- Special tax to fund war not necessary
- More ID requirements for voting is wrong
- Blackwater scandal
- Fighting air congestion
- Death toll in Iraq down
- Moveon.org’s ad
- Biofuels policy & legislation
- Take responsibility for your actions
- You need to pass to move on
- Too much hoopla over voting ID requirements
Moveon.org’s ad
Morons who support Move.on.org aren’t happy with the America of our fathers and grandfathers. They want a socialist state, period. Kathy Madden(RMN Letters Oct 2nd) rants about chickenhawks but I wonder how much military experience she has?, especially at the classified level where I worked as a naval intelligence officer for sixteen years. Move.on puppets like Steve Shelton and Kathy Madden have no clue about the big picture, they just hate Bush. Their shallow diatribes don’t include any solutions, just emotional liberal talking points. The U.S. Senate voted 77 to 23 (bipartisan votes) to remove Saddam Hussein. That’s why we’re there.
And no, Bush did not lie, the intelligence services of many countries agreed Saddam was a threat. So did John Kerry, Hillary, Ted and other Democrats. Look it up. Has it been perfect? Of course not. What the Move.on folks don’t want to admit is Islamic fundamentalists are more of a threat to us than President Bush. Unfortunatelyour enemy reads this liberal drivel and is energized to kill more U.S. soldiers. By the way, every time you hear thelinethatthe President has failedto find Bin Laden it isn’t the President who has been puttinghis boots on the ground around the world. He sent us,the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen of the U.S. Armed Forces. Soyou’re really saying we have failed. Thanks for reminding us, you’ve been a big help. Especially with your cries of we support the troops, but Bush is a failure.
This letter has not been edited.
I think Keith should run for treasurer!
Posted by Charles B. on October 9, 2007 02:30 PMLT.Steve-LT. Steve:
Where is your hate for Bush and the rest of his clan for running away from Vietnam. You have the gall to come down on a fellow war vet like Kerry (Decorated) and defend that coward in the White House. Take off your GOP coatails you swine!!!!!
Thank you, Lt. Schultz, for your straightforward comments. As you rightly contend, the “shallow diatribes” of the antiwar establishment reflect just who they really are. If the liberals were truly serious about supporting the troops, they would also be defending their mission. As it is, they support neither. The facts speak for themselves.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on October 9, 2007 03:04 PMOr better yet, if the liberals were truly serious about bring the troops home, they'd cut off funding, which is the only measure the US Congress can take to stop it. Until then it's all talk and empty promises.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 03:16 PMSecretary of the Colorado Republican Party
Thank you, Lt. Schultz, for your stream-of-consciousness comments. This speaks volumes as to why the GOP is in such disarray in Colorado.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 03:39 PMwatch what you say and the top dums want more spying at home so they know who is against them. waxman hillbillary and the meadia matters puppets who spread what hillbillary tells them to.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 04:26 PM"Morons who support Moveon.org aren’t happy with the America of our fathers and grandfathers."
I don't support Moveon, and I'm happy with the America of previous generations. Not a big fan of the America we've got now, however.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 05:15 PMI agree with 3:39PM. This was a highly unprofessional tirade from a party officer in a public forum.
Also, I'd like to author to elaborate on the comment: "Morons who support Move.on.org aren’t happy with the America of our fathers and grandfathers. They want a socialist state, period."
Howe does Lt. Steve Schulz validate this opinion? Has he polled MoveOn.org supporters in their preference of a socialist economic system over a capitalist one? If not, then he should take the time to conduct such a poll to validate this highly inflammatory (and potentially libelous) claim.
Next time, Mr. Schulz, hopefully you can present your ideas in a much more business-like, mature manner, without the personal attacks. Letters like this demonstrate you are no better than MoveOn.org.
Posted by Dan on October 9, 2007 06:09 PMHas any of these authors, including Lt. Schultz USNR Ret. even read the ad? I have, and I've come to my own colclusions.
First the headline ended with a question mark, which meant Moveon was asking a question.
Secondly, they did not attack him personally or the military in general. Just his methodology and statistics.
Third, with the exception of one statement the ad was based on facts, facts from the Wasington Post and the New York Times.
Lastly, Where were all these outraged people when Kerry was "Swift Boated"? Oh yea, they were at the RNC wearing bandaids mocking one of his Purple Hearts.
The only problem I have with "The Ad" is it gave the Right an excuse to change the subject of whether the Surge is working and what to do next.
Regarding Mr. or Lt. Schultz' diatribe: It looks like, when all else fails, the Republican Party still resorts to calling its critics commies. It's OK for Republicans to accuse paraplegic Vietnam vets of being cowards and traitors, but it's not OK to question our Supreme Leader or his underlings. Democrats can also be hypocrites, but they lack the sanctimoniouness that Republicans add to it.
Posted by peterpi on October 9, 2007 10:23 PMHere is a REAL Soldier, Brian McGough talking about the hate that Limbaugh spewed against the military. Where is your outrage Lt Schultz?
"More and more troops and veterans of Iraq believe George Bush's military policy has been a disaster. I am one of them. Rush Limbaugh called vets like me "phony soldiers" for telling the truth about Iraq. Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real. My traumatic brain injury was real. And, my belief that we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a "phony solider" to my face, stop telling lies about my service," says veteran Brian McGough of Washington, D.C.
Limbaugh decried the ad by the group that he linked to MoveOn.org, figuratively saying VoteVets is treating McGough like a suicide bomber.
So Soldiers who think are now 'suicide bombers'?
"If the liberals were truly serious about supporting the troops, they would also be defending their mission."
First off, what exactly would that mission be this week?
And second, what does the mission have to do with wanting our troops to come home safely?
But I'll go ahead make my own statement. If the conservatives were truly serious about supporting our troops, they would have the troops fight the actual people who want to kill everybody instead of target practice in a civil war.
Posted by Larry on October 10, 2007 07:04 AM"Third, with the exception of one statement the ad was based on facts, facts from the Wasington Post and the New York Times."
Both the Times and the Post are so notorious for printing the "facts"
WHATEVER!
Oh and 11:05, you are QUITE WELCOME :)
Sgt Schultz: You worked for sixteen years in Naval Intelligence, then you cite the intelligence services of many countries agreed that Saddam was a threat. You're probably one of the people who hyped phony intelligence or even fabricated the phony intelligence that got us into this mess. So thanks alot sgt schultz, for wasting almost a trillion dollars, so far, for using our military to conquer the middle east for their oil, and for killing and maiming those thousands and thousands of brave and courageous Americans who sacrificed all but were misled by our government.
Posted by on October 10, 2007 07:18 AMAre you a real soldier or one of Limbaugh's?
Posted by on October 10, 2007 08:04 AMLt. Schultz,
Straight talk from a Republican is a refreshing change. All that is required is to clarify the questions. You can read the responses offered up by the opposition and understand that the American people will provide the right answers.
By the way, it's considered impolite on this page to call morons morons. I try to soften the blow e.g., in comparing Bush to Hitler there may be one or two distinctions you've overlooked.
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 08:14 AMWho is this "us" retired navy lt. There are certainly boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm betting they're not your boots and likely weren't unless you were a corpsman, about the only anchor clankers I've ever admired outside the brown water navy.
I'd also guess you'd dispute that fine upstanding republican American Tom Delay who had this to say regarding missions and presidents with reference to the mission in Bosnia: "You can support the troops but not the president."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
davis X. Machina
The question is not about the General personally or his professional ability. The question is whether we respect the integrity of the officer corps as a non-political institution that operates with professional integrity.
Petraeus was branded a traitor by a leading Democrat special interest group in an ad published in the nation's leading newspaper before he gave his report.
The Democrat candidates for Commander-in-Chief, with the exception of Biden, did not distance themselves from the ad demonstrating that they are more concerned about the political aims Moveon.org then in defending for the integrity of the troops they seek to lead.
We are all free to judge and comment on the General based on his perfomance and his statements. It is instructive that his report itself has not been criticized as he has been personally. In fact there has been very little cpmment on the report.
This is clearly an act of partisanship and the politicalization of the American military is a mistake that sacrifices statesmanship.
Branding any General a liar and a traitor to impugn his character and discredit his message is foolish and short-sighted.
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 09:07 AMFirst of all, someone needs to learn that words have spaces between them to make them distinct.
Second, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. Despite what he says about "listening to his generals", he is the one who, ultimately, tells the troops where to go and what to do. If you don't send the troops to the right area, they can't capture someone. If you send the troops to the right area, but tell them not to do anything, they can't capture someone. If you send the troops to the wrong area, they will die. If you don't send the troops the proper equipment, they will die. All of the personal effort of the troops doesn't make up for the fact that they were sent on the wrong mission with the wrong tools.
Was Saddam a bad man? Sure! Was he worth this much pain and effort? No! The Twin Towers already gave us our mandate: Capture Bin Laden and destroy his terrorist network, not invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Also, some of us "morons" are small business owners. We like our capitalism. But capitalism without restraint is as bad as absolute socialism. It's not an either/or proposition, it's a little from column 'A' and a little of column 'B'. That's what intelligent people do.
Lastly, no, I am NOT happy with the America of my grandfather and my father. The slavery, the racism, the lynchings, the sexism, the corruption of government, the pollution, etc, etc. I love the ideal of America, which is why I am not happy with the America of my grandfather and my father... I want it to be better.
Posted by Roger on October 10, 2007 09:10 AMLetter writer Lieutenant Steve Schultz 100% right.He just forgot to add that Democrats are US haters and cowards.
Posted by An American on October 10, 2007 10:25 AMSo, this is what the once proud party of Lincoln has evolved into--name calling and empty rhetoric? Certainly not the party that my father and grandfather were proud to be a part of.
It seems all they are left with under that "big tent" are people who hate. And if postings by "An American" and his ilk didn't prove this, we now have an official member of the Colorado GOP putting out there for all to see.
Attacking veterans, attacking (literally) Gold Star fathers who have lost their sons in Iraq, attacking twelve year old kids and their families. The list just keeps growing and growing,
Posted by GOP=Party of Hate on October 10, 2007 10:39 AMRoger,
The Commander-in-Chief doesn't devise tactics or manage ordinance.
Hillary is wrong. Osama's demise will not signal the end of the war on terror.
As for what American heritage stands for it does have a lot to do with pespective.
I see a nation that fought a terrible civil war so that all the citizens could be free. I see that just a few generations after that war, a descendant of slaves sits on the Supreme Court.
In my perspective as a conservative, that history is a tribute both to the indomitability of the human spirit and the inherent justice of our form of governement.
You, on the other hand, have the perspective of a leftist so all you see is lynchings.
In your opinion, our ancestor's America does not live up to your moral standards. Fair enough - what do you want to throw out? And more importantly, what do you propose to put in place of our traditions?
Overlook is actually the word. Over look would be incorrect. I don't suppose a man with your views has much need of a dictionary.
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 11:14 AMI like the America of our fathers and grandfathers just fine. It is the America that has been poisoned by Bush and Cheney I am not so found of. This administration has set new low water marks for behavior. Patriotism remains the last refuge of the scoundrel. And yes, Bush did lie, far more than once. He is a dangerous fool
Posted by bebop on October 10, 2007 12:15 PMIt's so amusing to watch the last few Bush supporters foaming at the mouth in their desperate attempts to defend the rot that fills the White House.
Bunkered up like Japanese soldier-holdouts on remote islands long after WWII, they are oblivious to how irrelevant they've become, how idiotic they sound, and the facts in general.
The current administration bears no resemblance at all to any government this country has ever had, and the Founders must be spinning in their graves to see the depraved mess that currently passes for leadership in the U.S.A.
Tit-for-tat epithets, hurled with the impotent rage of six year old girls, mindless repetition of long-debunked Limbaugh talking points, and arrogant displays of past military experience do nothing to conceal the fact that these fools are utterly clueless.
We hate Bush because we hate traitors, and Bush is a traitor. We hate Bush because of his illegal war-profiteering, which is disgraceful treason. We hate Bush because of his use of terror tactics on United States citizens, and because of his suspension of habeus corpus and his general contempt for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American People.
The idiots who still defend Bush are pathetic, and are to be pitied for their senile confusion.
And don't try to pull rank on me. I'm a veteran, and we all know that Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, and the rest of the Neocons are cowardly, lying, draft-dodging chicken hawks.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
SUPPORT THE TROOPS
VETERAN FOR INTELLIGENT GOVERNMENT
IMPEACH THE TRAITORS BUSH / CHENEY
Perhaps, "Roger", in his posting of 09:10 AM really said it all, and said it best. Read his last paragraph.
That IS the "America of my Grandfather and my Father", the one the Republicans of today - by way of their current Colorado State Secretary - want us to return to; and the one in which they were the dominant political party right up through the time they brought on the Great Depression.
If you are satisfied with regressing to that time, and living under those conditions, you will be, of course, a Republican.
If you finally decide to grow up, and mature - rather than just growing old and reactionary - you'll look at the potentials existing today for making this Nation even greater for our children and grandchildren tomorrow. And, whatever it be, it WON'T BE blind devotion to the Nixon/Raygun/Bush formulae we know as "conservative"/Republican.
Hey! Roger, what hope have we that sound, sensible, and intelligent folks such as you might finally take back what was once the GRAND Old Party, and make it what it used to be; not just today's bunch of Greedy Grafters using the name?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 10, 2007 01:08 PM"If you finally decide to grow up, and mature - rather than just growing old and reactionary - you'll look at the potentials existing today for making this Nation even greater for our children and grandchildren tomorrow."
Hey, Old Fart. What grand vision do you have for making this nation even greater? Illuminate us with your great wisdom.
Or is this just another platitude from a typical lefty that sees nothing great about this country and only envisions nirvana - a utopian dream for an America that has never existed nor will ever exist?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Dan:
It doesn't require a genius to figure out the agenda of MoveOn.org or the money behind it - Soros. Continue to deny it and it just makes you look silly. All it takes is a little research.
I am not endorsing this inept administration. But I do agree with the letter writer's assertion that so much of the vitriol spewed by the left is simply hatred of Bush. I don't care for the man and believe he has made many mistakes. But I can also see the seething hatred from the left and their illogical smears for what they are. Political theatre designed for one aim - to regain power.
What I, an independent who leans to the right, would like to see from Dems courting my vote, are some specifics on what they plan to do to affect change. All I hear, still, after these past 8 years, is a lack of resolve to defend this country, criticism with no specific action plans, belittling of a military commander approved by the same people who refuse to now listen to his report. I also hear a party that seems to believe that I am not smart enough to make my own decision that affect my life. They want the government to take that over, too.
Not one of the Dems comes close to being honest about what they want for America. Why? Because it will be rejected by voters in 2008. Their clumsy attempts to manipulate voters on their pet projects are easy to see for anybody paying attention. Perhaps that is why Congress has an approval rating far below that of this inept President.
I also will not deny that the GOP has leadership problems - they are their own worst enemies. But that is another discussion....
Posted by RU Serious on October 10, 2007 01:48 PMRU Serious
It will not be possible to decipher what the Grouch actually means. That is a moving target.
It is however possible to read the plain text. He wants the GOP to return to the good old days sometime after the Great Depression and before Nixon - that is, the Eisenhower administration. Actually that's a pretty a good idea.
The US would be a more prosperous and free society if, just for instance, we ended the transfer of wealth through welfare programs and returned the schools to local control by eliminating the federal Department of Education.
Those are only two examples.
In fact, a lot of these reforms go back to Gingrich's Contract with America - remember the heady days of defunding PBS?
Who would have thought the Grouch is actually a Newty?
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 03:09 PMWelllll now Jimmy Jones. Or is it Batman? While some may want the Republicans to return to the good ole days when Eisenhower ruled the land, other folks like their Wonder Bread smothered with peanut butter and jelly. This of course does not mean we are all hungry for Republican rule or that the Dept. of Education exists solely to take your money for governmentally selfish reasons. But, you and Johnny 2 note seem to think things are chiseled in stone. Speaking of stoned, I think I'll make myself a good old fashioned peanut butter & jelly sandwich.
I don't expect a ideologically antiquated Je$u$ worshiping Republican to comprehend my cogent remarks. But, rest assured that there's at least one person on this forum who understands what I'm saying.
Please refrain from asking me anymore of your twisted questions. I have already my position crystal clear.
Posted by Old Grouch (an impersonation) on October 10, 2007 03:44 PMOld Grouch (an impersonation)
Let's keep the record clear. I'm not sure what you think you read but know this:
I have not asked you a question.
I may one day ask you a question but I can't imagine the circumstances right now.
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 04:39 PMPerhaps, I should have given more of a hint that I was impersonating Old Grouch's ramblings :)
Posted by John II on October 10, 2007 04:48 PMJJ -
The politicians are running this war, not the generals. It's being run on ideology, not reality. I think you would have figured this out by now. Bush and his Administration are calling the shots, not the generals, and definitely not the soldiers.
I'm not naive enough to think getting rid of Bin Laden will get rid of foreign terrorism, anymore than getting rid of Timothy McVeigh got rid of domestic terrorism. However, removing Bin Laden is still a goal we should have finished before dealing with a boxed-in dictator like Saddam. But it's too late for that now, huh?
I see the "America of my father and my grandfather" every day. I lived in it and I want better. I want the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers, the greatness that America can become, and to do that, we must continue to move away from the sins of past generations and not go backwards, repeating the those mistakes. Only striving in that direction allowed the descendant of a slave onto the Supreme Court. If we had stayed stagnant after the slaves were freed, instead of striving to not live in the America of their fathers and grandfathers, that man would not be on the Supreme Court today.
I don't have time to spell out what I'd remove and what I'd replace it with. I wish I could, but to be honest, I'm not in the mood to write it out. Maybe someday. But since I'm not a politician or a scholar, I'd be just another lone voice in the clutter that is this comments page.
And where the hell did you pull this "overlook" business from? I can't find it in any of my posts.
Old Grouch:
I appreciate the compliment, but I doubt people like me will ever take back over the GOP, because the votes aren't with us, they are with the millions of Christians and the millions from the defense industry.
John II
You got me.
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 05:52 PMRoger,
You seem to know a lot about what goes on in the war councils under the circumstances.
After 9/11 we realized that you don't "box-in" tyrants. Osama was "boxed-in" in Afghanistan adn still murdered more than 3,000 Americans.
You seem long on complaints and short on ideas for a weath-creating, small business man. But this much might console you, you're not the only one trying to make things better.
Posted by James Jones on October 10, 2007 06:00 PMAppropriately enough, Johnii trying to be funny is a lot less humorous than Johnii trying to sound intelligent.
Posted by on October 10, 2007 11:33 PMJJ -
One need not be a fly on the wall to know what is happening. The rhetoric, the results, and the retired generals pretty much tell us what we need to know. I'm don't believe the government is a big conspiracy. They pretty much do things right in the open, while everyone is looking for "loose change" and "2nd gunmen". And the sad thing is that they are getting away from it.
Oh, they tried to box in Bin Laden. I seem to remember some cruise missiles were part of it. I also seem to remember the conservative pundits howling that Clinton was doing it only to take the heat off his scandals. Now those same conservatives are yelling that he didn't do enough to stop Bin Laden. Hindsight is always 20/20.
I personally support the 3-state plan for Iraq. I know that Turkey isn't too crazy about it because of their own Kurdish problem, but it seems the most workable rather than holding the British-created borders by duct tape. But regardless, I just want us out of there. No bases, no advisers, no nothing. Out. Gone. And as far as the sectarian/tribal violence goes, well, we get 10 million* people dead in the span of a year after we pull out or we get 10 million people dead in 10 years and our troops caught in the crossfire. The ethnic cleansing is happening already, all we are doing is stretching it by being there. We don't have the troops to stop it and the international community won't help us because Bush & his Administration pissed away all the goodwill that 9/11 bought us.
*please don't debate the actual number. I just pulled it off the top of my head. It may only be a million, it may be 20 million by the time the smoke clears.
Posted by Roger on October 11, 2007 08:29 AMPukeOn Keith,
Do yourself a favor and get some intellectual honesty. Rush Limbaugh did not call vets like McGough “phony soldiers.” I have a feeling you actually know that but you don’t like Limbaugh’s politics so you will say anything to try to distort and discredit the real context of what he actually did say.
Being a wounded soldier does not give one license to create an alternate universe. I think Brian McGough is a liar. He has lied about what Limbaugh was saying. Integrity and character are the hallmark of a real soldier. Lying and unfair character assassinations are the hallmark of a phony soldier.
I think some of the liberals on this blog should come in from the playground. Lately, at every opportunity, some of them change the topic from what a letter writer has presented to the topic of the Rush Limbaugh comment. Whenever the topic of a letter is critical of Democrats or critical of the views of the left, those with a grade school mentality will say, “Oh yeah. Well if you think that’s bad, look how bad that Rush Limbaugh guy is.” Grow up!
I just love it when a real American like Lt. Steve Shultz puts all the Democrats and liberals on the defensive with the truth.
From the lefts silly nonsensicle rebuttles that shows their true hatred of not only Bush but of the military. Sort of like Bill Clinton's comment when the draft doger was at Oxford and said he loathe the military. So when the Real American people hear the lefts phohy concern for our troops they know it's all politics and lip service.
The Lt. said what is is true and needed to be said again and again.
He knows who the real enemy is here at home.
RU Serious,
After you finally get around to ignoring James Jones - and his hyperbolic fantasies about what he imagines someone else is saying, or means by something said - I'll try to answer your questions about what I think might be future greatness. If for you these thoughts are "utopian", and or "unatainable", then you can, of course, ignore them; since regression and reaction do seem to be very much the "orders of the day" with many.
However, after managing to get back into the status of a Representative Democracy (or Republic, since I see no point in quarreling trivial semantics), we could apply the immense resources we have to attempting to deal with the internal problems we have as a Nation ourselves.
We could return to that basic and axiomatic reality of politics, namely compromise. And out of compromise, we could enact legislation which would restore us to the status of, "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all", which is part of our original (and real) Pledge of Allegiance. We could recognize that Party positions, as cast in concrete, are not always the best way to govern.
In our history, we have many examples of the basic political reality of the art of the achievable, achieved by compromise. Not everyone is always satisfied by everything. And, it would be totally "utopian" - and totally unrealistic as well - to expect that. But, we have managed to lead the world in many areas throughout our history; and we could do so again.
Health Care, Air-Ground-Water-and-Other-Resource-Pollution, Education, and many other areas could be the focus of a concerted effort to solve problems, rather than just subjects about which to hurl epithets at one another concerning the nature of the particular position, or person, offering potential solution. And, "utopian" as it might sound, there is evidence that healthful political reality and compromise can - and has - accomplished many benefits and improvements in these, and other areas, already.
The mindless screaming of "socialist", "leftist", and words such as "trash", "traitor", and other, much less printable, epithets, does no more than expose the essential ignorance, and lack of maturity, of those doing it. As does the equally mindless insistence of, "It won't work; it can't work; don't try it. etc," that abound whenever a possible solution is offered to something.
It would appear - at least from articles and other news media presentations - that almost everyone has forgotten the immense cultural shock caused by the launching of "Sputnik". Here we were, THE "righteous", and anti-Communist "Great Nation", caught with our pants down, and our suspenders trailing, when the Soviet Union went into space, with a sattelite.
We caught up - eventually - and went on to surpass the Soviets. But, where are we today? What is so "utopian" about a space program that would aid us with new scientific methods? What is so "utopian" about going forward with additional Moon landings, and even a Mars landing expidition? Why are we so backwards as to now have no plans whatsoever for much - if any - space exploration? Have we decided to abandon the potentials of the future to the . . . Chinese? . . . or the Russians? . . . or even to a consortium of the 3rd World, just so we can sit comfortably on our collective posteriors, slanging and slaming one another, while sending American youth to die for someone else's religious civil war?
Ah! Well! Who knows? And, even more important, who cares? Let's just go on playing our own form of "Cowboys and Indians" - or whatever - and . . . ?
Jones,
The writer I cited - if you bothered to read him, which clearly you never did - cited the days of his Grandfather and Father; and they were nauseating, and noxious, in many ways. And only idiots and fools would seek to return to them - as you seem to want to do.
They were identifiable, in large part, as "Republican" times as well, that Political Party having the bulk of the Administrations, as well as status of Majority Party in Congress, during those years, right up to the Great Depression.
That the Republican party managed, for a short while, to escape from its attachment to always looking backwards, over its shoulders, to the non-existent "good old days", when Greed, Graft, and corruption were merely taken for granted as being part of the position of, "To the victor belong the spoils", is a rather startling anomaly in its history.
That it again became nothing more than the exemplar and repository of those same behavior patterns, is largely due to the likes of Newt Gingrich, and his Contract on Americans; as well as to the increasing influence of the religious nuts, kooks, and screwballs who form the central heart of the Party today.
To suggest that I would identify with that as something to which I desire to return, is just another indication of how little touch with reality you have as you grow increasingly into your second infancy, and the imaginative fantasies that pour forth from you as a result.
John II,
Your impersonation would have been a bit more successful if it didn't have the tell-tale marks of your own inability ever to mean what you say, or say what you mean; and, of course, the dead give-away of your insistence on the idea the "one person" knows what either might be at any one time That's a bit too much of your own theme song, Johnny One Note.
Nice try, though.
Old Grouch,
My rambling, disjointed impression of you made more sense than your last comment to me.
Yours is a cute style, though. It reminds me of Dr. Seuss.
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 12:06 PMOG
looks like you have me mistaken for another intelligent person who must be contantly putting you in your place and I'll take that as a compliment.
Sounds like you wrote an entire symphony and to counter the truth. That one note said more than your entire 5th or you wouldn't have responded and droned on and on.
Must of pushed a button without an off switch.
Next time try a "Minute Walz". Chopin and the rest of us would appreciate it.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 12:11 PMIsn't it funny how Democrats say they are for the US but do everything they can to help the terrorists.They say they are for freedom of speech but try to close down talk radio.They say they are for freedom but do everything they can to take away our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.They say they are for freedom yet push for campaign finance reform that takes away the right of the NRA and other groups to speak on issues 60 days before an election.The point is you can't believe anything the Democrats post on this page because they have a history of lying to the people.Just bypass their postings and go to the Republican postings and get the truth.Also listen to talk radio.The reason the Democrats fear talk radio is because we can get the truth there.I would suggest you listen to Mark Levin,Rush or Sean Hannity.
Posted by An American on October 11, 2007 01:01 PMThere is only one God...MY GUN!!!!
There is only one Freedom! The 2nd Amendment!!!!!
Death to the liberals and democrats!!!!
Posted by An American on October 11, 2007 01:15 PMWhoa....perhaps you might want to put a just kidding or a cute ;) after your death threats, An American.
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 01:19 PMPukeOn Keith,
Okay, I’ll accept your challenge to answer your question “where did you get this infinite wisdom to determine that Brian McGough is lying?”
While I don’t claim to possess infinite wisdom, I do know that McGough lied. He did exactly what the Democrats in Congress did, and that was to deliberately distort the entire context of what Limbaugh said. They know darn well that he has never besmirched any soldiers who disagree with the war in Iraq. McGough and the liberals in Congress selectively took two words – four short syllables – out of an entire conversation that probably lasted about five minutes and tried to make Limbaugh out to be anti-military. If an honest person listens to the entire conversation Limbaugh had with the caller and put it into the context of the exchange he had with a previous caller, they would see the lie told by McGough and some liberal members of Congress. It is one thing to misunderstand someone’s intentions when hearing them say a couple of words. It’s an entirely different thing to purposely cherry-pick two words from a long conversation in order to change the meaning a sentence just to smear them publicly.
If you cannot see the obvious, purposeful manipulation of the context of the conversation Limbaugh was having with a caller, then either you have not actually heard the exchange he had with the caller or you are adding to this misrepresentation.
I’m not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I detest unfair and dishonest criticism. It’s puzzling that people are able to judge what Limbaugh is all about when they don’t listen to him. For instance, you called him a blowhard, but I’m willing to bet that you haven't listened to more than ten minutes of Limbaugh’s show over the last year or so. Another poster writing on another thread said they only get their news from the local TV channels, such as channels 4, 7 and 9, but yet they tell me that the newscasters on Fox News are a bunch of airheads.
Your analogy to conservatives playing the "b-b-but Clinton did/said..." game is just as childish. “Mommy! They did it first. Make them stop, Mommy!”
Mountain Cat: McGough is as entitled to his interpretation of Rush as you are. I do listen to Limbaugh for as long as I can at times, but his constant bullying & screaming into the mic ( why I consider him a blowhard) usually drives me away within 30 minutes ( its all my ears can take). I do know Rush spoke about phoney soldierS (plural) and referred to them as THEY which is why McGough and myself consider Rush the liar here when he tries to stammer his way out sying he meant just that ONE soldier Jesse McBeth. Unless Rush had the same english teacher as Bush ( who loves all the childrenS and peopleS) I took that use of the plural to mean more than just McBeth ( which indeed it was meant to be, Rush was implying all the soldiers who did not agree with the policy were phoney). And McGough, the liberals, the Dems, McCain, Romney, some Republican congressmen and even your beloved FOX news seem to be in agreement with the sameinterpretation of Rush as I got, so this is beyond just a Liberal attack on a 'great' entertainer.
I will also ask again why doesnt the conservatives playing the "b-b-but Clinton did/said..." game bother you?I am not saying one justifies the others, but for some reason only one side using this tactic bothers you. Its this selective outrage that bothers me. Liberals saying that is childish to you but for some reason the consevatives using the same slant doesnt bother you. Just as MoveOn.org ad ( who's content was distorted as much as you seem to think Rush comments were) bothers you but Rush doesnt? So I'd say you arent quite the open and understanding person you claim to be but are as biased as I am.
Admit it or not Cat, but your views as as distorted to the Right as mine are to the Left. You'll continue to think liberals are airheads and I'll continue to think conservatives are nazis and nothing either of us says will change that. maybe this country does need to split into a Red US and a Blue Us and let each side do as they see fit.
The hick-dittoheads believe that Rush is credible. They also believe that Ronald McDonald is a real clown, that Ronald Reagan was NOT a clown, and that the Olive Garden is a real Italian restaurant.
People should be required to have at least a High School level of education before they are allowed to vote or weigh in on political issues, and perusing the letters section of the RMN proves it. People who are incapable of spelling simple words make it obvious that they don't read, having never seen these words in written form.
Their use of Limbaugth-cult-jargon displays the poverty of their knowledge, and further discredits them. Ignorant of the real motives of the people they carry water for, they imagine that they are pundits - after all, if someone as vile, squalid and repugnant as Rush Limbaugh can claim to be an expert, anybody can, right? And since he's so careless with facts and so long on smear, that sets the tone for the phoney Conservatives too, right?
Mimicking real journalists doesn't make the Fox News shills real.
Fake outrage about the moveon ad is just the latest party favor. Their real agenda is destroying the middle class, but they can't talk about that, so they talk about gratuitous hot button issues.
People like "Keith," "Sgt. Schultz," and "An American" are credulous dupes who value bluster over substance. They would eat dog food if it had an American flag on the can, and brag about it. Lacking anything of merit to rant about, their true colors are showing, and their dwindling numbers are a comfort to those of us who love this country and hate to see what the Neocons are doing to it and our military. I love to watch them squirm.
Posted by Derek on October 11, 2007 02:37 PMPOK said:
"McGough is as entitled to his interpretation of Rush as you are."
Fair enough. Let's all pick out whatever words we want to create whatever interpretation that fits our agenda.
So, after reading POK's comments, I interpret them to be a vile attack on our troops. POK obviously believes every soldier who disagrees with our current policy is "phony". Want proof? Read his comments on 2:22. He said:
"...all the soldiers who did not agree with the policy were phoney."
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 02:50 PM
Mountain Cat said:
"McGough and the liberals in Congress selectively took two words – four short syllables – out of an entire conversation that probably lasted about five minutes and tried to make Limbaugh out to be anti-military."
It's shameful, isn't it? They do the same thing in regards to our Constitution. They stopped reading after seeing the words "general Welfare".
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 02:52 PMJohn II: I dont think you ever were afraid to interpret what a liberal said and twist it whichever way you needed to fit your conservative argument so you certainly didnt need my post, lol. Conservatives pick and chose along with the Liberals (not that it makes it right but simply to show your argument is no better than mine..it simply suits your purpose more).
And remember to include the Republicans in congress as well as Romney, McCain and Fox News when lamenting who twisted poor Rush's words. How about the MoveOb.org ad? It never actaully called Petraus "Betray-Us", it asked the question will he become Gen Betray Us?
As I said to Mountain Cat... your views as as distorted to the Right as mine are to the Left. You'll continue to think liberals are airheads and I'll continue to think conservatives are nazis and nothing either of us says will change that.
Derek,
Take another hit off the crack pipe. It'll get you pumped up for another meaningless rant.
It might help you to think with your brain rather than with your emotions.
PukeOn Keith,
Limbaugh used the word “soldiers” – plural form – because he was talking about the fact that the media are drawn to soldiers like Jesse MacBeth and Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp who is the idiot who wrote the bogus stories for articles in the New Republic. Both of those guys ARE phony soldiers who were darlings of the media because they portrayed the war effort in a bad light. How many times have you heard or read anything in the media from real soldiers who have positive things to say about the war effort?
You can twist and contort as much as you want to make the square peg fit into the round hole, but it won’t change the fact that Limbaugh was not talking about all soldiers who disagree with the war policy. If that’s what he meant then that is what he would have said. If you know anything about Rush Limbaugh is ought to be that he does not mince words.
Do you actually believe that conservatives are Nazis? If so, then you don’t have a clue what a Nazi is. Maybe the modern-day teachings at public schools have taught you that there is a moral and ethical equivalence between Nazis and conservatives. I don’t recall hearing anything about conservatives dragging people off the street and into cattle trains to go live in concentration camps and become subjects for science projects or to be murdered in unspeakable ways. If you actually believe there is a connection between the two, then you would never, ever accept any explanation I could give you pertaining to Rush Limbaugh’s show.
Pick up a good history book about the Nazi movement from the 1930’s through 1945. Then come back and try explaining what conservatives have done to place them in the same category.
Og
Thanks for the response. I can't say that I disagree with anything that you said there. WTH? I just looked and he!! hasn't frozen over yet. OMG. There may be hope for us yet!
Posted by RU Serious on October 11, 2007 03:31 PMPOK,
I bet you can't find one example of where I twisted a liberal's words. I aways quote folks verbatim and address their points directly. Weak-minded morons like Stan B. feel silly when they see their pathetic arguments logically torn apart so they respond with cries like "Nice try John II. Playing the words games, again.".
He actually used that line twice. First, when I told him that a figure he quoted was net worth and not salary. Then, he used it again when I said that English is already divided into UK and US versions. I even provided a link to Rosetta Stone to see the two different versions offered. He later claimed that he wants an "American language" with no English in it.
My views are not "distorted" to the right. I have conservative views, period. But, that is irrelevant to the discussion of truth. Regardless of my fierce conservatism, I do not lie about my political opponent's words. Liberalism is easy enough to counter without resorting to petty dishonest "interpretations".
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 03:47 PMOooo! Great rebuttal, Mountain Cat. Lots of substance! Typically dittohead, cute, insulting, and utterly lacking in content.
Intellectual sloth is nothing to brag about, unless your Rush Limbaugh or one of his sycophants.
Posted by Derek on October 11, 2007 03:56 PMRoger,
There were plenty of Republicans who supported Clinton’s attacks both in Afghanistan and Iraq just as there are plenty of leftists who have attacked Bush for not doing enough in Afghanistan. There is no reason to make the issue partisan.
I don’t think the 3-state plan is viable and I’ll tell you why.
A Kurdish state in the north will soon become embroiled in a war with Turkey. We have a moral obligation to prevent this war which would be long and bloody. As a practical matter we not have a national interest stake in the outcome. Setting aside the moral issues, we would have to either abandon the Kurds or work against our Turkish allies. Neither prospect is in the best interest of the US.
The situation in the other two states is more dangerous.
It is certain that absent US force in the southern Shia areas, Iran would ramp up their activities and likely invade to capture the rich oil fields they desperately need to shore up their decaying economy. I see very little prospect that Al Sastani and his supporters could prevail and ultimately the mullahs would become even more powerful and dangerous than they are today.
It is unlikely that the Saudi’s would stand for Iranian hegemony over their oil-rich neighbor so the conflict would spill over and involve, potentially, Sunni Arabs throughout the middle-east.
Baghdad itself would probably fall under the control of the Sunni’s once again bringing about internal slaughter and no doubt further war with the Shia’s in the south.
In short, the 3-state plan is a recipe for regional conflagration which is exactly the hope of the Jihadists. And that brings me to why we are in Iraq.
We are in Iraq because of 9/11. We are not there to end sectarian violence. We are there to protect America from the threat of terrorism. The operation in Iraq was authorized by the Congress and executed by the President to stabilize an area where terrorists would otherwise flourish.
It is not certain that we will succeed in establishing a stable, pluralistic society that will be hostile to terrorism. But victory is never assured. We have a pan in placed that is showing early signs of success. This is not the time to abandon Iraq to its fate.
The nations of the international community will follow the dictates of their own best interest. We must do the same. In my opinion the price of their sympathy, 3,000 innocent American’s dead, is too steep. I am not concerned about their support. France will join us in Iraq if we are successful.
Posted by James Jones on October 11, 2007 04:10 PMJohn II,
I'm going to have to come to the defence of Dr. Suess who had a) a sense of humor and b) a point.
I did pause over the use of "cogent." A man who formualtes phrases like "hilariously amusing" isn't likely to use "cogent." But then Grouch, while not an euridte man, is something of a magpie with certain words. I characterized him as "reactionary" a few day ago and, lo and behold, "reactionary" has started appearing in his posts. I figured he just picked up "cogent" somewhere - probably one of your posts.
So I'll tip my cap to you
you've got him down pat.
You win this time - to true
but I will be back.
Be warned: I do a better Sharon B then she does.
Posted by James Jones on October 11, 2007 04:29 PMWe are in Iraq because of the criminal malfeasance of the White House, and for war profits.
The idiotically titled "War on Terror" is a sham, and is strengthening the threat of Islamic Jihad.
Bush is right about one thing. If we leave, it will be a disaster.
What he won't admit is that it ALREADY IS a disaster. The disaster began when Bush terrorized the USA into invading Iraq.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11; this has been proven over and over again by a variety of authorities from both sides of the aisle.
Republican myopia tells them that anyone from the Middle East is a "terrerist," and that Saddam Hussein is no different than Bin Laden.
Based on this kind of arrogant, swaggering, and totally misinformed ideology, Bush swindled his Iraq invasion into reality and has set events into motion to bring an end to this great country from within.
We have given al Qaida their greatest dream: the United States crippled in a quagmire, the USA making itself an ever increasing target of bad opinion, and a White House that has created an ocean of Red Ink.
As Newt Gingrich says, "We are at the edge of a precipice."
What he doesn't say is that Republican dishonesty, divisiveness, partisan venom, and bungling put us there.
Posted by Derek on October 11, 2007 04:35 PMThe real question isn't whether Rush Limbaugh disparaged the troops as much as whether he truly believes that any soldier who supports the end to the occupation of Iraq by American forces is a phony soldier and a traitor. If he doesn't then why did he compare Brian McGough to a suicide bomber? It is the con that people like Brian McGough are too stupid to think for themselves regarding Iraqi policy. This is the same conceit regrading the contributors to MoveOn.org. They are being manipulated by evil liberal elites like George Soros. This fantasy narrative allows the Limpballs of the world to sit back on their pimpled butts and proclaim that they and only they truly understand the issues. They can then simply wave away the possibility that combat veterans who have walked the streets of Falluja and the mountains of Afganistan have come to a different conclusion of what should be done than chickenhawk pundits like Limbaugh. This allows the chickenhawks to hide from the fact that their perspective is the minority. They believe that it would be the majority if only these stupid people knew what they knew. The thought never crosses their mind that Brian McGough and MoveOn.org contributors know exactly what they are doing and why and aren't afraid of the Republican Swift Boat slime machine. It ain't as effective as it was in 2002 folks. Never again will patriotic Americans be cowed by the Republican slime machine.
It must be chilling for the paranoid Republicans to realize that indeed they are in the minority and the more creeps, like Limbaugh, attack combat veterans for exercising their 1st amendment rights the more in the minority Republicans are going to become. Mountain Cat can spin the Limbaugh comments all he wants but I heard an unexpunged version where Limbaugh claims that everyone who joined in the last three years had to know they were going to Iraq so they had to support the occupation if they joined. It was explicit in the conversation I heard that Limbaugh was referring to active duty soldiers. People like Mountain Cat hear only what they want to hear. The truth is a foreign concept to them. Deceive, deny, divert, discredit and delay are the classic tactics of a Republican coverup and Limbaugh has tried to use everyone of them to hide the fact he committed as serious an attack of hatred on active duty troops as John Kerry's gaffe.
Posted by Wes on October 11, 2007 04:51 PMMr. Jones said:
"I did pause over the use of "cogent." A man who formulates phrases like "hilariously amusing" isn't likely to use "cogent." "
Ha, that cracks me up. It wasn't my bizarre reference to peanut butter & jelly sandwiches or being stoned that caused your suspicion...
Sixth inning, Rockies up 4 to 1. Can we all agree on our support for the Rockies or do the libs hate competitive baseball too. Perhaps the libs want baseball to be like what they've done to little league; everyone gets a trophy so there's no sore feelings...
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 08:21 PMLeave it to a pure jerk like John II to use the Rockies to insult liberals.
What a jerk.
Posted by Wes on October 11, 2007 08:34 PMhahaha...sorry, Wes, I couldn't resist....
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 08:48 PMBy the way, Mr. Jones, you might appreciate this link: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/atrios/107132357084946744/
It's just a random website I found while searching for something. The comments are from 2003. It's a liberal blog. The posters were convinced that Mr. Bush's tax cuts would cause a drop in tax revenues. They were their usual caustic, self-assured self. It's funny to read comments from liberals now saying that tax revenues were due to rise anyway and had nothing to do with tax rate cuts.
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 09:39 PM"We are in Iraq because of 9/11. We are not there to end sectarian violence. We are there to protect America from the threat of terrorism. The operation in Iraq was authorized by the Congress and executed by the President to stabilize an area where terrorists would otherwise flourish."
OK, now you lost me. You were doing so well beforehand, stating why the 3 state solution wasn't perfect and then you had to tie it into 9/11 and lost any credibility whatsoever. Let's get a few facts straight:
1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and the flimsiest (practically nonexistent) of ties with Bin Laden.
2) Iraq wasn't the major terrorist training ground, Afghanistan was and still is. Hell, if that's your criteria, then why haven't we just invaded the entire Middle East because Saudia Arabia, Iran and Palestine are just as fertile breeding grounds for terrorists as Iraq is. If anything, we made it worse.
3) Just because Congress authorized it and the President carried it out doesn't make it any less a bad mistake.
Posted by Roger on October 12, 2007 12:07 AMhahaha...sorry, Wes, I couldn't resist....
Posted by John II on October 11, 2007 08:48 PM
John II fits the classic definition of a Republican:
"Someone who wants to divide people so badly that they will use any individual or circumstance to smear those who hold a different point of view. Their insults aren't based in fact but in their fantasy understanding of the world."
I wrestled in high school and played Rugby in college. I understand competition and how to fairly compete. I doubt someone like you who has to prop a mirror on top of the toilet to see his manhood would understand what fair competition means. Leave the Rockies out of your jihad against liberals. What a jerk.
Posted by on October 12, 2007 04:56 AMJohn II
Thanks for the link. As it happens I'm submitting a letter on exactly that topic today.
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 06:38 AMRoger,
Time for a quick review. To now you have posted:
The Twin Towers already gave us our mandate: Capture Bin Laden and destroy his terrorist network, not invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Followed by:
I'm not naive enough to think getting rid of Bin Laden will get rid of foreign terrorism
And now back to:
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and the flimsiest (practically nonexistent) of ties with Bin Laden.
Now there are only two options. Either you understand that the War on Terror is about something more than Bin Laden, or you don't. You're going to have to decide for yourself what you think.
No one has ever argued that invading Iraq would hasten the demise of Bin Laden. In fact the idea is silly. Notwithstanding the fact that the argument has never been made (and also that it is silly) the notion has been refuted thousands of times on this page and eslewhere. Then that "refutation" is typically used to somehow justify the immediate withdrawal of the troops. That reasoning is just as silly.
Most of the deaths that occur in Iraq today are the result of Sunni's and Shia's killing each other. Why do we care?
One thing the Sunni and Shia Jihadists agree on (when they're not murdering members of the other sect) is that America is the world's Great Evil and killing as many Americans as possible is a dicate of faith. That's why we care.
There is no evidence that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. It is nonsense to assert that Iraq was a terrorist-free zone prior to the invasion.
Reasonable people can, and do, disagree about the wisdom on the tactic of invading Iraq but the plain fact is that the decision was made by our political leadership and now we have a responsibility to see the thing through to a sucessfull conclusion.
If we fail, then friend and foe alike must know that we did not fail due to a lack of will to defeat Jihadism.
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 07:11 AMMountain Cat: I have studied history, I have my degree in it BTW and I am certified to teach History in Colorado ( that shoukld majke your skin crawl) and I can assure that the the Rightwing conservatives share many similarities with the Nazi movement: suppression of rights, intense nationalism, accusations of traitor against anyone with opposing ideas, a sense of world domination, a sense that only they have the right heritage & right religions, unwavering allegience to the Party and the Fuher/President, a movement based on pure hatred... etc.... Try studying the beginnings of the nazi party and you will see the similarities ( then again you probably wont, you will pick and chose only that which fits your viewpoint). Just read the postings here by Keith, An American, Hank, John II there is nothing but pure hatred for those who oppose their viewpoints.
You are no different than I am, you lean just as far as I do, only in an opposite direction.
Wow. What a bunch of blather. 1 Q: if 75% of Americans think Bush's War is a disaster and we should get out, how does that make them the extremists? Aren't the extremists the 25% who support Bush no matter how badly he fu**s up time and again. Please elucidate by listing five things that Bush has done right--shouldn't be hard, right? He's been in there 7 years.
Posted by An American2 on October 12, 2007 07:49 AMPukeOn Keith
As a cetified history teacher, just exactly what are some of many similarities between conservatives and Nazis? For instance,
Who has been accused of being a traitor? Besides Petraeus of course.
How do we express our desire for world domination?
How do we force our rightousness on any one?
Bush is scheduled to leave office soon. Do you think we Nazis are going to stand by and watch our Fuhrer simply walk away from power?
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 08:25 AMPOK said:
"I have studied history, I have my degree in it BTW and I am certified to teach History in Colorado ( that shoukld majke your skin crawl) and I can assure that the the Rightwing conservatives share many similarities with the Nazi movement:"
Ward, is that you?
It is so funny to be lectured about hatred from someone who chooses to call himself "PukeOn Keith".
"You are no different than I am, you lean just as far as I do, only in an opposite direction."
That sounds like a pretty big difference to me.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 08:29 AMDerek on October 11, 2007 02:37 PM
Judging from this post, it’s highly unlikely that you would be willing to discuss each of the points you brought up in any calm and rational way, but I would like to attempt it if you are willing to try.
The very first sentence I ever saw that you wrote was “The hick-dittoheads believe that Rush is credible.” So, just because I defended Rush Limbaugh then that makes me a hick? It makes me a dittohead? Do I understand you correctly?
Please give accurate and specific examples of when Limbaugh was not credible. I’m serious. I have caught him passing misinformation on a very minor subject about a lawnmower one day, so maybe he has done so on other more important issues. Please describe why you think he is not credible. I think that if Rush Limbaugh was so lacking in credibility and that he lied as much as his critics claim he does, it’s very unlikely that he would have the top talk show in the country and he probably wouldn’t even be on the air anymore.
Maybe you missed the part in which I said that I’m not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but that I detest unfair criticism. If you want to be a fair-minded person you would get a copy of the transcript of his show from that day and find out for yourself exactly what the total context was of his two words. Judging from your rant against any and all Republicans I believe that you have only taken the words of other liberals on the subject and made your decision from there rather than getting the whole picture. If it makes you feel better to be upset over his comments with inaccurate information about it, then hey it’s your life and your nerves you’d have to deal with.
Since you are so outraged about Limbaugh and the two words he uttered, then surly you must be out of your mind about comments made by Hillary Clinton when she addressed General David Petraeus, saying that she would have to suspend her disbelief to buy his progress report on Iraq. She used fancy, flowery wording to essentially call him a liar, a round about way of calling Petraeus a phony.
You must also be pretty upset with John Murtha for calling U.S. Marines “murderers” who killed Iraqi civilians “in cold blood.” Those Marines have long ago been found not guilty and Murtha has yet to issue any form of an apology toward the innocent Marines.
I wonder if you got on other blogs and railed against Clinton and Murtha.
No, I don’t think Ronald McDonald is a real clown. Just because I have conservative views and values somehow you believe I do. How do you come to that conclusion? But, please also explain why you think Ronald Reagan was a clown. I know that’s a popular view of people on the left, but I have not heard anyone explain what it was he did to get under your skin. Hopefully you are not so shallow that it is simply because he was a Republican. Is there more to it than that? Please don't come up with “he hates children.” You have to be specific and accurate.
I do have a high school education and a little bit of college and quite a bit of vocational studies in my background. You wrote, “People who are incapable of spelling simple words make it obvious that they don't read, having never seen these words in written form.” In your paragraph you used the term “phoney Conservatives.”
Maybe you have never seen the word in written form, but the word is spelled “phony” not “phoney.”
“Mimicking real journalists doesn't make the Fox News shills real.” Hmmm…I always thought that to mimic is to copy, to imitate, to duplicate, or to model after. Somehow, you see it differently when it comes to Fox News, calling the “shills” for some reason. Maybe if they were as credible as The New Republic or Dan Rather or Jesse MacBeth you’d be more comfortable with them.
“Fake outrage” was another term you flung out there. How can you presume to know the outrage over MoveOn.org’s ad is a fake one? It certainly isn’t from my standpoint.
Speaking of MoveOn.org, are you aware that they are trying to sue a private retailer who is selling T-shirts and cup which express criticisms over MoveOn.org and which express support for Gen. Petraeus? They created the heat in the kitchen and now they don’t like the fact that people are outraged about the heat they created.
You said of Republicans, “Their real agenda is destroying the middle class…” Now that’s just ridiculous, Derek. That is nothing more than a liberal talking point based upon a myth. You want to criticize Limbaugh and the “dittoheads” for “poverty of their knowledge” yet you have no substance to back up that absurd claim. All you did there was parroting of what some other liberals have blurted out. That’s as silly as the claim POK made that conservatives are Nazis. Can you provide any proof that Republicans want to destroy the middle class?
“People like "Keith," "Sgt. Schultz," and "An American" are credulous dupes who value bluster over substance.”
First of all, a pot should not call a kettle black. If you believe those individuals value bluster over substance, what do you call your postings? Show me the substance in what you wrote. Open-ended emotional opinions are not forms of substance.
Secondly, it’s Lieutenant Schultz. You called him “Sgt. Schultz.” Maybe you did that by accident since you probably don’t want to express yourself with inaccuracy. You wouldn’t do that on purpose since you want to be credible, right?
What is your definition of a “neocon.” Do you really know what a neocon is or are you once again just parroting what you hear other liberals say?
Now, I have carefully read both of your posts from Oct. 11 and both are filled with assertions with no examples or substance to substantiate any of your claims. Both sound like emotional outbursts rather than reasonable, well-thought-out postings designed to persuade people. If you continue to make broad-brushed, unsupported declarations as you have thus far, then you can expect little in the way of respect from others, and you might get sarcastic replies from people like me.
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 12, 2007 08:59 AMI think it was meant to be Sgt Schultz, you know, like the Nazi sgt in the Hoagna Heroes concentration camp.
Posted by Schulllllllllllllllltz on October 12, 2007 09:13 AMJohn II. What's an efffete rightwing snob like you doing listening to baseball? Baseball is the sports for the common man ( democrats and working class people). I figured you for skiing or golf, the rich republican sports.
Posted by Go Rockies on October 12, 2007 09:17 AMAs you can see the liberal Democrats are a real danger to the US and our freedoms.In Bill Clinton's book he said in 1994 he lost the House and Senate because of the NRA.Most political observers agree with this statement.They also say that Gore lost his election in large part because of the NRA.As you can see at this time the Democrats are not attacking the Second Amendment because of what the NRA did to them but the liberal coward wing of the party will start pushing them to take our gun rights away.The best think you can do to stop these pro-terrorist Democrats from destroying our country is join the NRA today.Call 1-877-NRA-2000.Remember nobody kicks liberal butt like the NRA.Pass this number on to all pro-US citizens!!
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:27 AMAs you can see the liberal Democrats are a real danger to the US and our freedoms.In Bill Clinton's book he said in 1994 he lost the House and Senate because of the NRA.Most political observers agree with this statement.They also say that Gore lost his election in large part because of the NRA.As you can see at this time the Democrats are not attacking the Second Amendment because of what the NRA did to them but the liberal coward wing of the party will start pushing them to take our gun rights away.The best think you can do to stop these pro-terrorist Democrats from destroying our country is join the NRA today.Call 1-877-NRA-2000.Remember nobody kicks liberal butt like the NRA.Pass this number on to all pro-US citizens!!
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:27 AMJohn II, I didnt realize You and Mountain Cat were one and the same, when I addressed him only to have you respond back? Regardless i stand on my observations that the Right wallows in hate and despises anyone with differing ideas until convinced otherwise. You also might want to talk to your 'Mountain cat' personna since I noticed 'he' was using those childish playground "but" arguments in his post and I know that rankles you when the libs do it.
PS- I dont 'hate' Keith, it's just that his postings make me want to puke...so I figure he should benefit from them
Haha...I like to drink cheap beer and watch sporting events in order to bond with the common folks. Aside, from my caddy, I rarely get to talk to the proletariat class. That's also the reason I spend time on these forums talking with uneducated emotional simpletons. It keeps me grounded.
Actually, I play baseball. I also play in a hockey league. Effete? No way.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 09:34 AMPOK,
I've been reading Mountain Cat's comments and he makes perfect sense. Why don't you try answering his questions?
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 09:39 AMJohn II: I am afraid you are confused again, maybe one too many cheap beers? I'm a Silver Bullet man myself ( hmmm that Bullet reference should make 'ol 2nd Amendment An American happy, lol)
I have answered whatever questions that MC had for me, the long post of his/yours above was posed to Derek & Derek's post so it's up to Derek to chose to answer them, or not. Though I do like that Sgt Schuuuuullllltz Hogans Heroes comparison someone mentioned
POK,
I used to be a Bud man. But, after moving to Colorado, I only drink Colorado beers. I love Colorado. Go Rockies!
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 10:43 AMMountain tabby needs to learn to condense his writing. I'm not going to read a thousand words of fantasy writing. He/she/it must be a very young person to not know Hogan's Heroes or very clueless about the joke of bowing down to the all knowing wisdom of Sargent Shultz.
Shultz really plays the "military as infallible deity" card in his letter. "If you knew how terrible the bad guys are as I do you would have stains in your pants everyday just like I do." According to the rabid Republicans nobody can question the military. Everyone must bow down before the military. Kind of reminds me of how the Myanmar junta operates. And the robots who defecate scoff at comparisons to totalitarian states. That which they supposedly cherish is exactly what they are destroying with their slavish support for torture and mercenaries. Everyone who isn't as cowardly and scared as the Republicans understand that liberties are worth preserving no matter how much fear Sargent Shultz tries to whip up.
Posted by Wes on October 12, 2007 12:20 PMJohn II: At least we can agree on a couple things: the Rockies and Colorado beer, there may be hope for both of us yet
Posted by PukeOnKeith on October 12, 2007 12:32 PMJames Jones,
Obviously, you never bother to read what others write on the blog - but we have come to expect that, Jonesy, since you often don't even remember what it is you wrote yourself.
But, you ask, concerning "similarities between conservatives and Nazis":
"Who has been accused of being a traitor? Besides Petraeus of course."
If you did read what is written here, you would know that the Speaker of the House, Representatives Nancy Pelosi - as well as other Members of both the House and Senate - has been, and is currently being constantly - referred to as a "traitor" by the prominent conservative spokes-persons on this website, "An American", the ignorant, ill manerd child who posts with a name that gets postings held by the blog owner (Starts with K), Hank, Uno, and a claque of anonymous posters who are all conservatives. Add in those of us who are identified as "liberal" - with additional epithets daily - in our own postings, who have repeatedly been called "traitor" - even by your beloved clone, John II, back not too long ago - and you will have a long list of those slandered by your fellow Right wing-nuts.
As to desire for world domination: Go back through the postings and read how many of your fellow conservatives have suggested that it is up to us to invade Iran, consider ourselves as the World Police Force, and otherwise disregard the thoughts and feelings of anyone else on the globe for a form of "America Uber Alles". Then read such as Newt Gingrich, and actually listen to some of the rant, cant, and posturing put forth on the issues of "foreign affairs by Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, and others - instead of just acting as if they were oracles of wisdom - and answer that for yourself.
As to your righteousness being forced on others: What about this stupid idea of declaring a couple of cells in a petri dish a "person" entitled to all the guarantees of the Constitution, as well as all the protections of Law, that the Dobsonites are trying to get on the Ballot as a Referendum - and that you constantly propound when you are bloviating about your position on freedom of choice? And how about the equally superstitious and stupid idea of enshrining a religious definition of marriage in the Constitutions, both of the United States and the individual States themselves; together with enshring anti-civil union legislation, and other forms of repressive relgious ignorance and stupidity engendered and driven laws as well.
But, then again, even if you were to make the attempt to read - and the even more arduous and laborious attempt to aprehend what you are reading - you would still be asking the questions. Since you, like the Bourbons of old, are a perfect example of those who learn nothing and forget nothing - though you are showing signs of forgetting even your own assinine nonsense drivel lately. The smoke up there in Oz must be getting to you.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 12, 2007 02:32 PMWes,
When someone feels the need to mock a persons’ chosen label it’s a good indication that they don’t really have a strong rebuttal. You must not be able to dispute my points so you resort to name calling, like calling Lt. Schultz “Sgt. Schultz.”
You need to not worry about how long my posts are when I'm not addressing you. I was addressing Derek and one of his two lengthy posts. If you don’t like what I wrote or how long my posts are, just pass by them and read anything else you please. I’m sure you plan on telling Derek he needs to learn to condense his writing too, right?
My satire escaped your brain cell. I knew exactly what Derek was doing when he called Lt. Schultz “Sgt. Schultz.” Obviously he was trying to besmirch the lieutenant in the same cynical, disrespectful, unappreciative manner that you have.
Other than whine and complain about this country, what have you done for America? When was the last time you made a sacrifice on behalf of your fellow countrymen? When have you ever put your life in jeopardy for people with whom you may not agree or even like? Unfortunately, those of us who have dedicated our lives to protecting this country are obligated to protect your ungratefully sorry ass, too.
Hey, maybe I should mock your name the way you have mine. Boy, then I'll really show you!!
Take care, Mess.
Old Grouch,
What in the world are you rambling about?
Apparently, name calling is your forte and is to be considered “off base” when it comes to calling people traitors. You can call conservatives, “right wing-nuts;” you use the terms “ignorant, ill manerd child” (your misspelling, not mine) when referring to someone with whom you disagree; you use the word “claque” and “beloved clone.” You can be as blatantly insulting as you care to be but, boy, don’t allow someone to express their personal opinion - unless it’s the same opinion as yours.
Were you actually trying to use those examples you wrote about as comparisons to what Nazis did? If so, you really do not remember what it really was that the Nazis did. You can disagree with everything conservative, obviously. But to equate conservatives with Nazis, as you and Puke are trying to do, is ludicrous. It not only grossly exaggerates the conservative movement, but totally diminishes just how insanely evil Nazi movement was.
Maybe I misjudged you. Maybe you don’t think the Nazis were all that bad.
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin and O'reilly set the tone - and now when Democrats [read: normal people] respond in kind, the 'Cons get big tears in their eyes.
Here are some clipboarded facts, Cat, read and learn:
Limbaugh regularly feeds his audience a diet of falsehoods, misstatements, distortions, invective, and childish put-downs in service of the conservative movement. During his long reign over the airwaves, Limbaugh has called abortion rights activists "feminazis", told an African-American caller to "take that bone out of your nose," referred to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "blow[ing] some steam off, " and declared that "what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party." He touts his close connections to Republicans, claiming that he "[g]ot a big hug" from President George W. Bush during a 2004 White House visit.
In August 2005, Limbaugh asserted that Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who staged an anti-war protest outside President Bush's ranch in Texas, "is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents." Burkett is a retired Texas Air National Guard officer who provided CBS' 60 Minutes with unauthenticated documents regarding President Bush's National Guard record. After Media Matters for America documented this, he claimed that he was taken "out of context" by "little pimple-faced kids that are working at wannabe websites" -- even as the audio and text published by Media Matters proved otherwise. Limbaugh also claimed that Sheehan was "exploiting death."
Limbaugh has also spread numerous rumors and conspiracy theories about the Clinton family, alleging that Hillary Rodham Clinton was involved in the 1993 suicide of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster and peddling gay-baiting sexual innuendo about Clinton based on Edward Klein's error- and innuendo-filled book, The Truth About Hillary.
Limbaugh was forced to resign from his position as a football analyst on ESPN in 2003 after he claimed that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." The following season, McNabb led his team to the Super Bowl.
Attacks on liberals
Limbaugh: Liberals "would have sought out bin Laden and tried to make a deal with him" [8/16/05]
Limbaugh accused liberals of hating the military [5/3/04]
Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and Ohio Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as "another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform" and accused him of going to Iraq "to pad the resumé" [8/4/05]
Limbaugh on Al Gore: "[H]e's perverse " [5/28/04]
Limbaugh: "Democrats have found their keynote [convention] speaker ... Saddam Hussein" [7/2/04]
Limbaugh revived discredited rumor of Kerry affair: "Keep that babe in Africa" [7/19/04]
Limbaugh revived discredited Kerry charges; blamed Kerry's "anti-war activism" for the "hatred that exists for America today" [8/31/04]
Limbaugh boosted bogus Wash. Times article claiming Al Qaeda prefers Kerry [8/13/04]
Limbaugh claimed "John Kerry really doesn't think 3,000 Americans dead in one day is that big a deal" [10/12/04]
Limbaugh: Half of Kerry's political base "hates the military, hates America" [9/21/04]
Limbaugh: "Liberals consider themselves more powerful than God" [10/22/04]
Limbaugh: For Democrats, "the more deaths in Iraq the better" [12/10/04]
Limbaugh on Hillary: "She puts her pants on one leg at a time like every other guy does" [4/20/05]
Limbaugh claimed Democrats, terrorists share anti-American agenda [6/1/05]
Limbaugh declared that "if we get hit again" by terrorists, it will be the fault of Democratic senators, the mainstream media, and Amnesty International [6/15/05]
Limbaugh: Democrats "probably have more fear of Christians than they do nuclear weapons being launched by North Korea" [6/9/05]
Defending Abu Ghraib
Limbaugh on torture of Iraqis: U.S. guards were "having a good time," "blow[ing] some steam off" [5/5/04]
Limbaugh mocked the reactions of senators and representatives to the Abu Ghraib photos, saying that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) could "just have [Reps.] Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi act them out for him" [5/14/04]
Limbaugh: Democrats who support stem cell research are trying to "capitalize on her [Nancy Reagan's] suffering and pain" [6/14/04]
Limbaugh mimicked barking in describing photo of Iraqi prisoner terrorized by guard dogs [5/10/04]
Limbaugh: prisoner abuse "brilliant" [5/6/04]
Misinformation
Limbaugh advanced numerous falsehoods related to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath [9/12/05]
Limbaugh baselessly blamed Seattle violence on "anti-war left" [8/31/05]
Limbaugh: "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks [11/10/04]
Limbaugh falsely suggested that the federal government spends as much annually on environmental protection as on defense and homeland security" [4/25/05]
Limbaugh baselessly suggested that the Downing Street memo "may be a fake" [6/21/05]
Limbaugh joined Hannity in falsely accusing Clinton of rejecting bin Laden offer [8/12/04]
Limbaugh claimed that global warming is "malarkey" and that "[t]he idea that we [human beings] have any power over nature is absolute absurdity" [9/13/04]
Limbaugh overstated and once again misrepresented the current federal minimum wage [8/13/04]
Limbaugh: AIDS "hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community" [6/15/04]
Limbaugh falsely claimed that Republicans refrained from criticizing the war effort in Kosovo out of concern for unity [4/30/04]
Limbaugh lied about Bush's false uranium claim [6/22/04]
Limbaugh grossly overstated U.S. federal spending on education [6/2/04]
Limbaugh claimed Clintons are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [9/1/04]
Bigoted comments
On the day Reverend Jesse Jackson joined the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign, Limbaugh said the "Kerry campaign has finally gotten a chocolate chip." [9/30/04]
Limbaugh on tsunami disaster: "[W]e do have a tendency to blow these things up" [1/6/05]
Limbaugh: "Women still live longer than men because their lives are easier" [3/5/05]
Limbaugh: Feminism established "to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society" [8/16/05]
Limbaugh warned, with "new female police chiefs ... we can watch out for some naked pyramids"; called military officers "orificers" [5/28/04]
Limbaugh shared with listeners his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women (NOW): "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG"); he added that the "militant feminists" who make up the "NAGs" "aren't determining who wins elections. White men are" [6/16/04]
*********************
Limbaugh and his ilk are pernicious, anti-social influences that appeal to the lowest instincts and foment division. He polarizes the debate cynically, to get ratings, appealing to credulous, miserable people like Mountain Cat.
These citations are all fully documented and validated at
mediamatters.org
which, contrary to faux media lies is NOT funded by George Soros, and which performs a valuable public service by carefully documenting what is said and comparing it to the facts, which in the case of Fox News, is more often than not vastly different.
Posted by Derek on October 12, 2007 04:29 PMI notice that Schultzie started his letter with the word "morons" - is using the caustic style of the right, incendiary drivel intended to rile people up - totally counterproductive.
It's also irresponsible of the RMN to print that kind of garbage - at least it's a break from the nauseating blizzard of sports...
Posted by Spiffy on October 12, 2007 05:35 PMGrouch
Mountain Cat - your post was sufficient for any reasonable man but I'm sure you understand I also have to weigh in here.
Puke on Keith offered up
"accusations of traitor against anyone with opposing ideas"
I asked exactly who that might be and while he is silent you offer up:
referred to as a "traitor" by the prominent conservative spokes-persons on this website, "An American", the ignorant, ill manerd child who posts with a name that gets postings held by the blog owner (Starts with K), Hank, Uno, and a claque of anonymous posters who are all conservatives"
Now you see here's the problem:
It's not possible to be simultanelously prominent and anonymous. One or the other - not both.
As an example of what we mean by prominent let's put aside the question of Moveon.org and consider Sen Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Sen Reid is the leader of the Democrats in the US Senate. As leader, Sen. Reid took to the Senate floor and made a public speech denouncing Rush Limbaugh as being "unpatriotic" for remarks Limbaugh made on his radio show. That's what we mean.
There is no comparable action by anyone on the right side of the aisle or in Bush's administration.
So you see the tactic the left complains about (and we should all agree is reprehensible) is practiced not by the right, but by the left.
Next you complain that US actions, such as the attacking Iran, are an example of "America Uber Alles":
At the end of WW II the US occupied both Germany and Japan. But our interests were not imperialistic. We provided security and financial support as the Germans and Japanese rebuilt their communities. Today they are soveriegn nations and allies.
So you see Grough -Americans have no interest in empire building. Your charge that we occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and seek to conquer Iran as a part of our clolonial aims is nothing more than enemy propaganda which has no resonance outside your fellow travlers in the Al Jazeera audience.
Now we come to your ongoing complaint of the right-wing enforcing rightousness. I will walk you down this path once again.
We are a democratic society. Everyone is entitled to advocate and vote for positions based on the dictates of their own conscience.
If the majority of the population regards themselves as Christians, which is the case in the US, then it is to be expected that a majority of the people will have their conscience formed by their religion. They have every right to vote accordingly.
That does not make the government a theocracy.
The man who is opposed to redefining marriage to include, for instance, two men has the right to take make the argument based on the idea that marriage between two men is sinful.
The fact that you disagree does not require his silence. His expression of his opinion is not enforcing his rightousness on anyone any more then is your expression of your opinion.
This idea that differnet people with different views all having the same right to voice their view is an expression of a underlying principle of deomcracy that is increasingly misunderstood by leftists in general and you in particular - tolerance.
We are a society based in principals that are classicaly liberal, tolerant and pluaralistic. I know you find all this terribly inconvenient in advancing your left-wing agneda, but the fact is that's the way we do things in America.
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 08:56 PMPosted by Mountain Cat on October 12, 2007 03:04 PM
After your usual long and tedious denial that Rush Limbaugh is a phony soldier who insulted those troops who believe we need to end the occupation of Iraq, I posted a comment on the actual transcript of Limbaugh where he did indeed mean those soldiers in uniform who had enlisted in the last four years. I also questioned the phony soldier Limbaugh's use of suicide bomber imagery to mock the intellect of McGough.
You had a chance to clarify your false statements but as usual tried to shift the argument to how liberals are anti-military. It is Republicans who discharge National Guard reserves after 729 days of service instead of 730 so that they deny these men their educational benefits who are anti-military. The anti-military card is the only thing Republicans have left.
As far as what I have done for my country, I pay my taxes every year and I don't scream about how terrible my government is. I'm working to help develop comprehensive forest fire/forest management plans for my community to deal with the Mountain Pine Beetle invasion when it reaches the Front Range forests. I don't have blood lust in my heart or a desire drop atomic bombs on other countries but if that is your criteria for patriotism than you are an embarrassment to our Founding Fathers. You have no idea what true patriotism is. In case you didn't get the memo the goal is a peaceful, prosperous and pluralistic society. I work for that goal everyday. How about you?
Posted by Wes on October 13, 2007 11:04 AMAll normal Americans should support talk radio.The reason the Democrats are attacking it is because they can't control it like they do most of the media.I suggest you listen to Rush,Sean and Mark Levin.Remember the head of the NRA said talk radio was the way he could get the truth out about the gun issue while the rest of the Democrat controlled media blocked his message.In part because of this, the amount of US citizens that support stricter gun control has dropped 9 points.When the people get the truth our freedoms win and the Democrats lose.Support talk radio and get your family and friends to listen.
Posted by An American on October 14, 2007 12:34 AMWhen someone feels the need to mock a persons’ chosen label it’s a good indication that they don’t really have a strong rebuttal. You must not be able to dispute my points so you resort to name calling, like calling Lt. Schultz “Sgt. Schultz.”
Hey, maybe I should mock your name the way you have mine. Boy, then I'll really show you!!
Take care, Mess.
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 12, 2007 03:04 PM
Shultz deserved to be ridiculed. He was attempted to use his military connection as a club to make his position unassailable. "I'm am ex-military therefore no one can question my position. It is superior to all others because I am ex-military". This is called the informal logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" (appeal to authority).
As far as having some fun with your oh so serious name if I offended you then I apologize. Now will you apologize for labeling anyone who disagrees with your support for never ending wars and torture, "traitors"? I didn't think so.
As far as discussing the validity of rebuttals, you still haven't address my question whether the phony soldier Limbaugh really does respect those soldiers who believe we need to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end. Talk about evading the issue. You make these grand statements about how the phony soldier Limbaugh never disparaged troops who want to end our occupation of Iraq but when confronted with evidence that you made false statements you choose to avoid the issue by talking about how important your pseudo name is. More truth please.
Posted by Wes on October 14, 2007 09:02 AMWes
You wrote that Schultz,
He was attempted to use his military connection as a club to make his position unassailable. "I'm am ex-military therefore no one can question my position. It is superior to all others because I am ex-military".
If you will read his letter you will see that he made no such mention. You just made up comments, put them in quotes in a bizarre attempt to convince and attributed an argument to Shultz he never made.
How about addressing the comments he actually did make instead?
Now as for Limbaugh. I have heard enough about this to get ineterested soi inviestiaged.
Limbaugh did not make a blanket condmenation of serivceman who think we should withdraw. It was a particular response and he says he was referring to one particular troop, Jesse MacBeth, who has been exposed as a fraud.
Why isn't that good enough for you?
But Limbaugh's comments are irrelevant. you are responsible for what you post here irrespective of anything Limbaugh has said or what you falsley attribute to him.
Which seems to be your habit.
Posted by James Jones on October 14, 2007 11:34 AMWes,
Be careful what you say when it comes to what goes on with the National Guard. I'm not saying you cannot question my position, but you had better have your facts straight before you spout off anything that feels good to say.
I just retired after 28 years of service, 24 of which was with the Army Nat'l Guard. I also worked as a civilian for the Guard for the last 20 years. It can be easy for me to check your assertions for accuracy if you'd like me to.
I seriously doubt your claim about the Republicans forcing Guard members out at 729 days when the military is trying to reenlist and retain troop levels, and since there are big financial incentives to reenlisting right now. Additionally, the Republicans don't make policy alone on such a matter, but it would have to be voted upon by all in the Senate. How dumb do you think people reading this are?!
I don't know anything about the suicide bomber comparison that some claim Limbaugh made toward McGough. I cannot comment on something I haven't seen or heard about other than to read what you said about it.
You wrote: "I posted a comment on the actual transcript of Limbaugh where he did indeed mean those soldiers in uniform who had enlisted in the last four years."
So, you are not only claiming that Limbaugh was talking about soldiers who disagree with the war but now you are saying he was critical of soldiers who had enlisted in the last four years all together? Where in the world do you get these ideas that he would bad mouth people for enlisting recently? You are just trying to stretch this whole argument totally out of perspective. Instead of posting comments about the transcript, why haven't you gotten the transcript and posted a link to it to prove that Limbaugh meant "those soldiers in uniform who had enlisted in the last four years."?
Then you wrote: "I don't have blood lust in my heart or a desire drop atomic bombs on other countries but if that is your criteria for patriotism than you are an embarrassment to our Founding Fathers."
What's with the inference that I would have a blood lust for using A-bombs against other countries? What a strange thing to say, don't your think?? Now you're just getting silly, Wes.
"In case you didn't get the memo the goal is a peaceful, prosperous and pluralistic society."
Uh, yeah, I think most Americans missed that memo. Who sent that memo? Stalin? Marx? Maybe you envision a memo that calls for a "plualistic society" but plurality smacks of socialistic tones which most people in this fine country reject. How about looking for a memo that might call for "equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes."?
It is your opinion that Schultz deserved ridicule because you disagree with his tough comments. He wasn’t using his military career as a club to make his position unassailable. It’s a good idea to let people know where you sit before telling them where you stand. He was probably letting people know about his 16 years of experience in naval intelligence as a means of informing readers of where he sits. His stance should be given a bit more consideration concerning military tactics and conduct of warfare above those who have no military experience at all. Chances are at least probable that most members of MoveOn are not current or ex-military. If you want advice about how to fix your plumbing would you hire a piano instructor?
After seeing how you distort what someone really says, I can appreciate how you would be outraged. But to stoop to the level of calling him Sgt. Schultz to suggest that the lieutenant was a clueless dope just because he said things you disagree with shows your tendency to believe those in the military who dislike MoveOn.org are a bunch of ignorant dolts. You want to rant against Limbaugh with claims he ridiculed members of the military rather than ridiculing actual phony ones. But yet your postings are ridiculing a real soldier by inferring he is a phony as a lieutenant. Sure, you can try blowing it off as a joke calling him that, those paying even mild atttention can see your disrespect. So, you are doing essentially the very thing you think Limbaugh is guilty of. Get some consistency in your values!
“As far as having some fun with your oh so serious name if I offended you then I apologize. Now will you apologize for labeling anyone who disagrees with your support for never ending wars and torture, "traitors"? I didn't think so.”
WHERE DID I SAY THAT I SUPPORT NEVER ENDING WAR AND TORTURE!?!?!?!?!?!!? Name the date and time of that post. WHERE DID I SUGGEST THAT THE USE OF ATOMIC BOMBS IS A CRITIRIA FOR PATRIOTISM?!?!?!?! Where in any of my posts did I call anyone a traitor???? NAME THE DATE AND TIME OF THAT POST!
All I have done is show why I disagree with your viewpoint!! How reactionary are you?!?!?! Other than sarcastically play with your name, where did I use any name calling toward you? I’m starting to think of several suitable ones by this time, however. Get a grip!! Grow a thicker skin or a stronger heart, or something. Good grief.
And you wrote: “As far as discussing the validity of rebuttals, you still haven't address my question whether the phony soldier Limbaugh really does respect those soldiers who believe we need to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end. Talk about evading the issue. You make these grand statements about how the phony soldier Limbaugh never disparaged troops who want to end our occupation of Iraq but when confronted with evidence that you made false statements you choose to avoid the issue by talking about how important your pseudo name is. More truth please.”
It just never ends with you, does it? All I have done is say that Rush Limbaugh was only talking about people who really ARE phony by making up completely false stories and that the media gravitates to those soldiers, because that is just what the entire conversation was all about with a caller. But you are the one evading the truth about that fact.
Which statements did I make that are false? If you are so sure that I have committed that falsehood, prove that.
I have already shown you how many times you have misrepresented what I have written here, so what makes anyone reading this think you are sincere with your comments about what Limbaugh said? Furthermore, I cannot pretend to know what thoughts are in his head, but I do know what Limbaugh said. And it wasn't anything close to what you would claim he said. At the very least it is a stretch to suggest that you and others who hate him know what he is thinking based upon two short words. Are you clairvoyant? Are you part of the thought police??
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 15, 2007 05:01 PM