kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 17, 2005 21:55:08 GMT -5
Can we end the "vacation" nonsense right now. Do you really think that the President ever really gets to go on vacation? Do you think that he stops getting briefing, talking to advisers, hosting foreign leaders while he's on vacation? Do you really think that he's disconnected at all by being in Texas?
I guess we could go back to Harry Truman and have the president go down to Key West, or FDR and Georgia.
Saying that he's on vacation is a bunch of BS and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 17, 2005 22:00:06 GMT -5
Oh - I thought you weren't going to respond to me, bin. But the blogs didn't get anything "wrong" you idiot- not ONE THING! Go ahead, dispute one FACT about Sheehan's first meeting....Let's hear it. You just say this sort of thing because you think nobody will call you out on what in this case is pretty much willful ignorance. I am not going to continue with you. Its really a lot of work to respond to such sophomoric drivel because you find that you can make no assumptions of current events literacy or argumentative maturity with a person such as yourself. Its like playing a video game you know very well but having to start from the begining. Its just to boring to do all that leg work again. If you are the kind of person who falls for this "moral authority" crap of a woman who clearly is (clincally speaking) disturbed, then I will saunter off to bed now and let the idiocy of your own words speak for themselves. I don't have the will to deal with your mock outrage, being as uninformed as you are that you didn't even know Bush has already met with the woman twice. You can't even see that it is you who are seeking to manipulate woman's illness for your own gains. Bin how can you not respond to something I've said when you quote it and mention me by name? Go ahead and saunter off to bed bin - maybe you can continue to dream of a world where we are winning the war in Iraq (oh wait that might have been down-graded to a "struggle" as well). I wonder what your standard is for something that is "childish drivel" - I linked an analysis of Hitchens' political views on terrorism and the Iraq war from a Georgetown professor and referenced other work of Hitchen's that I like. I also explained to you what I meant by my comment about the right wing blog story on Sheehan's initial meeting with Bush and what propaganda is and is not. Your posts on this thread have been a bunch of name calling and accusations and the posted quote from Hitchens was more of the same and then you respond with an analogy to a video game - clearly you must know what childish drivel is. I did not reference the moral authority of Sheehan any where in my post. I said in the bottom line that even if she does use her son's death to further her agenda by imputing motives on his part, the right is doing no better in this argument. What I do have a problem with, bin, is you calling a woman who has lost a son in war a psychopath. I would not call a pro-war family that lost a son or daughter in Iraq names like that. When you support the troops you can't pick and choose who you support. And since you wanted me to dispute one fact about her meeting with Bush. Fine, I will do so. If you had read the entire piece in The Vacaville Reporter then you would know that the section that KC took from it is out of context. Sheehan did not agree with the war then and does not now. Her family made a decision as a family not to bring it up during their meeting with him. She also clearly understands the president's position - but that should not be construed as support for it. I believe its willful ignorance not to read the whole story. So here I'll post the link for you one more time: www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921And here's the paper that you all have been citing's direct refutation of your statement: www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2925934Further, she is not crazy as you keep parroting Horowitz, Limbaugh, and others. I would say that she is nothing short of brilliant for giving a face to a peace movement that couldn't get any air time before hand. Based on this I wouldn't say that she's getting used by the left so much as using the left. She has a right to protest and i think that its insulting to your own view point that all you can come up with to defend the President's position is a bunch of name calling.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 17, 2005 22:04:39 GMT -5
KC, I'm well aware he's not sitting by the pool. And this is far from my biggest complaint about George. But let's put it this way...if the CEO is getting a big raise while layoffs are occurring, that sends an awful message to the rest of the employees. George Bush is in the most important leadership position in the world. Perception is everything. A good leader -- one who wants to motivate and show respect to his employees -- doesn't give the impression he isn't working while people are dying. It's the same with this Cindy Sheehan thing. I don't think Bush owes any individual an explanation. Especially after he's given her one. That said, don't respond to her. Don't act like it is a great trial to get on with your life as you stand there in jeans with that smirk. And don't get me started on how repulsive the conservative elements of the press have been attacking this poor woman as a "crackpot." She has lost her son. None of those people understand. Please, if you choose to respond, don't attack the liberal elements of the press. I'm not one of them, though I am aware they go over the line at times as well. It is sick and depraved to put out the full blown assault on the character, not the arguments of a woman who has just lost a son. What am I saying? Show some respect.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2005 6:29:20 GMT -5
"Face it, thebin, if you never disagree with the Republican party, you pretty much lose all credibility, considering the myriad of contradictions within any party. "
I really expected better from you SFHoya99. Maybe you haven't been around as long as I thought, or perhaps your memory just sucks. I am quite sure that I have been in strict opposition to the GOP party line on this board several times more often as you have with the Democratic party. I repeat the party line huh? Here are just the first few things that come to mind that I have expressed on this board over the last several years: I am agnostic/anti-religion for the most part, reluctantly pro-choice, open to the legalization of not only drugs but more strongly in favor of the legalization of prostitution, pro-immigration, pro-moderate gun control, I think people who spend $10K to vacation in Disneyland (even with kids) over the South of France are morons, and have lambasted the current administration for its spending a dozen times- quite vociferously. I am the poster child of the GOP I guess.....
Go ahead. List your "independent" bona fides and see what your list looks like. Mind you- not a list of things you are more left on than the Dems, which just makes you a fringer leftist, but things you tend to move right on. (HoyaSaxa86 once hysterically tried to convince me she was more moderate (or less extremist anyway) than I was because several of her views were to the left of the Dems. I do miss her though.) Let's see how that partisan hack thing plays out when you give it a spin.
I have said it before, I will say it again. I don't love Bush, I am far too libertarian to love him, but I support him in substantial part because the pure bigotry of his enemies turns me off even more than his faults, which I think are generally well-intentioned. But when you call the man a prick because you don't like his diplomatic way of backing off a confrontation with a disturbed women (or is she a savvy PR hack who is using her son's death- take your pick) well..... Its OK, I would have stopped as soon as I saw that you think he went to war to make his budies rich- which frankly isn't an intellectually serious argument on this issue. Life is too short to engage in such complex and moderate voices such as yours who talk a big game about not being a party hack but whom I can't really remember every espousing a rightish sentiment like I have on the other side.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2005 9:17:46 GMT -5
Well, I've never seen you argue those points, Bin. Just curious, why do you think we went into Iraq? His buddies are making lots of money, and history is full of wars that were executed for economic reasons.
As for my independent bona fides...I'm for a strong military, I'm fiscally conservative and think spending is out of control, I'm for legal reform. In principle, I do agree that authority should be delegated on some items to lower levels -- except I'd rather go local on most things than states. I think withdrawing from Iraq would be one of the most ridiculous mistakes we could make. I praised Bush regarding Afghanistan until the day we basically withdrew. I agree with conservatives that we need to take a very hardline with terrorists -- I'd just like the gun to be aimed a bit more at the terrorists. I agree that as a security agency, the UN is pretty useless (not to say it doesn't do some good) and that we shouldn't be giving up any sovereignty. I agree with Bush that you do not need world support -- what is right is right (though if your friends question you, you should question yourself). I think protectionist tactics are ridiculous. I'm anti-abortion, but I can see both sides of the debate. Because I am naturally inclined to legislate as little as possible on moral issues, that's hard stand for me, but I've gone over it. I think family values are hugely important, but I'm just not sure how you legislate them. I've voted Democrat, Republican, Independent and Green in the 10 years I've been able to do so.
Frankly, living in SF recently, I've argued the conservative point of view more than the liberal; it bothers me quite a bit the divisive split that has come up. There's a lot of vitriol and not a whole lot of trying to understand the other side that I've tried to combat with my friends. If you are disgusted about what I said and opponents of Bush say, how do you feel about Rush, savage or Ann Coulter?
What made me angry about this is that the woman has lost her son. Bush's statement is insensitive, and the conservative press is out of control. They don't disagree with her; they and you call her crackpot. I suppose I shouldn't have called Bush a prick, but rather said that was a prick comment.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Aug 18, 2005 20:28:43 GMT -5
ms. sheehan has willingly thrust herself into the public eye and her statements therefore are open for debate and criticism.
that being said, her statements strike me less as the rantings of a "disturbed" person and more like what you would expect your average, politically unsophisticated person to say if microphones were thrust in front of them and they attempted to parrot the opinions fed to them by newfound friends in the lefty power player community. how many disturbed people do you know that raise honor student, eagle scout marines?
as far as thebin's hyperbolic response to SF and others, well, count me in the camp that believes W's "i gotta move on with my life" statement to be quite tasteless. was the statement true? yes--read edmund morris' outstanding op-ed in the times the other day for more on that. completely inappropriate? yes. its akin to answering a question about dead civilian iraqis with a response like "Well to make an omelet..." just because something is (arguably) factually true doesn't mean its an appropriate comment.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 19, 2005 6:15:12 GMT -5
I just don't see it as tasteless. I have looked and re-looked at the statement and I just don't see it as offensive. On the other hand, Sheehan has called Bush the "world's biggest terrorist", has declared that he committed a couple of thousand Americans to die to make his friends a bit richer, and thinks that we should impeach the "person who picks up the dog at the whitehouse." Oh but she is beyond criticism, because of a little known provision of the constitution that I still can't find, because her son gave his life for his country on a voluntary and dangerous mission. This whole topic really does anger the hell out of me because so much of it is disingenuous posturing. It seems that the left thinks that you "send your children" into our volunteer military and if your son dies in combat your opinions matter more- provided you are anti-war of course. Mark Steyn captures the hypocrisy of the left's focus on "children" in the military in this nugget: "....For as the New York Times’s Maureen Dowd informed us, ‘The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.’ Really? Well, what about those other parents who’ve buried children killed in Iraq? Linda Ryan lost her son, Marine Corporal Marc Ryan, to ‘insurgents’ in Ramadi: ‘George Bush didn’t kill her son,’ says Mrs Ryan. ‘Her son made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country.... George Bush was my son’s commander-in-chief. My son, Marc, totally believed in what he was doing.’ There are, sadly, hundreds of Linda Ryans across American: parents who buried children killed in Iraq and who honour their service to the nation. They don’t make the news. There’s one Cindy Sheehan and she’s on TV round the clock. She may not be emblematic of bereaved military families, but she’s certainly symbolic of media-Left desperation. Still, she’s a mother. And, if you’re as heavily invested as Ms Dowd in the notion that those ‘killed in Iraq’ are ‘children’, then Mrs Sheehan’s status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza. I agree with Mrs Ryan: they’re not children in Iraq; they’re thinking adults who ‘made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country’. Whenever I’m on a radio show these days, someone calls in and demands to know whether my children are in Iraq. Well, not right now. They range in age from five to nine, and though that’s plenty old enough to sign up for the jihad and toddle into an Israeli pizza parlour wearing a suicide-bomb, in most advanced societies’ armed forces they prefer to use grown-ups. That seems to be difficult for the Left to grasp. Ever since America’s all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterise them as ‘children’. If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision and her parents shouldn’t get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the Oval Office shagpile and chow down on Bill Clinton, she’s a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year old is serving his country overseas, he’s a wee ‘child’ who isn’t really old enough to know what he’s doing. I get many emails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen Dowd, who writes as if she’s auditioning for a minor supporting role in Sex and the City. The infantilisation of the military promoted by the Left is deeply insulting to America’s warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd’s purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that ‘of course’ they ‘support our troops’, because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine. " www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6501&page=2
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Aug 19, 2005 8:16:35 GMT -5
Steyn's semantic excoriation of Sheehan and Dowd is silly and pedantic. The dictionary defines "children" as either "a person between birth and puberty," or "A son or daughter; an offspring." Steyn's convenient strawman proves nothing more than Sheehan has elected to present her case in the most sympathetic way possible. And more importantly, it's entirely beside the point. Steyn's defense of Dubya's moronic "I've got to move on" statement is to attack the semantics of Sheehan, Dowd, and the anti-war left? The only salient point he makes (that there are parents of war-dead who still support the war) is still an lame diversion from Dubya's very insensitive flub. There are compelling arguments either way as to whether Dubya should or shouldn't meet with Sheehan, and the proper course the US should chart re: Iraq over the next few years. Steyn's 'brilliant' identification that the anti-war "Left" chooses to convey their message with an emotional content is hardly a compelling defense of Dubya's foot-in-mouth disease. A leader (let alone a self-proclaimed "war President") is quite justifiably held to a higher standard than those who choose to present contrary viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Aug 19, 2005 8:45:58 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks this whole question of "sensitivity" is a little overblown? For crying out loud, Bush already met with this woman, and is any leader really supposed to spend hours expressing unqualified sympathy for everyone in the world deserving of it? No, but of course most people worthy of sympathy don't make public spectacles of themselves, as the Bin rightly points out.
Believe me, I'm no fan of Bush, but to seize on this one comment is indicative of the ridiculous lengths liberals will go to smear a president they don't like. Anyone without a giant axe to grind would recognize Bush's statement as an imperfectly - but far from horribly - phrased effort to show sympathy for Sheehan's loss while also pointing out that the Preisdent of the United States can't fall to pieces everytime someone gets hurt with a policy decision he has made.
America needs to get back to arguing the merits of the war, the budget deficit, Roberts, or something of substance, not one woman's quest to make herself heard (again) by the president, and all of liberaldom's efforts to exploit her.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Aug 19, 2005 10:14:22 GMT -5
to seize on this one comment is indicative of the ridiculous lengths liberals will go to smear a president they don't like. Anyone without a giant axe to grind would recognize Bush's statement as an imperfectly - but far from horribly - phrased effort to show sympathy for Sheehan's loss while also pointing out that the Preisdent of the United States can't fall to pieces everytime someone gets hurt with a policy decision he has made. But that's just the point - a leader doesn't need to point out anything other than that he is sympathetic to Mrs. Sheehan. "I need to move on" isn't merely unsympathetic (which undermines the sincerity of the proffer of sympathy made only seconds before, rendering it brazenly stupid as well), but wholly unnecessary. Did you need do be reminded that, as Pres, Dubya has other things on his plate? You think the rest of the nation did? So why do it? Given how well-documented Dubya's malapropisms and general deficiencies in public speaking are, you'd think there would be handlers around tasked with keeping him from on text. Heck, if nothing else this makes painfully clear why Dubya has been more willing to give press conferences in his second term than he was prior to Nov. 2004.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Aug 19, 2005 10:23:52 GMT -5
I didn't need to be reminded, but who among us has never said a little more than was necessary when answering a question or making a statement? And insensitive? Bush expressed sympathy, but also reminded all those people who have been complaining that he should go meet with Mrs. Sheehan why he should not. And I'd bet that even after he made his statement, there were reporters and critics arguing that he should still go talk to Mrs. Sheehan.
There is no reason to believe there in anything more to it than that.
Now can we PLEASE, as a nation, get back to complaining about overspending and other things that are actually meaningful?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 19, 2005 13:49:15 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks this whole question of "sensitivity" is a little overblown? For crying out loud, Bush already met with this woman, and is any leader really supposed to spend hours expressing unqualified sympathy for everyone in the world deserving of it? No, but of course most people worthy of sympathy don't make public spectacles of themselves, as the Bin rightly points out. Believe me, I'm no fan of Bush, but to seize on this one comment is indicative of the ridiculous lengths liberals will go to smear a president they don't like. Anyone without a giant axe to grind would recognize Bush's statement as an imperfectly - but far from horribly - phrased effort to show sympathy for Sheehan's loss while also pointing out that the Preisdent of the United States can't fall to pieces everytime someone gets hurt with a policy decision he has made. America needs to get back to arguing the merits of the war, the budget deficit, Roberts, or something of substance, not one woman's quest to make herself heard (again) by the president, and all of liberaldom's efforts to exploit her. Did you read any of the posts, fso? I clearly said, twice, that I think Bush had responsibility to ever respond to her again. But he chose to, and when he did, he was a complete jerk about it. Is this a huge political issue? No. But just like conservatives though Clinton getting a bj in the oval office was indicative of his character, I found the comments made by Bush both telling and disturbing. I didn't think the thread would get this long. It was an off hand comment. Yes, we can get back to how we're burying our country in debt, were deceived into a war while our real enemies run free, and basically how we're watching the country go to crap but all we do is give tax breaks to energy companies and pass pork spending bills.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Aug 19, 2005 14:03:31 GMT -5
Sure I've read them (except for the extensive Hitchens blurb) and nowhere did I see anyone consider that the President is asked questions by reporters all the time and that his answer is totally reasonable and understandable if the context is a reporter - and I believe he was responding to a Cox reporter - asking him if he will talk to Sheeehan, and if not, why not. SF, do you think it would have been better if he answered "no comment"? Would the left have let it slide if he had just refused to talk about it? I think not.
As far as the debt and pork go, I am in complete agreement with you.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 19, 2005 15:29:37 GMT -5
... and nowhere did I see anyone consider that the President is asked questions by reporters all the time ... Bush is only asked questions by reporters when he decides to hold press conferences. Which is remarkably very infrequently compared to Clinton, Bush 1, and Reagan. Here's an old Christian Science Monitor Article on it: www.csmonitor.com/2003/0801/p03s01-uspo.htmlI know that information is old, but Bush still lags significantly behind past presidents in terms of Press Conferences held and the West Wing screens his questions to a much greater extent than past White House Communications Staffs have done.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 25, 2005 12:46:50 GMT -5
|
|
vagrant
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 182
|
Post by vagrant on Aug 25, 2005 22:03:26 GMT -5
Let's not forget that Cindy Sheehan son, Casey, enlisted in the Army with free will. When his time was up, he reenlisted. 5 days after arriving in Iraq, he VOLUNTEERED for the very mission that killed him. IMHO, Cindy may be dishonoring her very own son. If that is so, shame on her to put her own pain above her son's honor, whether she agreed with him or not. When a child acts honorably, it is the parent's duty to support him/her.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2005 22:26:39 GMT -5
That's G Will at his best, which is a considerable thing.
|
|