform)
-Handling of downed spy plane in China (thought our language was too conciliatory)
-Nomination of Miers, though I was admittedly willing to trust the pick
-Failure to push for "nuclear option" on judicial nominees
-Failure to invoke the insurrection Act and/or declare temporary Martial Law in New Orleans after Katrina.
-No exceptions for special education in NCLB
-Medicare prescription drug benefit
-Explosion of non-defense, discrentionary spending, failue to veto approp. bills.


There are, of course, many other things I would like to see done at the federal level, particularly with regard to taxes and spending. This is not an all-inclusive list. The point is, don't lie to everyone here. I have disagreed with the Bush Administration and Republicans on multiple ocassions.

[SDW2001]

Rush is no more than an entertainer with a habit of pissing a few people off. He knows nothing about politics, yet he gets involved, he has many of his own deep personal flaws and he harps at other people about theirs. Don't through stones if you live in a glass house. I don't hate the man, afterall, he's just a radio commentator with an opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybodie's got one and everybody things everyone else's stinks.

Really all concervatives are people who don't like change. And I don't think that's what pisses most people off about them. I think it's the way that many (not all) try to force their opinions upon other people.

Uh, Rush knows quite a bit about politics. You've obviously not listened to him. Yes, he's an entertainer...I will give you that.

Now, I was about to use your line of "opinions are like assholes" on you in the other thread where we were discussing taxes. It's hilarious that you can attack Rush Limbaugh for "not knowing anything about politics" when it's pretty clear you don't understand anything from taxes to inflation to, well, politics. No offense. Maybe you shoudl check your walls to see if they're made out of...uh...glass.

[SDW2001]

All due respect, Fellows, but no. I refuse to accept conservative talking points filtered down from Rush Limbaugh about how this repudiation of this gang of Republicans is actually liberation as in any way truthful, honest, or accurate. And I refuse to recognize as honorable someone saying that they've been lying for several years about their support for politicians whose actions have led to countless dead. Indeed, if they've been lying for all those years, why should I believe them now? I refuse to accept anyone saying they really didn't mean it when they defended or supported any of the clowns in the Republican party. I especially refuse to accept it when, so often, it was done while painting anyone who opposed them as either stupid or traitorous.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have held power in government in an almost unbroken stretch since 1994. To complain now, after years and years of talk about gay marriage, illegal immigrants, terrorist-appeasers, hatred, and bile, I refuse to accept that, now, all of a sudden, they think maybe that the party lost its way. That's how the party got power. That's how the party maintained power.

And if the Republicans had won last Tuesday, neither SDW nor Rush Limbaugh would be screaming for real conservatives in government and saying that they ought to purge the party. If they really believed that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, they'd have been saying it for years. But they weren't.

Why? Because the "stakes were too high." I call bullshit. If the stakes were so high that you'd be a hypocrite and lie about your support, and now you've found that the worst-case scenario has happened, you wouldn't feel liberated. You'd be utterly terrified. You'd be preparing for the end times. You'd have a gun in your mouth.

No, sir. I will not lay off.

No one is lying about anything. It was about a choice between two parties.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh and even Sean Hannity both criticized the Republican party on numerous ocassions over the past few years. I listen to both on a semi=regular basis, do you?

[SDW2001]

I do see what your saying, but you shouldn't try to be all high and mighty and demean SDW just because he's stuboorn. He has got a different opinion. Period. It's not one I agree with, but I respect that. When it comes down to it... when people like him have had enough bullshit, they will stop voting republican. And thats what happened this election. Then when the Democrats start laying on the bullshit real thick, people will start voting republican again. And THATS whats great about a democracy.

We agree on that, my friend.

[SDW2001]

I'm not demeaning SDW. I'm attacking the talking point, which has been floating around since Limbaugh said it the other day. It is appalling that this kind of statement is allowed to go unchallenged, as if the GOP and all its voters are somehow some kind of infirm. Bollocks.

This is the party of "with us or against us." This is the party of "agree with us or you're a terrorist-appeaser." This is the party of flag-burning and gay-marriage amendments every 4 years. This is the party of swift-boating. This is the party of robo-calling. This is the party of the New Hampshire phone-jamming scam. This is the party of Abramoff and of Haggart and Foley—wrapped in the flag and full of patriotism.

And finally, this is the party of Pat Peale:

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg

Excuse me if I don't believe it when they say that, even though this is their worst nightmare, they feel "liberated." Excuse me if I take issue with them saying "Yeah. I lied a lot," because right now, in Baghdad, the morgues are full.

You are amazing. You really are. First, you criticize conservatives for never disagreeing with Republicans. Then when they do, you call them liars. Jesus.

If you had bothered to fucking read, you'd have seen me disagree with Republicans for years on any given issue. You'd also see me state quite clearly I thought the Dems were worse..much worse.

As for Rush, I was merely saying that I liked what he had to say on the subject and that I felt it described what I was feeling well. I felt like that from about 11:00 on eleciton night onward, but I couldn't put it into words. Using "talking points" would have to pretend these were my words, which I most certainly did not.

[icfireball]

You can't back that up and you know it. It's hilarious that you think you're somehow more of a sophisticated, independent thinker. It's the very definition of liberal elitism.

I defend the Bush Administration when I agree with it. I don't defend it when I don't agree with it. I have been consistent in that regard, whether you perceive it that way or not. I could frankly care less what you think as you view these board and, well, the entire world through your colored glasses as you sip your Kool-Aid.

I have agreed with the Bush Administration on several things. Those include:

-The reasons for going to war, the decision itself.
-The tax cuts and code changes of 2001 and 2003
-The Patriot Act and NSA Program
-Policy on detainees in Guantanamo bay.
-Fighting the WOT through more "offensive" than "defensive" means
-Nomination of Alito and Roberts
-To an extent, the NCLB act

I have disagreed with the Bush Administration on these issues:

-Gay Marriage Amendment
-Number of troops in Iraq
-Detaining US citizens (civilians) without charges, particularly those captured in the US itself
-Immigration policy (I wanted enforcement first, then comprehensive reform)
-Handling of downed spy plane in China (thought our language was too conciliatory)
-Nomination of Miers, though I was admittedly willing to trust the pick
-Failure to push for "nuclear option" on judicial nominees
-Failure to invoke the insurrection Act and/or declare temporary Martial Law in New Orleans after Katrina.
-No exceptions for special education in NCLB
-Medicare prescription drug benefit
-Explosion of non-defense, discrentionary spending, failue to veto approp. bills.


There are, of course, many other things I would like to see done at the federal level, particularly with regard to taxes and spending. This is not an all-inclusive list. The point is, don't lie to everyone here. I have disagreed with the Bush Administration and Republicans on multiple ocassions.
The problem of course is that the REASON for going to war was a lie. If the reason were true, it may have been worth going to Iraq. But it was not true and the administration knew it wasnt true. The Patriot Act had a little of hidden little shit in it that was no good at all. The premise for it was good. Some people were wrongly held at Guantanamo bay without legal council or any help. This is wrong. I don't disagree with detaining people, but they should have access to fair trial so that if they are innocent, they aren't screwed over. Alito and Roberts are ok. Not great. In my opinion. In some ways the tax codes worked, and in some ways they didn't. Taxes are a very complicated thing and I can't say I would have had a suggestion of what to do better. If you really wanat to stimulate the economy though, you tax the middle class very very low, and the wealthy a bit more (not excessive, but more than they are taxed now). They say this is unfair. But so is poverty. If you were in education, I don't think you would have agreed with NCLB. Education is something thats very hard to understand from the outside. NCLB just added too much pressure perform, and when schools didn't, the govornment didn't help, they ran.

Just my 2 cents. Not trying to prove you wrong or anything.

[SDW2001]

The problem of course is that the REASON for going to war was a lie. If the reason were true, it may have been worth going to Iraq. But it was not true and the administration knew it wasnt true. The Patriot Act had a little of hidden little shit in it that was no good at all. The premise for it was good. Some people were wrongly held at Guantanamo bay without legal council or any help. This is wrong. I don't disagree with detaining people, but they should have access to fair trial so that if they are innocent, they aren't screwed over. Alito and Roberts are ok. Not great. In my opinion. In some ways the tax codes worked, and in some ways they didn't. Taxes are a very complicated thing and I can't say I would have had a suggestion of what to do better. If you really wanat to stimulate the economy though, you tax the middle class very very low, and the wealthy a bit more (not excessive, but more than they are taxed now). They say this is unfair. But so is poverty.

Just my 2 cents. Not trying to prove you wrong or anything.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I wasn't proposing we debate those issues. They are merely examples of agreement/disagreement with the admin/party in my party :)

[Gilsch]

You can't back that up and you know it. It's hilarious that you think you're somehow more of a sophisticated, independent thinker. It's the very definition of liberal elitism. Oooh, he called me a libuhral. Considering I never used the words sophisticated or independent thinker it's funny you want to project them onto me. Never thought of myself that way. But now that you mention it, I know I am more of an independent thinker than you are because I don't let others do the thinking for me. I don't quote radio shills nor do I lie and make excuses for politicians ("carry their water") for the benefit of the party like you have admitted to doing. Most of my life I've been a Rep...imagine that. If you want to call me a liberal...coming from you...it's an honor. It's not being married to a party that keeps me from sounding like a fanatic. Never carried anyones water, nor will I ever.I defend the Bush Administration when I agree with it. You defend it all the time. You may say you disagree (especially lately) with a few things, but you end up digging in and defending ...I mean carrying their water most of the time. I have been consistent in that regard, whether you perceive it that way or not. I could frankly care less what you think as you view these board and, well, the entire world through your colored glasses as you sip your Kool-Aid. Come on. Who are you kidding.The only thing you have been consistent about is carrying the water and defending Bush and the Reps in almost every regard in almost all of your AI PO posts. The last few days are absolutely no indication of the past few years. There's 1000s of posts that contradict you. And you of all people, accusing anyone of drinking the kool aid is delusional. You, a self admitted Rep waterboy. :p I think we've discussed this enough. The proof is in your 5000+ posts. And that cannot be erased.

[SDW2001]

Gilsch:
Oooh, he called me a libuhral. Considering I never used the words sophisticated or independent thinker it's funny you want to project them onto me. Never thought of myself that way. But now that you mention it, I know I am more of an independent thinker than you are because I don't let others do the thinking for me. I don't quote radio shills nor do I lie and make excuses for politicians ("carry their water") for the benefit of the party like you have admitted to doing. Most of my life I've been a Rep...imagine that. If you want to call me a liberal...coming from you...it's an honor. It's not being married to a party that keeps me from sounding like a fanatic. Never carried anyones water, nor will I ever.

Oh my God! I quoted a radio host who said something I agreed with! I thought he represented how I felt about an issue very well! I'm a damned ditto head fool!

Secondly, I know youy didn't use the words. It is clearly your implication. You attack me for being part of the herd of morons in nearly every post. Come to think of it though, I wish you could see how typically elitist and assinine your behavior is.

You defend it all the time. You may say you disagree (especially lately) with a few things, but you end up digging in and defending ...I mean carrying their water most of the time.

Utterly and demonstrably false. If anything, I have disagreed with Bush more and more over time, and with the Republican party too. I notice you completely ignored my list of issues. Hmmmm.

Come on. Who are you kidding.The only thing you have been consistent about is carrying the water and defending Bush and the Reps in almost every regard in almost all of your AI PO posts. The last few days are absolutely no indication of the past few years. There's 1000s of posts that contradict you. And you of all people, accusing anyone of drinking the kool aid is delusional. You, a self admitted Rep waterboy. I think we've discussed this enough. The proof is in your 5000+ posts. And that cannot be erased.

Subjective opinion. Even if you tried to prove it, you'd just cherry pick things I've said and twist them to fit your beliefs.

This is what I'm getting at re: elitism: You absurdly cannot even start to believe that I may disagree with the Bush Administration on the issues I say I do. You also apparently don't really read what I post. Often I defend what has been said or disagree with what has been said or done by a politician in terms of the political reality and/or consequences only. Yet many here are apparently incapable of discerning political obervations from what they want and hope is the case.

I'll give you an example: I didn't see much wrong with the Dubai Ports deal (read: I agrreed with it) as long as all politics were put aside. However, it was not a smart move politically for the Bush Administration poltically. they completed underestimated the reaction it would get.

On the other hand, I disagreed with the proposal of a gay marriage amendment, but I thought it was smart politically. Given the evangelical turnout and "morals voter" turnout Bush got, I was apparently right.

I have been consistent on the issues I listed. I have defended the Bush Administration when I felt it appropriate to do so. It is true that most of time I have agreed, as I generally agreed with the policies being implemented. I also find a lot of the criticism just, well, ridiculous and inappropriate.... and I'm not afraid to point that out. It's as if some of you disagree with the adminsitration because you think you have to. I think it helps your ego and sense of identity. Maybe It's fashionable in your circle? ;)

But I say again: I have also consistently and publicly disagreed with certain actions of the administration. You can keep repeating your line about me being a cheerleader for them, but doing so over and over won't make it any more true.

I await your reply, which I predict will fall into one of these categories:



1. Cherry picked posts that portray me the way you already see me.

2. A dismissive rant, something about it "not being worth it."

3. A semantics laden post that fails to address what I've actually said, instead focusing on the most minute of details, such as typos.

4. An ad hom filled rant

5. Some or all of the above.

[Fellowship]

All due respect, Fellows, but no. I refuse to accept conservative talking points filtered down from Rush Limbaugh about how this repudiation of this gang of Republicans is actually liberation as in any way truthful, honest, or accurate. And I refuse to recognize as honorable someone saying that they've been lying for several years about their support for politicians whose actions have led to countless dead. Indeed, if they've been lying for all those years, why should I believe them now? I refuse to accept anyone saying they really didn't mean it when they defended or supported any of the clowns in the Republican party. I especially refuse to accept it when, so often, it was done while painting anyone who opposed them as either stupid or traitorous.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have held power in government in an almost unbroken stretch since 1994. To complain now, after years and years of talk about gay marriage, illegal immigrants, terrorist-appeasers, hatred, and bile, I refuse to accept that, now, all of a sudden, they think maybe that the party lost its way. That's how the party got power. That's how the party maintained power.

And if the Republicans had won last Tuesday, neither SDW nor Rush Limbaugh would be screaming for real conservatives in government and saying that they ought to purge the party. If they really believed that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, they'd have been saying it for years. But they weren't.

Why? Because the "stakes were too high." I call bullshit. If the stakes were so high that you'd be a hypocrite and lie about your support, and now you've found that the worst-case scenario has happened, you wouldn't feel liberated. You'd be utterly terrified. You'd be preparing for the end times. You'd have a gun in your mouth.

No, sir. I will not lay off.


To scold sdw2000 is no more mature than Bush scolding "certain" americans about "not being patriotic".

It is in fact just more Bullshit.

Now everyone here knows the fellows loves them from midwinter, shawn, trumptman, and sdw2000 down the entire list.

The question now is do we need more bullshit or should we let the past be the past and move forward in cooperation for what is best for our world.

Two choices here:

be gracious and move forward,

or

Stay stuck in "you did this,,, you said that"

Make the right choice...

For the love of God make the right choice.

Fellowship

[Gilsch]

I await your reply, which I predict will fall into one of these categories:
1. Cherry picked posts that portray me the way you already see me.

2. A dismissive rant, something about it "not being worth it."

3. A semantics laden post that fails to address what I've actually said, instead focusing on the most minute of details, such as typos.

4. An ad hom filled rant

5. Some or all of the above. Dear SDW2001 :lol: I wouldn't need to cherry pick anything from you. It would be more like a surplus record harvest with 5,000 Rep-butt-licking goodies. Why would I want to recycle 5,000 of your posts? ;) And yeah, you're right on item 2. It's not worth my time. As I said in my last post, we've talked about this enough already. On item 3, I'm addressing what you said in a time effective manner considering what I said on item 2. Congratulations on not making any typos either.
On item 4, interesting you were hoping I'd use ad homs like you did in your little thread where as some kindly pointed out, you destroyed yourself with your expletive filled rants (which was an AI classic by the way).
Item 5....very cute how you think you covered all the bases so that then you could come back and say "I knew it" no matter what I replied to you. I think you should've thought of item 6. Something like: 6. Insist you know the obvious truth from my 5,000 plus posts. I know you guys "know me" from years of carrying other people's water. I know I'm not fooling anyone in my attempt to not sound intellectually and emotionally stuck to my party. Let me be dammit! ;)

Edit: can you please drop it already? I dropped it in your expletive infested "Up, up" thread. We can't undo the past. Especially a written one.

[addabox]

To scold sdw2000 is no more mature than Bush scolding "certain" americans about "not being patriotic".

It is in fact just more Bullshit.

Now everyone here knows the fellows loves them from midwinter, shawn, trumptman, and sdw2000 down the entire list.

The question now is do we need more bullshit or should we let the past be the past and move forward in cooperation for what is best for our world.

Two choices here:

be gracious and move forward,

or

Stay stuck in "you did this,,, you said that"

Make the right choice...

For the love of God make the right choice.

Fellowship

With all due respect, Fellows, I have to disagree with you here.

It's not about "scolding" or "finger pointing" or the "blame game" etc.

It's about being very, very clear about exactly what has happened, how it was engineered, how it was sold, how dissent to that sales job was attacked and marginalized, and how now, with the political consequences of that process becoming dangerous to the people who ran the show, an entirely new script is being fabricated that simply ignores what has gone before, a script which is being proffered with exactly the same "how dare you question my integrity" bluster as the original disinformation.

This isn't about SDW, it's about the mindset and the strategy and the underlying assumptions that he happens to embody hereabouts.

Again, and as Midwinter points out, until the political costs for mindlessly cheerleading for the war became too great, we never heard a peep of dissent from the same people who are now declaring themselves betrayed by Bush style Republicanism. Even as Iraq sank (and sinks) ever further into a bloody quagmire of sectarian violence, revenge killings, crippled infrastructure, and profoundly compromised "security forces", we heard nothing but "stay the course", "cut and run", "fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here", etc.

Not a trace of concern for the reality of what was happening (and is happening) to the Iraqi people. Not a fucking trace. In fact, even suggesting that such a trace might be appropriate was enough to set off the cries of "terror lover" and "weak kneed appeaser" and "democrats want us to lose" and on and on.

So why is it important to say, and say frequently and loudly, "No!" to the revisionist posturing that makes of war support an unfortunate misunderstanding? The revisionist posturing that came about not as a gradual awakening but literally overnight?

Because the people who did this are still here. They are still lying. They still could give a rats ass about the Iraqi people, or any of the anonymous peasants that might need to be sacrificed on the alter of American infallibility. They are still ready eager and willing to start it all over again, with the next terrible implacable most evilist ever monster that must be slain right now if America is to survive. They are not chastened. They have learned no lessons.

All we're seeing now is raw political calculation. The war is a loser, not morally or intellectually, but politically. Therefore, the war must be disavowed, for now. This has nothing to do with joining hands and planning a better future. This has nothing to do with "getting over it" or "looking forward" or proffering "positive solutions".

We are one terror attack on American soil, or one systematically inflated "international incident" from doing it all again. All of it. Exactly the same way.

Do you really think SDW, or the clique of hard core war supporters that he represents will, at that point, say "hold on now, lets go slow-- that whole Iraq thing was an education"?

Of course not, because they don't think they've done anything wrong. The single admission being offered is that "Bush" screwed it up.

I'm not asking for or expecting anything at all from SDW or his ilk. In fact, I know he will vigorously deny everything I'm saying here and find me to be the liar and the fool. That's fine.

But for the way forward, for limning an effective global strategy in a world of very real dangers mixed with naked political opportunism, Midwinter is exactly right: we absolutely cannot pretend like bygones are bygones. Nothing has gone by, it's all still right here, the architects and their works, and they stand ready, biding their time, to fill the morgues of another city, without so much as a nod to the simple disaster that they now dismiss as "a mistake".

[Gilsch]

Excellent post Addabox. I couldn't come close to putting it that well.

And Fellows. Isn't not holding people accountable akin to giving them a blank check? In fact that's been the problem with Iraq. A big, deadly and wasteful blank check. Thousands of our troops dead. Tens of thousands of Iraqis dead (Iraq's very own health minister says 150,000). Billions of dollars wasted. Billions of dollars missing. I'm sorry, but to quote you, that's bull.

If you read the posts of some on this thread and others, they don't even mention the Iraqi people. The same people who needed to be "liberated". IMO, that says quite a bit about certain people as persons.

[SDW2001]

Dear SDW2001 :lol: I wouldn't need to cherry pick anything from you. It would be more like a surplus record harvest with 5,000 Rep-butt-licking goodies. Why would I want to recycle 5,000 of your posts? ;) And yeah, you're right on item 2. It's not worth my time. As I said in my last post, we've talked about this enough already. On item 3, I'm addressing what you said in a time effective manner considering what I said on item 2. Congratulations on not making any typos either.
On item 4, interesting you were hoping I'd use ad homs like you did in your little thread where as some kindly pointed out, you destroyed yourself with your expletive filled rants (which was an AI classic by the way).
Item 5....very cute how you think you covered all the bases so that then you could come back and say "I knew it" no matter what I replied to you. I think you should've thought of item 6. Something like: 6. Insist you know the obvious truth from my 5,000 plus posts. I know you guys "know me" from years of carrying other people's water. I know I'm not fooling anyone in my attempt to not sound intellectually and emotionally stuck to my party. Let me be dammit! ;)

Edit: can you please drop it already? I dropped it in your expletive infested "Up, up" thread. We can't undo the past. Especially a written one.

I'm done responding to you. Don't bother to quote my posts or try and engage me, because you'll be ignored.

[SDW2001]

Adda:

This isn't about SDW, it's about the mindset and the strategy and the underlying assumptions that he happens to embody hereabouts.

Again, and as Midwinter points out, until the political costs for mindlessly cheerleading for the war became too great, we never heard a peep of dissent from the same people who are now declaring themselves betrayed by Bush style Republicanism.

Wow. There you go again: "Anyone who supported the war was mindlessly doing so and was/is incapable of critical thinking."

It's not enough for you to say "I think we shouldn't have gone to war. I think the intelligence failures were unforgivable. I think Iraq is a mess and I was right." No, it's much more than disagreement and even gloating. It's the need to call your opponent utterly stupid, mindless...an unthinking ape. Then, by extension, so is anyone who agrees with your opponent.

It's really not about me, just as you said. You just called millions of Americans...hundreds of political leaders from both parties, the POTUS and Prime Minister of the UK and the leaders of about 20 other nations utterly stupid and mindless.

It seems to me that the term "mindless" fits those who simply cannot, for the life of him, understand how someone could possibly have a different opinion on the war. It fits someone who cannot, once again for the life of him, understand that it is possible to support a President and political party even when one doesn't agree with every single position and action that party and/or leader holds. It further fits someone who cannot understand, for the life of him understand how 60 million+ people could have voted for George Bush in 2004 without being stupid, mindless, selfish, ill-informed and generally weak minded.

It's not only...eh...mindless, it's elitist to the point of being cliched. And hilarious. Or sad. I don't know which.

[Gilsch]

I'm done responding to you. Don't bother to quote my posts or try and engage me, because you'll be ignored. http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg

[Fellowship]

With all due respect, Fellows, I have to disagree with you here.

It's not about "scolding" or "finger pointing" or the "blame game" etc.




addabox I quite admire you and your posts but I must be clear that all I am really saying here is that for example with myself here at AI some of you all may have seen my views change over the years.

There was a time when I was "republican" 100% and when I started to change my loyalty to the party some thought I was kidding or lying (that I must still be repubilcan) but I was not.

Later on here at AI some thought that I am now a "democrat" when I voted for John Kerry yet quite frankly I am not a "democrat" any more than I am a "republican".

Now I realize that this must be complex to the casual observer and suspect to yet others but quite honestly I am a unique individual and my views change.

I make arguments for what I consider to be progressive and what not to be progressive and that is simply my opinion.

I make arguments for what I consider to be conservative in the way of fiscal management and that also is simply my opinion.

I can better articulate my stance using these kinds of terms rather than which party I am "for".

You see neither party fits the views I hold completely. Now back to how all this applies to SDW2000:

My argument is (simply allow for the freedom of SDW2000 to adapt and or reflect over the last several years and without condemnation.)

When people are unforgiving regarding these things and judge their peers harshly and without mercy it does little to encourage any progress.

In fact it could serve to do nothing but backfire and that is quite regressive.


Respectfully,

Fellows

[midwinter]

My argument is (simply allow for the freedom of SDW2000 to adapt and or reflect over the last several years and without condemnation.)

As I said before, I would like to know precisely where and how Rush and SDW feel like they have been "carrying water." What policies have they supported that they didn't believe in? What politicians have they defended when they didn't believe in them?

This is not about reflection on past convictions or changing beliefs. This is not about occasionally saying that you wish the Bush admin would do something about the border. The very idea that someone would say "I'm tired of carrying water for these people" suggests that they have, in fact, been defending or supporting them when they did not actually believe that it was merited. I want to know where.

I would also like to know how it is possible, if the stakes were so high that these people would "carry water" and vote for candidates they didn't believe in, now that the worst-case scenario has happened, these same people claim to feel "liberated." What happened to the stakes being so high?

My point, Fellows, is that the statement makes no sense, because if it is a changing of the mind, no one is saying what, precisely, has changed. And I'm calling it out.