QandO

Only problem is, I find it hard to labell 'counterspin' as anything but mainstream liberalism.

Posted by: Bithead at May 15, 2004 03:33 PM

Sigh.

Once again, I invite anyone with any hint of intellectual honesty to pay a visit to my blog, and read WHY I wrote the above quote.

I quoted from a piece in which some unnamed Republican Senator was accusing anyone who wanted to get to the bottom of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal of being "traitors."

THAT'S who I'm talking about.

I might as well throw in the host of the present blog as well.

If you want to be called patriots, you btter act like patriots. That means honestly debating issues, and adhering to the principle that you want to do what's best to this country.

As the pro-Bush (and I mean truly pro-Bush -- not the people who think Bush is lousy, but lie to protect him for strategic and political reasons) contingent dwindles, we are left with a bunch of looney toons wingnuts who believe anyone who says a single word against President Bush or his policies is a traitor.

These are the same people who, now, are making excuses for torture, just as they made excuses for locking up U.S. citizens indefinitely, without access to an attorney or to the courts, simply on the say so of the Executive branch.Those people are fascists, pure and simple. They are divorced from reality and civil discourse.

And, they will become increasingly desperate and Bush goes down the tubes.

I am worried that they will start becoming violent, quite frankly. Their grip on reality is sliping so fast.

Posted by: Hesiod at May 15, 2004 04:07 PM

You are projecting your fantasies, "Hesiod."

Posted by: Smitty at May 15, 2004 04:58 PM

"I might as well throw in the host of the present blog as well.

If you want to be called patriots, you btter act like patriots."

- - -That's exactly what I mean, Hesiod. I DID ridicule the people you cited. I DO question - and criticize - the administration. But you threw me into that "unpatriotic" category....the one you guys seem to believe the administration keeps placing you in.

So, spare me the self-righteous bullshit, and try to defend the fact that you just compared every Bush supporter to Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 15, 2004 05:06 PM

Let me guess...you didn't actually read my ENTIRE post right?

I certainly hope that's the explanation for your obviously stupid comment Smitty.

Posted by: Hesiod at May 15, 2004 05:07 PM

I threw you n, Jon, because you blatantly misrepresented what I wrote in the above post. I was obvuiously referring to SPECIFIC people, not "Bush supporters" in general.

So, what's your major malfunction? Either you are stupid (which I don't believe) or you are a liar.

Why are you lying about what I wrote, and trying to spin it?

Posted by: Heisod at May 15, 2004 05:10 PM

Ahem:
"It's ALL of the people who support Bush and think this way."

- - -And what's more, while I disagree with comments you cited - and have blogged my disgust with Inhofe, Lowry and others - I leave it at that. I disagree, even to the point of being disgusted. What I don't do is compare the people with whom I disagree to Saddam Hussein.

Disagree on substance. When you stoop to demonization like that, you're no longer engaged in civil discourse. It is exactly that sort of political discourse that polarizes us and prevents us from discussing issues on their merits.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 15, 2004 05:19 PM

Nasty, nasty. The last defense of those who have completely lost the plot, "Hesiod."

Posted by: Smitty at May 15, 2004 05:21 PM

we are left with a bunch of looney toons wingnuts who believe anyone who says a single word against President Bush or his policies is a traitor.

As opposed to:

1) A former Dem. V.P. who says the Pres. deliberately lied about the terror threat and "betrayed" the country
2) A prominent Dem Presidential candidate who opined that Bush "knew" about 9/11 in advance on a radio show
3) Another prominent Dem presidential candidate along with a party leader who deliberately and falsely called the president AWOL and a deserter
4) A senior Dem. Senator who said that the President lied about the war, which was "cooked up in TX" for political gain
5) A whole raft of democrat and democrat affiliated celebs, activists etc who casually throw around Bush=Nazi rhetoric

And do you actually wonder WHY your patriotism gets questioned? This isn't fringe we're talking about....this is YOUR PARTYS MAINSTREAM.

You don't want to have your patriotism questioned? Too fukking bad, next time you should make sure the grownups are in charge of your party, jackass.

Posted by: shark at May 15, 2004 05:22 PM

"It's ALL of the people who support Bush and think this way."

Can't read English, eh?

Posted by: Hesiod at May 16, 2004 06:27 AM

Well...

Bush did betray the country with the war in Iraq, he did go AWOL, and Howard Dean didn't "opine" that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. He said Bush's refusal (at the time) to cooperate with the 9/11 commission allowed rumors and conspiracy theories to proliferate, including one involving a warning from the Saudis, which he saidf he didn't believe.

And, while I agree that many fringe leftists (and many libertarians, by the way) regullarly compare Bush and cohorts to the Nazis, they are not sitting United States Senators or powerful members of the Democratic party. Personally, I find it massively disturbing and hypocritical that such a fundamentally anti-Democratic, neo-McCarthyite, ant-Freedom group of people is promoting a war against another country to PROMOTE "freedom and democracy."

As for the war against Iraq being cooked up in Texas for political gain...well...duh!

Maybe not completely. Maybe Bush really was stupid enough to believe this would work (as were many Americans convinced by the trumped up and phony rhetoric from the administrtaion). But at some point, you have to figure out that what you are doing isn't working.

Lyndon Johnson had the decency to NOT run for reelection when Vietnam became a quagmire. He put the interests of the country and his party ahead of his own ambition.

What's Bush's problem?

If you love freedom, vote Bush AND the Republicans out of power in 2004.

The Democrats may not be prizes themselves, but at least they respect the Constitution.

Posted by: Hesiod at May 16, 2004 06:39 AM

Hesiod:
Even assuming you limit it to people who said that the outrage was outsized (i.e., politicized) to the abuse, and the people who believe this says something about women in the military...it is STILL demonization.

Look, I disagree with, for example, Charles Rangel very strenuously. But the guy isn't equivalent to Saddam Hussein for believing that we should press citizens into service just like Saddam did.

He's just not. And those who agree with Republicans, and think the abuse was politicized (it was. The abuse itself was horrible and traitorous, but it WAS politicized) are not equivalent to Saddam. And no, they don't want to throw those who disagree into jail.

Don't be ridiculous. (Balki. c.1988)

"The Democrats may not be prizes themselves, but at least they respect the Constitution."

- - -Heh. You couldn't possibly have written that with a straight face. (The GOP doesn't either, but jeebus...the Democrats? Riiiight)

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 16, 2004 08:14 AM

Let's leave Shrub aside, and focus on the supporters. Anti-abortion zealots, pro-school voucher zealots, pro-capital punishment zealots, anti-affirmative action zealots, anti-income tax zealots, social security reform zealots ...

These factions all existed before Shrub took the national stage and will exist in five years, either after Shrub or ANYONE finishes the next presidential term. They will be loud and partisen and vituperative.

AND, it is at least theoretically possible that they are motivated in their zealotry by emotions other than hate. Perhaps they love the pre-born fetuss rather than harbor hatred for unwed mothers or uppity professional women. Just, perhaps. Perhaps voucher proponents are not motivated by hatred of teachers' unions but, just maybe, really do hope to help young students in failing schools. It's possible of some, don't you suppose? Perhaps capitol punishment really does, in some people's minds, protect the public safety. Perhaps getting the right best person for a job really does get harder with racial quotas in place. Perhaps the income tax could raise more money with other incentive structures, and perhaps social security could be safer for the elderly if the "trust fund" invested in something other than federal I.O.U.'s. It is at least conceivable that persons who hold these illiberal notions are not driven by hatred, isn't it?

What does it say about a person who hold opposing positions, that he chooses to ascribe hatred to all who differ with him? Or to even most? Not to groups who are rioting and forming lynch mobs and militias to advance their agendas, but who sign petitions, place advertisements, caucus for particular candidates, and turn out the vote -- are these groups really well described as "hate" groups?

Every group? Every member of such groups? "Hate" is such a strong word.

That they may be in error, that they may be stuck in the past, mathematically ignorant, parochial, -- stupid even -- these are insults enough, wouldn't you think? "Evil" - - "hate" , I wonder what motivates those who use such terms to describe the motives of their opponents?

Are they stupid?

Posted by: Pouncer at May 16, 2004 11:49 AM

The Democrats may not be prizes themselves, but at least they respect the Constitution

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Dems constantly end-around the constitution through judicial acyivism. Dems respect the constitution, who do Schumer and Senate Dems filibuster the votes for judges who promise to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION?

And since you've admitted you agree with Gore, Dean, Clark and Kennedy's lunatic black helicopter theories, you're a useless hack and I'm done with you, except thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: shark at May 16, 2004 01:39 PM

Given the discussion, I'll hold my original response well demonstrated.

Posted by: Bithead at May 16, 2004 05:22 PM