The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Dr Maturin]

Well, your mile may vary in the terms of anecdotal evidence as towards people's attitudes towards our armed forces in relationship to their feelings on the policies of the current administration. Personally, as I said, I haven't met anyone who has had anything bad to say about the troops. (That is not to say that they've had anything bad to say about individual soldiers who might be jerks, their profession beside the point.)

Lucky you.

As to Fred Phelps (Sorry, I won't use the title Reverand for him) and his dispicable ilk at Westboro Baptist "Church," I don't think anybody sees them as part of any legitimate political movement instead of the radical fringe hate group they are. Any attempt ot tie them into the anti-war movement would be as intellectually disengenuous as it would be to call the Republican Party the official party of annonymous gay bathroom sex based on the antics of Larry Craig.

The great thing about being a conservative is that we point out stupidity no matter the source. A good portion of us harbor ire against Bush, but for actual legitimate reasons. Phelps or Sheehan, they are no different. Bad stances are bad stances, whatever their (flawed and flat out incorrect) reasoning may be.

[frulad]

Actually, progressives like to point out stupidity too. If they didn't, we wouldn't have had most of the civil rights advnaces over the last century or so.

I would also say that trying to draw any parrallel between Phelps and Sheehan/the anti-war movement doesn't really help your arguement.

[Dr Maturin]

Actually, progressives like to point out stupidity too. If they didn't, we wouldn't have had most of the civil rights advnaces over the last century or so.

Progressives are stupidity incarnate. Kind of hard to point it out when they are in the midst of it. Swinging a broadsword at the Bush administration doesn't count, either, because not everything they do is stupid.

I would also say that trying to draw any parrallel between Phelps and Sheehan/the anti-war movement doesn't really help your arguement.

Again, motives do not matter. Their aims are equally wrong.

[Karachi Vyce]

Well, your mile may vary in the terms of anecdotal evidence as towards people's attitudes towards our armed forces in relationship to their feelings on the policies of the current administration. Personally, as I said, I haven't met anyone who has had anything bad to say about the troops. (That is not to say that they've had anything bad to say about individual soldiers who might be jerks, their profession beside the point.)

The problem is that some of the most prominent members of the Democrat party can, at times, be condescending about the troops, or outright against them.

Case in chief: Jack Murtha, who less than a year ago nearly got a very important leadership role in the new Democrat-led Congress, before the rest of the Democrat party came to their senses and refused to let Pelosi let that happen.

Murtha is a particularly disgusting human being, let alone a Congressman. He absolutely slandered American marines for the Haditha incident, claiming that they essentially went in there and intentionally, with cold, calculated premeditation, slaughtered two-dozen Iraqi civilians.

Now, of course, that's been going through the legal process and as it's turned out, the Marines he slandered are getting exonerated for the crimes he said they committed. Video evidence was just released in the last week or so that showed that insurgents were all throughout that area, and the Marines had little idea as to which buildings held civilians and which held insurgents. Air strikes were called in, and the soldiers shot first instead of taking the time to make sure each building was clear of terrorists. As a result, civilians died, which is a tragedy, but the point is, the reality of the situation is being revealed to be far from what Murtha put out there. And that's what's so despicable about the man. He refused to give his fellow countrymen the benefit of the doubt, or should I say, refused to stand by the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" that apparently so many liberals of Murtha's ilk think applies when talking about the rights of terrorist shits down in Gitmo, but not for our soldiers in Iraq. Every American (and certainly Murtha's fellow Democrats) should be entirely disgusted by his actions in that regard, if indeed all of this professed compassion for our troops is genuine.

You could say that it's only the fringe elements on the left who believe this way, that revile the troops, and I would generally agree (although I sometimes have my doubts as to whether Democrats in generally really trust the troops), but I sadly believe that fringe groups are the ones who really holds the power these days in the Democrat party.

As to Fred Phelps (Sorry, I won't use the title Reverand for him) and his dispicable ilk at Westboro Baptist "Church," I don't think anybody sees them as part of any legitimate political movement instead of the radical fringe hate group they are. These are the same bozos who wanted to protest the Amish schoolhouse and Virginia Tech shootings and the funerals of those killed in the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Any attempt otto tie them into the anti-war movement would be as intellectually disengenuous as it would be to call the Republican Party the official party of annonymous gay bathroom sex based on the antics of Larry Craig.

I would agree. People from both predominant political parties try to damn each other by thrusting Phelps on the other ideology. Liberals may try to paint Phelps / Westboro as part of the religious right, due to his all-consuming hatred of homosexuals, conservatives may try to put him with liberals because Phelps technically is, or was, a Democrat (at some point) and is anti-troop (and it would seem, anti-American). But those folks are really on an island by themselves. They're not really "left" or "right", they're just batshit crazy.

[frulad]

Progressives are stupidity incarnate.

And all conservatives suck each other off in airport bathrooms with the enthusiasm of a sophmore cheerleader looking for a date to the senior prom.

See, isn't it fun to make blanket insults? I guess I'll be the bigger man here and walk away.

[Dr Maturin]

And all conservatives suck each other off in airport bathrooms with the enthusiasm of a sophmore cheerleader looking for a date to the senior prom.

And if that kind of stupidity had anything to do with party stances you'd have a point.

Promoting universal health care, manmade global warming legislation and other agendas which have been proven as faulty and flat out wrong time and again is indicative of the stupidity I mentioned earlier.

See, isn't it fun to make blanket insults?

I didn't see any insults coming from me.

I guess I'll be the bigger man here and walk away.

Ah, another progressive idea at work.

[Jan]

Neutral corners, folks...please.

However, since both sides are in the 'room', tell me this: What can be done to *stop* the adversarial mindset and get the two sides working toward compromise on issues? Granted, there might be something to say for keeping any and all action neutralized, but is it even possible or is it just going to stay fasionable to bash each other and accomplish nothing?

Jan

[AaronB]

Neutral corners, folks...please.

However, since both sides are in the 'room', tell me this: What can be done to *stop* the adversarial mindset and get the two sides working toward compromise on issues? Granted, there might be something to say for keeping any and all action neutralized, but is it even possible or is it just going to stay fasionable to bash each other and accomplish nothing?

Jan

Personally I don't think that it can be done until both sides realize that their bases need to be put out to pasture. They are the ones that are fostering this idea of "no compromise".

Take the case of Joe Leiberman a man who has solid liberal credentials and because he happens to agree with the President about Iraq, he get voted off the Democratic side of the ticket for the election.

I'm not trying to pick on one side, it's just the example that came to mind.

[Karachi Vyce]

And if that kind of stupidity had anything to do with party stances you'd have a point.

Promoting universal health care,

Funny you bring this up. I thought you in particular would find this interesting.

Democrat hopeful John Edwards wants universal health care. And he's going go FORCE you to go to the doctor.

You have no choice in the matter.

[Radhil]

Neutral corners, folks...please.

However, since both sides are in the 'room', tell me this: What can be done to *stop* the adversarial mindset and get the two sides working toward compromise on issues? Granted, there might be something to say for keeping any and all action neutralized, but is it even possible or is it just going to stay fasionable to bash each other and accomplish nothing?

Jan

Judging from experience... brain trauma?

I speak of both "sides" here.

The us vs. them is more or less a self-defeating circle for anyone that wants to deal with reality and a power feedback loop for those that don't. The real people in politics either get processed into the party line or exhausted by contradicting views. Anyone hitched to the party line may lose a term in one place as the nation switches from one side to the next, but the next switch will come and it's easy to get a seat somewhere. And oh, look at all the political toys the other guys left us while they were having fun.

It works for the folks in office, it just doesn't work for us. I honestly don't think it will stop until it crashes.

[Der Mike]

Stupid states for allowing it.

Jan

Technically, they haven't had any ability to stop it. The SCOTUS has forgotten that the 10th Amendment exists for decades now.
-=Mike

[Der Mike]

Neutral corners, folks...please.

However, since both sides are in the 'room', tell me this: What can be done to *stop* the adversarial mindset and get the two sides working toward compromise on issues? Granted, there might be something to say for keeping any and all action neutralized, but is it even possible or is it just going to stay fasionable to bash each other and accomplish nothing?

Jan

You don't WANT "getting along". You WANT adversaries. Otherwise, you don't have a free country.

And you will stop hearing about how "divided" we are the moment a Dem gets in the White House. Whether it's true or not, it will stop being referred to then --- just as homelessness will be (lord knows it stopped being mentioned QUICKLY in 1993 and didn't get referred to again until about 2001).

BTW, as for Roe --- it was terrible law and an abysmal ruling. It is truly dangerous as it was, LITERALLY, the SCOTUS creating a "right" out of thin air. Anybody who supports the rule of law should oppose that kind of thing.
-=Mike

[SmileOfTheShadow]

You don't WANT "getting along". You WANT adversaries. Otherwise, you don't have a free country.

And you will stop hearing about how "divided" we are the moment a Dem gets in the White House. Whether it's true or not, it will stop being referred to then --- just as homelessness will be (lord knows it stopped being mentioned QUICKLY in 1993 and didn't get referred to again until about 2001).

Indeed. Nothing scares me more when I see Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton walking out on stage together smiling and being chummy...

And mike, you should know better. There was no division because *everyone* loved President Clinton. And there was no homelessness because he took all the bums in and offered them jobs like "Director of the CIA."

[AaronB]

Indeed. Nothing scares me more when I see Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton walking out on stage together smiling and being chummy...

Especially when they are doing something so partisan as raising funds for tsunami victims.

And mike, you should know better. There was no division because *everyone* loved President Clinton. And there was no homelessness because he took all the bums in and offered them jobs like "Director of the CIA."

While I agree with what you and Mike are saying mostly, there is a difference between being adversarial and being obstructionist (and a shrill partisan). Personally, I don't watch the news channels anymore because of how shrill the content is these days. There is no discussion anymore, just people yelling over each other. In fact I saw a quote today by Jefferson that really drives this home:

"Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle."

Then again, this story is about as old as America. If you have read any of the accounts about what was going on during the 1800 election, you would be surprised by what went on then.

[Der Mike]

I've read what was going on back then. It wasn't shocking.

And, TO ME, the biggest problem is that progressives still have this insane belief that they are not mean at all and that all of the negativity is on the side of the right. Ignoring their treatment of, well, every single gay Republican and the borderline absurd attacks on Bush since he took office, it is positively insane.
-=Mike