Jan 12 2007
Sadr’s Bluster, Boxer’s Hate
It is good to see decisive action being taken on Iraq. But what is most encouraging is all the souls being laid bare in the process. The facade’s of people are being ripped off as they are confronted. One facade now gone is that covering Muqtada al Sadr – the spiritual head of much of the Mahdi militia’s which are to be disarmed or destroyed. The bluster coming from Sadr’s group is classic “about to learn a lesson the hard way” middle east Arab. What us Star Trek fans would call a ‘red shirt’ role:
A spokesman for radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has warned that US President George W. Bush’s new Iraq strategy risks sending thousands of American troops to their deaths.
“The American people have to prevent their sons from coming to Iraq or they may return in coffins,” said Sheikh Abdel Razzaq al-Nadawi, a senior official in Sadr’s movement in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.
Militarily the middle east is a wet noodle. The challenge has always been their penchant to kill each other with rampant bloodlust. It is very helpful, when it comes time to weed out that bloodlust, if they stand up and confirm their true nature. The Mahdi will be no more.
But right up there with this honest moment is the exposure of all the Bush Derangement Syndromes that are coming to the for as the Democrats go off on wild, insane tangents with the reality that holding a gavel is not all powerful (ask Newt). Barbara Boxer is the best examople as she tried to hit Condi Rice with a cruel comment about being childless. Clearly Boxer was being childish in her personal attack. And, Boxer insulted everyone who has lost a loved one fighting for this great nation:
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
While losing a loved on is hard, it should not be seen as ‘paying a price’. We all die. Some get to chose whether their death is for a good cause or is simply a useless loss. Drunk drivers cause useless losses. They make others ‘pay a price’. Criminals make others ‘pay a price’. What has been happening on the battlefields of late is a ’sacrifice’. It is a priceless gift someone gave to all of us. It is an honorable sacrifice. And that is how those close to the person lost see it. They lost their loved one, yes. But they take pride and solace in the fact that loved one died doing what they wanted and in a cause they believed in.
That is the difference in ‘paying a price’ and making a sacrifice – the intentions of the one who died are either in conflict with conditions of the loss or in support of the conditions. Boxer is too BDS driven to comprehend the difference. In fact, she clearly implies to die for one’s country is to ‘pay a price’ – which means she really should not be in a leadership role. If she and her family cannot understand why people volunteer to fight and possibly die for this country, then they do not have the wisdom and insight to lead those people.
The common thread here is Boxer and Sadr see no value in the cause of America. Sadr sees body bags, Boxer sees body bags. Sadr sees discarded people, Boxer sees discarded people. Americans see heroes who gave us a precious gift that can never be forgotten or diminished. We understand these people did went into our battle because that was their calling. These were not the victims of a drunk driver, these were not useless deaths. And anyone who implies otherwise is actually the one who has become so deranged they cannot even retain respect for the wishes of the dead, of the message of their life spent for all of us. Boxer is a cold, hate filled person. Her life represents obsession and anger at not being considered as perfect as she sees herself in her own mind. So when faced with conflicts she lashes out. She should never be representing a state like California. The state is liberal, but it is not full of compassionless spite.
70 Responses to “Sadr’s Bluster, Boxer’s Hate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I just wish when some dem makes a tasteless condescending remark like the one Boxer made to Rice “you don’t have any children do you?” that he/she would come back and say “why do you feel the necessity to insult our military men and women by calling them children”. But this is just a ploy by the dems to bring pathos into the war. They love our troops so bring them home junk.
I never understood their attitude about the military. Why have a military if you won’t use them. Remember that the dems did their best to eliminate the military during the Clinton years. They don’t want us to have a military. They think we should be first in line to eliminate the military and weapons to show the rest of the world that we are serious about bringing peace and love to everyone. They are in effect saying we will be first in gathering around the campfire singing kumbaya until everybody else joins us. This utopian dream will never exist as long as other people want to destroy you and the libs and dems don’t seem to understand that these terrorisits want to destroy us or else they have closed their eyes to this fact. And this type of people will always exist.
Do they pass out naive pills to these people or do they just think we are naive? They hate gun control because they could never subdue an armed public. And that is why they are trying to put so many limits on the right to bear arms.
AJ,
Thanks for posting on this. I am afraid if I had a blog, I would have been alot more profane about this. I AM LIVID!!! As a matter of fact, I am going somewhere to cool down. I sincerely hope that Senator Boxer is somewhere contemplating the enormous insult she has just unleashed, not only on Dr. Rice, but on every single American who really respects and admires what our military has done for us. Every time she opens her mouth its an insult to her country. Apologies are not enough anymore from any of these depraved people!
When you are sleeping peacefully in your bed at night Ms. Boxer, realize that it IS because soldiers fight to keep that precious right. It infuriates me that they call each other “gentlemen” and “gentleladies” and honorable this and that. There is NO HONOR LEFT IN THAT CESSPOOL called Congress. PERIOD!!!
Carol
Barbara Boxer Must Apologize to Secretary Rice…
Barbara Boxer accused Secretary Rice of not caring about what happens in Iraq because she doesn’t have any children at risk. I can’t imagine anyone saying anything more reprehensible or cruel: Condoleezza Rice came under a shocking Democratic attack …
Bixer’s Snark And Ignorance…
From the New York Post, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for…
The woman is clueless. So clueless she gave a commendation last November to the California chapter or CAIR and did not even know that this organization is linked to terrorism. When she found out she withdrew the commendation. Too little, too late. Every thinking American already knew CAIR is linked to terrorism and has known for years, but not our esteemed senator from California.
Boxer is inconsistent in her actions and comments.
Boxer’s Comments on Condi’s Family…
I hate to be the grapefruit juice in everyone’s eye here, but I’m not quite getting the outrage over Boxer’s comments to Condi Rice yesterday concerning her domestic situation. I’ve watched the video and I don’t think Boxer was trying……
The Boxer Rebellion…
Newsbusters quotes Barbara Boxer’s exchange with Condi Rice yesterday:Sen. Barbara Boxer took an unseemly jab at Condi Rice yesterday. Of all the members of the Senate, the one you might expect to be least likely to call attention to a……
The Democrats are playing a very interesting game. What they are attempting to do is failing any counter argument, they are attempting to invalidate opposition opinion by disqualification of the opinion holders.
In other words, if you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. They started this with their “chickenhawk” rhetoric where they implied that one must have served in the military in order to have a pro-administration opinion. Now one must also have children as well. The idea is to limit the possible pool of people who can “legitimately” support the administration through various arbitrary criteria while not in any way limiting the pool of people who can be opposed.
Of course this is all hogwash and anyone may have any opinion either for or against. In fact, as Democrats have demonstrated, it is even ok to change your opinion in mid-course. A person’s opinion is just as valid either way and simply because someone served in the military doesn’t make their opinion any “more valid” than someone who hasn’t. I knew some idiots in the military when I served and I know some pretty sharp people who never served. In fact, according to the Democrats, you can be a sharp lifelong civilian and have a valid opinion, as long as it is an opinion opposed to the administration. Then, according to their logic, your opinion is perfectly valid.
It is the sort of trick one resorts to when they don’t really have a message of their own except “I am against your message … no matter what that might be”. It is sophamoric.
Oh, and another thing … this Boxer thing is another example of exactly why I believe the Senate should return to being appointed by the state legislatures as our founders designed it and it was in the first 100 years of our nation’s history. Senate hearings would have a lot less showboating and a lot more getting down to business if that were the case.
Video: Boxer gets personal with Condi at Senate hearing…
Boxer’s Low Blow January 12, 2007 — Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza…
Quick hits…
AJ Strata said: That is the difference in paying a price and making a sacrifice – the intentions of the one who died are either in conflict with conditions of the loss or in support of the conditions. Boxer is too BDS driven to comprehend the dif…
I see that Senator Boxer has sent out her handler instead of getting her hands dirty doing it herself. As per Fox News:
Boxer released a statement Friday to FOXNews.com through her spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, saying:
“I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation. My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this Administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq.”
…..
Too gutless to even explain herself. Sending out your mouthpiece does NOT get you off the hook, Barbara. With no less than FIVE presidential candidates on the panel, salivating to use this as red meat for their own twisted purposes…you come off looking like some sort of self-righteous, hypocritical, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR in the opening impeachment rounds.
Carol
I don’t have children because I can’t have children. I had this same exchange with some obnoxious old woman. She said that if I had children I would understand what loss was.
I told her I had two relatives serving in Iraq and while neither of them were my sons, that was two more than she had serving there.
Another woman told me that since I had relatives in Iraq it was “ok” for me to have an opinion, otherwise I had no right to question her opposition. After all her brother was over there.
I told her that I had a right to an opinion whether I had relatives in Iraq or not and that her brother was in the military, not her. His decision to volunteer for the United States Military was about him, not her.
Who are these people who think they can decide who does and does not have a right to care or think or have an opinion about the war in Iraq or anything else?
Boxer’s Low Blow With Condi (Video)…
In case you haven’t seen it yet…here is a clip of today’s controversy everyone seems to be talking about.
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer. …
Condi’s response to Barbara Boxer should have been yob tvoyu maht.
you guys are off your rocker if honestly believe boxer was attacking rice for being childless. all she was saying is that rice was not risking anyone in her own family in the iraq war. that’s a chickenhawk argument, not a criticism for being childless.
honestly, sometimes i’m just embarassed for your guys. i’ve now read a dozen of so right-wing blogs going crazy over these remarks. not one even acknowledges that boxers remarks could be interpreted a different way. the carpetbagger really has the best analysis IMHO.
it’s craziness like this (and like jamail hussein, and like kerry sitting alone, etc. etc. etc.) that makes the rightblogosphere increasingly marginalized in this country’s political discourse.
Having been (informally?) banned here some time ago, I’ll make it quick.
I agree with AJ that Boxer is facile in her definition of the “price” of war. There are many prices to many people, and both victory and loss in a larger sense can be variously defined. It’s a stupid argument, due for elimination from the left’s stable of rhetorical devices.
On the other hand, it was no more than a stupid offhand argument. Boxer was asking who will suffer most from escalation (under her view of it) – not saying that no one should make decisions on war who is childless. And definitely not lording Rice’s “spinster” status over her. That’s just over the top.
Yes, it’s a problem that these Dem oldtimers get a little wind in their sails and wham! – they say something incredibly tone-deaf and untoward. But this story is more about Friday afternoon at the end of a tense week than anything of substance.
upyernoz:
The whole “chickenhawk” notion is stupid. To imply that a person can not letitimately be in favor of using the military unless they have served in the military is asinine. In fact, whenever I see anyone using the word “chickenhawk”, I pretty much discount whatever comes before and after. It tells me they have no clue what they are really talking about and are simply spouting rhetoric with cute little buzzwords. I can train a parrot to do that.
Harold, translation please. yob tvoyu maht.
“it’s craziness like this (and like jamail hussein, and like kerry sitting alone, etc. etc. etc.) that makes the rightblogosphere increasingly marginalized in this country’s political discourse.”
It’s craziness like a political party that is the sole support of killing inconvenient children. A media that writes it’s own version of what ever the story, irregardless of the facts; a media that cooks up a non existent
human being to sell their enemy propaganda. A US citizen, who meets with our enemies during war time and goes in front of a Senate committee on Foreign Relations on 22 Apr 1971 and confesses and admits that he endorsed and adopted the enemies positions and is promoting them in this country, then is nominated by said political party to be their candidate for President of the US. A politicial party
where members who have taken an oath to defend the US, refuse to
allow the President to defend this nation, and instead want to impeach him for defending the US.
The reasons shown above, are but a very small portion of the reasons
that this nation must have a Strong right wing blog system
defending the United States of America, from American leftist terrorist enablers who want nothing except to destroy this great country.
In my opinion, if it had not been for the heroic efforts of the Swift
Boat Vets and some right wing blogs, this country would have already
done what so many of the Democrats say they want to do-Surrender.
The Jamil Hussein thing is particularly interesting because in that case AP has been exposed for lying. His name isn’t nor has it ever been Hussein. His “reports” included incidents far from his station. It is likely that nearly all of his “reports” were fabrications. And AP is more interested at attacking thei critics than in getting their story straight.
It is quite clear that at this point AP believes that nobody cares if they are accurate or not, just as long as there is a certain “truthyness” to the reports.
Harold, translation please. yob tvoyu maht.
Left by erp on January 12th, 2007
…..
Silly wabbit…it’s Klingon, obviously! LOL. If its good enough for congress, its good enough to repeat here – right? A quick visit to Hotair should fill you in on what that means.
…..
And just who the hell is this little freshman congress jerk from Wisconsin at orientation verbally assaulting Rove (in the restroom no less) and Cheney on the White House tour? I heard something about that today too. Webb seems to now have company in the deranged moron constituency.
Well if the chickenhawk nonsense has any merit then how can Boxer be a US Senator. After all she has to vote on these matters and she has never been in a war herself, nor has she or Hillary ever worn a uniform so what right have they to make these decisions.
As for the right being marginalized…just think of Cindy Sheehan taking over the press conference for the Dems. That would be the same Cindy Sheehan that loves Hugo Chavez, that would be the same Chavez who is cosying up with the Death to America crowd. Now that is marginal.
Terrye, by their twisted logic, if you have not been in the military you are qualified to vote against it, just not qualified to vote FOR it.
See? It is really twisted logic. It isn’t even logic at all, it is a fabrication pulled out of thin air.
“it’s craziness like this (and like jamail hussein, and like kerry sitting alone, etc. etc. etc.) that makes the rightblogosphere increasingly marginalized ”
Having read many responses to Bush’s speech on some of the more liberal websites, I find that remark to be very funny. Those folks said that they would like to see Bush impeached, shot, run out of the White House by an angry mob, or driven out by a military mutiny. You can read rants like that any day of the week. But, of course, we wouldn’t want folks like that to be considered marginal.
I think conservative bloggers point to facts, and leftist bloggers point at your face.
crosspatch:
Hey, don’t question their patriotism, just their sanity.
Even tho I served in Military voluntarily, I don’t feel as if it is any requirement for anything except veterans benefits. All Americans are eligible for all the benefits of citizenship and that especially applies to freedom of speech. But saying that, I don’t think it is very appropriate or patriotic for someone that does not serve to demean someone that is serving, That person is serving to protect those very rights I’m talking about.
Nobody should be for the defeat or harm to any military person.
It would be the grandest compliment to be considered marginalized by the Left. Truly. As we say, we would “consider the source.”
And frankly, regarding Jamil Hussein and Kerry…you have NO clue.
Pagar – a most excellent post on the left & Kerry.
Crospatch – to follow up on you earlier post on dems tactics, well, go back the last year or so leading up to the recent elections. Who do they trot out for spokespersons? Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son, so you cannot criticize or rebut her because she’s grieving and you/we don’t have a right unless we also have a son/daughter in harm’s way. Michael J Fox, another victim immune to criticism, even if he patently lied in his ads. And then there’s the 9-11 ladies … shameless & disgusting tactics, but now expected.
And speaking of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones. Well, it’s sad and tragic they suddenly and unexpectedly lost a loved one that day. But, that does not give them an extra say in how we as a country respond. 9-11 was as much a blow to me as a patriotic American as it was to anyone else, whether or not I lost a loved one. Giving these spouses a platform as if they suddenly were experts rankled me.
The talk of the day was…….
….Barbara Boxer’s incredibly classless remark to Condoleeza Rice. Rice appeared before the Senate in defense ……
I’ve been in one of Senator Boxers offices and her staff spent the entire time I was there (about 2 hours) Googling her name to put together a newsletter of her “accomplishments”. Shortly thereafter I was in Congressman Bonos office and her staff spent the whole time I was there talking to constituents on the phone and in person about illegal immigration issues. The difference was quite striking.
~RJH
Pagar,
Thanks for the outstanding comments.
Of course, Sen Boxer wasn’t attacking Rice for being childless. But she was trying to de-legitimize her. It has been a tactic of the Democratic left since the War began, by constantly noting Cheney’s lack of service and trying to minimize Bush’s. That is the very definition of demagoguery.
Wiley,
Well said. It’s as if the families of the Pearl Harbor victims had been given an extra say in WWII.
Okay….Barbara asked why someone didn’t confront the ones that keep calling the troops ‘children’. Makes me repeat my point about why we lost the last election. It started with all the confirmation hearings where the Repubs decided to sit quietly and let the Dems trash each and every one of Bush’s nominees. Not all the Repubs are guilty, but enough of them enjoyed rubbing Bush from the McCains/Grahams all the way through the moonbat Specters/Hagels. I asked at the time……why are these people not shouting down these insulting people? Why did they not have the cahones to confront them on camera about their INSULTS? Which Senator did you ever hear calling Boxer what she really is the first time she personally insulted Rice?
The good Congressmen lost their power because they thought they could push off all stink onto Bush while they hid and smirked or threw their jabs with McCain=torture, Spector=NSA, Collins=Katrina. Never has a bunch deserved it more. Just a darn shame it had to take down the good ones that tried to fight. They needed to stand up and stop the outrageous behavior of the Boxers from the beginning.
Carol talks about ‘livid’. Yep…..that was me when I listened to the rant on The View the day after Bush’s speech. It combined all the really nasty, hatefull elements into one. So I ranted back with something they probably never receive. I claimed this war. Yep…..I said that this was not George Bush’s war…..this is MY WAR. This is not Rosie’s UN country that their president has the right to decide the war was illegal……..this is MY country and Bush is MY president. Mine. MY WAR.
I thought it was time for someone to claim this war. ME. Only wish I could have seen the good Senators say the same thing back to the Boxers and Rosies of this world. Oh, I added that even though it was a Democrat that started Vietnam and was in office while about 50,000 died……Vietnam was MY war, my country, and Kennedy and Johnson were MY presidents. I refuse to let Bush receive all the credit. I wanted to go take out Hussein. I wanted to change the same-o, same-o approach of kissing Arafat’s azz. I wanted to get in the faces of all the people who have hid and attacked us since Iran took our embassy. MY WAR. They are coming…..they are here. The Boxers of this world are the ‘children’…….not our brave, volunteer fighting warriors.
The whole “chickenhawk” notion is stupid.
crosspatch, maybe. but my point wasn’t whether boxer was making a good argument, it was whether she did made any sort of personal attack on rice’s lack of children. i don’t think her remarks could reasonably be read that way. and, as i said above, i was embarrassed for all the bloggers on the right who insisted that she did. what a ridiculous attempt at “gotcha” politics.
Having read many responses to Bush’s speech on some of the more liberal websites, I find that remark to be very funny. Those folks said that they would like to see Bush impeached, shot, run out of the White House by an angry mob, or driven out by a military mutiny. You can read rants like that any day of the week.
dennissa,
okay, i’ll call your bluff. can you provide me one example of a liberal website that called for bush to be impeached and shot, and run out of thee whitehouse by an angry mob or driving out my a military mutiny.
give me a link. any link. it’s gotta have more than just a call for impeachment (let’s fact it there have been calls to impeach every president since at least nixon. that’s not nearly as marginal as any of the other things). if you really can “read rants like that every day of the week” finding me a link should be ridiculously easy
Well if the chickenhawk nonsense has any merit then how can Boxer be a US Senator. After all she has to vote on these matters and she has never been in a war herself, nor has she or Hillary ever worn a uniform so what right have they to make these decisions.
did you read boxer’s actually remarks that strata is huffing a puffing about? she applied the chickenhawk argument to both herself and rice. she said that no one in her immediate family was serving and that no one in rice’s immediate family was either. her point was that both of them are in positions to make decisions about this war but neither of them are directly touched by it.
it’s actually a good point, and to boxer’s credit that she also pointed out that she herself was in the same boat as rice. which is again why right blogistan’s attempt to spin her remarks into some kind of attack on rice’s fertility is so ludicrous
to follow up on my last comment, here is what boxer said:
(emphasis added)
see how boxer is clearly stating that neither she nor rice were “paying a personal price’?
Great post, Owl!
Yes, it is MY war, too! And MY President who I am extremely proud to claim…
Upyer you, as usual, miss the point.
Grown up professional people (what we should have in Congresss, but unfortunately don’t,see Barbara Boxer) should be talking about what is best for the country. It’s not what’s best for individuals. They shouldn’t be putting things on a personal basis.
Barbara Boxer’s comment was entirely personal and not even remotely professional. She owes an apology. Simple as that.
Whether her children are ‘involved’ or whether Rices’s children are ‘involved’ shoud have absolutely zero to do with the decision.
If Gen Eisenhower’s son had been in the invasion force for D day, do you think he would still have ordered the Normandy invasion? I do.
Do you think that should have been a consideration for whether D Day was a good idea or not?
UUpyer said
i’ve now read a dozen of so right-wing blogs going crazy over these remarks. not one even acknowledges that boxers remarks could be interpreted a different way.
Why do libs remarks have to be “interpreted” Can’t we just acknowledge that what she did was attack Rice on a personal level when she should have been discussing it on a professional level.
Dems and Libs always seem to have to be interpreted, they never really actually mean what they “say” it’s what they “meant to say”
Biwah said”But this story is more about Friday afternoon at the end of a tense week than anything of substance.”
Biwah, it was Thursday. but you are correct that there’s not much substance to Boxer.
Upyernoz says he is here for civil discourse and we should listen to his opinions just like we listen to others. Of course, this is not true. He has changed his name and his tactics but the message is still the same. We can’t win this war. Bush is dumb. Dems are better. We are dumb. Negative. Negative. Negative. Everything he says is diametrically opposed to what we say. He is here solely to get his message out in the hopes that he will sway the readers here. There is no other possible reason for his posts. Although he is politer this time the message is still the same.
Barbara, and he never has any substance or positives, it’s as you say, he only is negative. Nothing he says is going to sway anyone. He can get responses on this site, but if he were on a lefty site, he would just be another pea in a pod and no one would even read him, just another same song, next verse.
Upyernoz says he is here for civil discourse and we should listen to his opinions just like we listen to others. Of course, this is not true. He has changed his name and his tactics but the message is still the same. We can’t win this war. Bush is dumb. Dems are better. We are dumb. Negative. Negative. Negative. Everything he says is diametrically opposed to what we say. He is here solely to get his message out in the hopes that he will sway the readers here. There is no other possible reason for his posts. Although he is politer this time the message is still the same.
barbara,
when have i ever changed my name? i’ve only ever posted here as upyernoz
and please provide support for all the other things you are claiming i have said. honestly, why does ever conversation i have here always end up with you accusing me of being someone else and by putting words in my mouth. can’t we just talk about what i actually write, not what you imagine i believe?
Barbara, and he never has any substance or positives, it’s as you say, he only is negative. Nothing he says is going to sway anyone. He can get responses on this site, but if he were on a lefty site, he would just be another pea in a pod and no one would even read him, just another same song, next verse.
in a way i kind of appreciate the honesty in enforcement’s remarks. i mean, he is telling us, straight up, that he doesn’t actually pay attention to what i write (which means that he can’t really know whether my remarks have substance). so much for enforcement’s open mind…
on to enforcement’s substantive points:
Grown up professional people (what we should have in Congresss, but unfortunately don’t,see Barbara Boxer) should be talking about what is best for the country. It’s not what’s best for individuals. They shouldn’t be putting things on a personal basis.
but that’s just it, boxer was talking about what she believed was best for the country. she disagrees with the administration’s plan, and when rice started talking about sacrifice, she pointed out, quite rightly, that neither herself nor rice were making any kind of personal sacrifice. in other words, she was noting that for all the talk of “personal sacrifice” coming out of the administration, the sacrifice was not in fact personal but was rather being born by someone else.
now maybe you disagree with boxer’s comments. maybe you think she is wrong to doubt the president’s plan. but clearly what she said was not merely some personal attack as you are trying to make it out to be. you’re simply taking a single sentence out of context and trying to turn it into a personal insult when it clearly wasn’t.
Why do libs remarks have to be “interpreted” Can’t we just acknowledge that what she did was attack Rice on a personal level when she should have been discussing it on a professional level.
Dems and Libs always seem to have to be interpreted, they never really actually mean what they “say” it’s what they “meant to say”
you’ve totally missed what i’m saying here. my point is that right blogistan is interpreting boxer’s remarks in a way that they clearly were not intended. i was saying the right was “interpreting” them, and that the people writing about this were not acknowledging that the remarks could be read another (more logical) way.
on top of that, your claim that only the left “interprets” is rather foolish. we all interpret things. i mean, when i read what you write, i take it a certain way. maybe i am mistaken what you mean sometimes, but hopefully, you will point out where i am misinterpreting you, and vice-versa. that’s what a discussion is. based on your other remarks i’m beginning to wonder if you’ve ever had an extended discussion with someone who disagrees with you.
one more thing…
i think it’s interesting that after i quoted boxer’s extended remarks–rather than just strata’s summary of them–not a single commentator defended strata and other right-wing blogers original interpretation for the remarks.
UPyer
“in a way i kind of appreciate the honesty in enforcement’s remarks. i mean, he is telling us, straight up, that he doesn’t actually pay attention to what i write (which means that he can’t really know whether my remarks have substance).”
While at the same time, I don’t appreciate your basic dishonesty. If I didn’t pay attention to what you write, how would I know it was all same song, next verse.
What Barbara is saying is, you may use a different name but you say the same thing. Nothing new. Reading one of you libs is the same as any other. As soon as the BDS sets in, it really doesn’t matter what name shows up at the bottom. One day it’s you, next day it’s someone else, never anything new, just BDS and hate America.
UPyer
“but that’s just it, boxer was talking about what she believed was best for the country.”
No she wasn’t, she was just grandstanding and putting it on a personal level, just as I said. You trying to restate it in a different way doesn’t change anything.
You were the ones talking about interpretation and saying someone misinterpreted Boxer’s remarks. They didn’t. She clearly made the discussion personal. Taking it out of context is just another way of saying misinterpreted. My comment is, why does she say something that ‘has to be interpreted’ Isn’t she capable of making a concise statement. I claim she did, in fact, do that and it was a personal attack. I’m not really surprised that you can’t distinguish a personal attack for any other type. It’s in character.
No one had to defend Strata’s remarks, he was correct and didn’t need defending. Your erroneous statement about them wasn’t worthy of a response.
And:
“based on your other remarks i’m beginning to wonder if you’ve ever had an extended discussion with someone who disagrees with you.”
That’s my life. And if they have any sense at all, they agree with me when it’s over.
If they don’t, then they still try to maintain Boxer didn’t get personal.
Upyernoz
When I say you have changed your name I base it on these facts:
1. You are negative. Everything the administration does is wrong.
Everything the dems do is right You make excuses for every goof
the dems make and try to make it sound reasonable. From Murtha
to Boxer they are always reasonable and we are unreasonable to
object.
2. The language you use is the same. You need to educate us to the
right path. You are embarrassed for us for being so wrong.
Everytime a democrat speaks they are basically smarter than
the right. You are glad you came to this site so you could set us
straight. All quotes.
3 You try to take over the site. It’s all about you. Its all about your
theories and reasons. Everybody else is stupid. You post
numerous times one after another arguing, arguing, arguing.
4. You act like you know everything about everything. A genuine
know-it-all. There is no subject on earth you are not well versed
in according to you or that you don’t orate on as you are an
expert.
5. You demand we back up our statements on common knowledge
but when we demand you back some asinine statement you made
you respond either with another question or not at all.
6. The war in Iraque is wrong, wrong, wrong. We cannot win it and
should just give up even trying. Nothing we do in the future will
let us win it. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
7. The disrespect you show our host angers all of us. This is his
site and his money and he is entitled to respect. He should not
be subject to any little two bit punk who decides to come on this
site and be offensive. You started out being offensive in this
but cleaned up your act when threatened with banning. But you
still call AJ “Strata” in that carping way.
8. The silly name variations you call the posters here are childish.
We are all grown-ups even if you aren’t.
9. You look up stuff in Wikapedia and act like it is knowledge you
learned in school or on the job. Unfortunately, the little
knowledge you show is so wrong you are shot down all the time.
10. You make provocative statements just to get a rise out of
your target. I doubt that anyone is as dumb as you make yourself
seem by your statements . But then you are a liberal so I may be
wrong.
I will admit you no longer use lefty polls or the ones you pulled out of air ad nauseam and you no longer blast the Jews at every
opportunity but if you are not who I think you are you are his twin brother. I may be wrong but didn’t you or one of your alter egos make the statement that you would be content if Iran nuked the Jews? I think you have requested many various names to access this site because they all sing the same song. But the biggest giveaway
is that you are still here. After all the verbiage used against you you
are still posting with no one agreeing with you on any subject whatsoever which is exactly what our former resident troll did.
It is like you have found a home away from home. What is it? Do you just like to argue? Do you like to interrupt other peoples conversation with acrimony? Or do you just like to cause trouble?
The problem with your posting your opinions is that we have heard them too many times and they don’t make any more sense when you say them than when other trolls have said them. We discounted them long ago as unreasonable. Conservatives are doubting Thomases and things have to make sense before they believe them. Liberals depend on rumors and gossip and ennuendos for their information. So much of their diatribe sounds like gossip that has grown with each telling.
Barbara, you have many that agree with you. As I said to him, it’s all same song, same verse and next verse. Never any variation, just constant name calling and hate America. I wish he would just go ahead and sign his name “Lib” then he wouldn’t have to change it so often.
enforcement:
While at the same time, I don’t appreciate your basic dishonesty. If I didn’t pay attention to what you write, how would I know it was all same song, next verse.
how can you possibly be serious with that statement? not only do i read everything you say, i often quote it back to you to make perfectly clear which particular one of your points i am responding to.
You were the ones talking about interpretation and saying someone misinterpreted Boxer’s remarks. They didn’t. She clearly made the discussion personal. Taking it out of context is just another way of saying misinterpreted. My comment is, why does she say something that ‘has to be interpreted’ Isn’t she capable of making a concise statement. I claim she did, in fact, do that and it was a personal attack. I’m not really surprised that you can’t distinguish a personal attack for any other type. It’s in character.
no, we both were interpreting boxer’s remarks. that’s what happens when you read what someone else says. to claim that only liberal “interpret” is simply ludicrous. interpreting language is how we understand it. everything can be taken different ways, the problem is figuring out which is the most plausible interpretation.
my point is, the notion that boxer was commenting on rice’s childlessness is itself an interpretation. and not only that, a particularly implausible one given what boxer was saying. get it? i’m not saying one of us is interpreting and the other isn’t. we both are, it’s just that your interpretation bears little resemblance to boxer’s actual quote.
barbara,
to address each of your points:
1. i don’t think everything the administration does is wrong. where do you get that? actually, i haven’t even talked much about the bush administration here. most of what i’ve done is argue over strata’s analysis (oops, excuse me AJ Strata’s analysis) and the analysis of some of the commentators here.
2. if my language is the same as this ken guy, it is surely an accident. aside from your accusation that he is me, i have never encountered him before. maybe he left here or was banned before i started dropping by. hey, did ken use capital letters? not using them has been my signature online since 2003.
3. with all due respect i am not “taking over the site.” i do not comment on roughly half of the threads. i only drop in when i think i have a point to make, and once i do i feel obligated to engage the people who try to talk to me. because i disagree with people here that often prompts a lot of responses to me, which causes me to respond back. i’m not trying to take over this blog. why would i do that? i already have my own blog
4. there are plenty of things that i don’t know. often i do not comment on them. and even areas that i know a bit about, i often temper my comments with “in my opinion” or “at least that’s what i think” or the like. if you take my comments as being a know-it-all i am truly sorry. for what it’s worth i could make the same claim about you as you are insisting that you know, you’re just positive, that i am in fact some person named ken. it doesn’t get more know-it-ally than that.
5. give me an example of some common knowledge i have challenged.
i think the problem is that there are certain things that seem like “common knowledge” when all you read is rightwing news sources and blogs. as a non-rightwinger it may be that what i think is common knowledge is not the same as you. i’m not trying to play games, i’m just trying to understand why you believe what you say so i can decide whether to agree or disagree with you.
6. i do think the iraq war is wrong. but i also believe that this is the first time i have raised it here. how does believing the iraq war prove that i am ken? even if you disagree with me you must at least admit that there is more than one person in the world who believes the war is wrong
7. i think you’re reading disrespect into my writings just because i disagree with him. in fact, i have a lot of respect for AJ Strata. he lets me comment here, even vehemently disagree with him and does not censor what i write. unfortunately that is a rare commodity on the internet. i have never badmouthed our host in any way. all i’ve done is disagreed with things he has written, but again disagreement is not the same as disrespect.
and i do call him “strata” because it is easier to type. honestly, it is not meant to be any kind of slam. i think you’re reading a tone into my words that is not intended.
8. what silly name variations are you referring to? i’m pretty sure i’ve only referred to people here by the names they use while posting.
are you sure you’re not mixing me up with someone else? i simply don’t think i have ever made fun of anyone’s name here.
9. why do you assume that the stuff i say here i learned from wikipedia? sometimes i cite wiki articles, but only because i have found that if i ever cite any article from another source, i get slammed for using “biased liberal sources.” it doesn’t really matter what sources i use, they always turn out to be biased in the eyes of the commentators on the rightwing sites i visit. so over time i’ve started using wiki instead. it has other problems, but does not trigger the liberal bias charge quite as much. but maybe you are different and are willing to read sources you don’t agree with? in that case i am happy to use different cites. just let me know which way you prefer
but most of the things i write i know from other sources. i can speak and read arabic, which opens up a lot of resources that are not available to other americans. i am a lawyer with certain practice specialities. sometimes those things come up here. and i have travelled a fair amount in the middle east. that’s basically my background. if stuff comes up that i don’t know a lot about, i usually just refrain from commenting. as i mentioned above, i don’t comment in more than half of the threads here.
10. if my statements are do dumb, why not point out where i go wrong rather than make this ridiculous charge that i am secretly someone else? can you give me a single example of a dumb statement i made? it could be you misunderstand me, or maybe i did say something stupid. i don’t know which it is unless you give me an example.
I may be wrong but didn’t you or one of your alter egos make the statement that you would be content if Iran nuked the Jews?
no, i didn’t. i am jewish. and i’m not looking to get nuked.
But the biggest giveaway is that you are still here.
so are you. does that mean you’re also ken?
After all the verbiage used against you you are still posting with no one agreeing with you on any subject whatsoever which is exactly what our former resident troll did.
so you believe that people should only visit places where everyone agrees with you? personally, i like engaging people who think differently than me. i find that we both can learn from the process. everyone sitting around and nodding is not only not any kind of intellectual challenge, it makes everyone close minded. and what’s the point of that.
maybe just maybe there’s more than one person in the world who also likes to argue with people who think differently than him.
It is like you have found a home away from home. What is it? Do you just like to argue?
yes, i do like to argue. but by arguing i try to have an honest discussion and hope that others do the same for me. i have changed my mind about many things through discussions on the internet. i find it facinating that you seem to believe that just disagreeing with you is some kind of horrible offense rather than an opportunity to learn from one another.
Do you like to interrupt other peoples conversation with acrimony?
i think you’re reading the acrimony into my comments. none are intended and nothing i write is at all personal. i wish you all the best even as i disagree with you about certain things. and i don’t think i’m “interrupting” anything simply by participating.
Or do you just like to cause trouble?
i’m here to talk, not cause trouble. why exactly are you reacting so strong to someone just because he has the temerity to disagree?
The problem with your posting your opinions is that we have heard them too many times and they don’t make any more sense when you say them than when other trolls have said them. We discounted them long ago as unreasonable.
and yet most of the time you do not respond to what i actually said, but rather what you believe i really mean, or what someone else said who you confuse with me.
so i suspect that you have no ever heard what i am writing. based on your comments i’m not positive that you are paying any attention to what i am saying. instead you have labeled me “troll” or “ken” and assume i am saying whatever ken used to say.
Conservatives are doubting Thomases and things have to make sense before they believe them. Liberals depend on rumors and gossip and ennuendos for their information. So much of their diatribe sounds like gossip that has grown with each telling.
that is simply a bunch of basely generalizations and stereotypes. why am i the one who keeps asking for a basis for your charges? why am i the one who provides links to wiki articles to support what i say? it seems to me like i am providing backup for my points. the fact that you are completely convinced that i am someone who i had never heard of before undermines your claim that you are a “doubting thomas.” you seem to have reached the upyernoz = ken conclusion rather quickly, don’t you think?
Upyer, tell me the point of taking my paragraph above and turning it around as if it’s what you said.
In the post I was responding to you said:
“in a way i kind of appreciate the honesty in enforcement’s remarks. i mean, he is telling us, straight up, that he doesn’t actually pay attention to what i write (which means that he can’t really know whether my remarks have substance).”
So you were saying there that I didn’t pay attention to what you said, right?
So then I said:
“While at the same time, I don’t appreciate your basic dishonesty. If I didn’t pay attention to what you write, how would I know it was all same song, next verse.”
I was saying you were dishonest in that because if I didn’t pay attention to what you said, how would I know that it was always same song, next verse. Right?
So now you come along and say:
“how can you possibly be serious with that statement? not only do i read everything you say, i often quote it back to you to make perfectly clear which particular one of your points i am responding to.”
Don’t you see you lost track. I didn’t say you didn’t read what I said. I said that you said that I didn’t read what you said. and I asked how I could know that everything you said was same song next verse if I didn’t read what you said and that you are dishonest in saying that.
You are a lawyer and can’t keep track of your position, geez talk about malpractice.
Yes, everything said is interpreted, I won’t argue with that. But let’s see if it matters.
Lets say that you have a black ball in your hand. And I say:
Where did you get that black ball?
Now you can interpret that to mean that you are holding a white ball if you like, it wouldn’t be correct but you can interpret it that way.
Now I can interpret it as you have a black ball. Now it’s true that I just interpreted it to mean that, even tho it happens to be true.
Now Barbara Boxer can make that statement that was putting her argument on a personal level.
Now you could interpret it that she didn’t put it on a personal level, and I could interpret it that she did.
You would be wrong and I would be right.
So if you still maintain that it wasn’t personal, you are still interpreting it incorrectly. And it doesn’t matter how I interpret it because it doesn’t change the fact: that it was a personal attack.
And you say you’re a lawyer?
Up yer, let me respond to some of your statements to Barbara above.
Starting here:
“that is simply a bunch of basely generalizations and stereotypes. why am i the one who keeps asking for a basis for your charges? why am i the one who provides links to wiki articles to support what i say? it seems to me like i am providing backup for my points. the fact that you are completely convinced that i am someone who i had never heard of before undermines your claim that you are a “doubting thomas.” you seem to have reached the upyernoz = ken conclusion rather quickly, don’t you think?”
First since you are being challenged, you are beginning to respond a small amount. But the problem you have, in common with Ken, is that you come on, make an irrational statement, expect everyone to believe it and if we challenge it, you just quote some source that we already know has zero credibility, like the NYT. Wiki is ok, but questionable sometimes. But then when one of us makes a statement you question it to the nth degree and won’t accept anything at all as supporting data. In fact you usually totally ignore it. So in short, you expect us to buy you hook line and sinker and don’t take anything at all that any of us say, no matter the absolute proof.
An example of this is: In your opinion, Boxer said nothing at all personal in her statement. Now you have heard everyone of the regular people here say it was personal and you are the only one that says it wasn’t. Do you think you are the only one that can correctly interpret what she said and that there is no way she meant it to be personal. Tell you what. Take her entire paragraph that included the statement in question, print it out and break it down for us, in your opinion. If you can do it and convince two or 3 people here to agree with you. Then we will accept you as being genuine.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3227Don’t you see you lost track. I didn’t say you didn’t read what I said.
apparently i misunderstood you. i apologize.
You are a lawyer and can’t keep track of your position, geez talk about malpractice.
no, i just misconstrued what you wrote. luckily the standard for malpractice is a lot higher than that (or do i mean lower? sometimes this metaphor is confusing)
Now Barbara Boxer can make that statement that was putting her argument on a personal level.
Now you could interpret it that she didn’t put it on a personal level, and I could interpret it that she did.
You would be wrong and I would be right.
So if you still maintain that it wasn’t personal, you are still interpreting it incorrectly. And it doesn’t matter how I interpret it because it doesn’t change the fact: that it was a personal attack.
there’s a difference between being “personal” and being a personal attack. boxer was relating the issue to rice personally. she was also relating it to herself personally. boxer said that neither she herself, nor rice were paying a personal price for iraq because neither had close family members who were currently serving there. that was personal. but it wasn’t a personal attack. indeed, boxer applied her comments both to rice and to herself. just to illustrate my point, i’ll quote her remarks again:
using someone else to illustrate your point on a personal level is not a personal attack. if it were, your using the fact that i am a lawyer in this discussion would also be a personal attack. i don’t think you intend it to be and i don’t take it as one. but by referencing my profession you are bringing it to a personal level.
And you say you’re a lawyer?
i am. what do you do? (not to get “personal.” i’m just trying to make friendly conversation. obviously there’s no need to answer if you don’t want to)
But the problem you have, in common with Ken, is that you come on, make an irrational statement, expect everyone to believe it and if we challenge it, you just quote some source that we already know has zero credibility, like the NYT. Wiki is ok, but questionable sometimes.
a couple of points:
(a) i don’t think my statements are irrational, but i’m open to the possibility that they are. all you have to do is explain to me why you don’t think what i am saying makes sense.
(b) you’ve just given the exact reason that i do not cite the NYT here. i know that you guys don’t think it has any credibility (i think you’re wrong to reject it out of hand, by the way, but there’s no need to get sidetracked into that discussion now). so you’re wrong if you’re suggesting that i ever have cited the NYT here. i never have. in fact, i have made a conscious decision not to.
(c) which is why i go with wiki instead. and yet barbara cited my citation to wiki as a reason to give me less credibility. which puts me in an impossible situation. i mean, i could be right sometimes. none of us are perfect. we all could be mistake. maybe you guys are right 99% of the time and i’m only right 1% of the time. but still that 1% will happen now and then. but between doubting all the MSM sources and barbara raising credibility problems with wiki, you’ve closed off virtually every avenue for me to ever support anything. so you’ll miss the times that i actually turn out to be right–even if it’s just 1%
(d) it’s nice that you are not as convinced as barbara that i am the same person as ken.
But then when one of us makes a statement you question it to the nth degree and won’t accept anything at all as supporting data. In fact you usually totally ignore it.
well, it is true that i question things a lot. i’m not trying to be cute, i’m just trying to be clear on what exactly you are saying. maybe to you that seems like the “nth degree” but that’s probably just a matter of perspective.
as for not providing any supporting data, i completely reject that characterization. see above for my dilemma re: wiki vs. any MSM source
So in short, you expect us to buy you hook line and sinker and don’t take anything at all that any of us say, no matter the absolute proof.
that’s absolutely not true. i am here for a discussion. i’m not trying to lecture anyone. although i do stick up for my position if i think you are wrong, i will admit i am wrong if you can convince me that you are. i just hope that you will extend me the same courtesy
In your opinion, Boxer said nothing at all personal in her statement…
see above. i’m not saying boxer said nothing personal. i am saying it wasn’t a personal attack and that it was not out of line.
If you can do it and convince two or 3 people here to agree with you. Then we will accept you as being genuine.
i think that’s ridiculous. i’m here to interact with individuals, not sell my moonshine to the whole group. everyone reading this can think for themselves and decide if i’m right or if enforcement is right, or if someone else is right. maybe i won’t convince anyone here, but that that could just be because this is a conservative audience predisposed to dislike boxer.
here’s a test for you. do you think laura bush’s recent remarks about whether rice would be a good secretary of state were out of line:
unlike boxer, laura bush directly stated the fact that rice is single and childless. are you equally outraged at the first lady as you are at boxer?
maybe i won’t convince three people with that, but i think it’s a fair point. if i’m wrong, please explain so i can change my mind
Upyer
I’m sure she would have seen this as an attack; because she pointed out that she had ‘children’ and ‘greandchildren’ while Rice had none.”
But that’s almost semantics, why did anything personal get in? whether ‘attack’ or ‘needle-jabbing’? When lawmakers are deciding about an important issue for the country, they shouldn’t let legislators personal situation be a deciding factor? Let’s say we want to go to war, but exempted the children and grandchildren of everyone that had children or grandchildren? Would that work?
So whether Boxer had children or Rice had children was totally irrelavant. So why throw it in unless to ‘make a point’ of it?
“My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.” Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
“but by referencing my profession you are bringing it to a personal level.” And why did I even have that info to use? You used it. You made a point of saying you were a lawyer as if that should influence the validity of your argument. Did you not?
That’s like saying. That’s a beautiful color isn’t it. I’m a judge of colors and I think it’s beautiful, don’t you? Is that intended to sway by using personal info?
And you say you’re a lawyer?
i am. what do you do?
I’m 66 and retired. I was executive level with a major company for 20 years just prior to retiring. I’m a chem eng by education and experience.
I went over to your site and read a few things. I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.
On the comments by Laura Bush, first I suspect you got something wrong in that. I don’t know what job she was talking about, what the context was, was it on the record in an official meeting? If the question was “Do you think a person’s personal family situation will have an impact on the qualifications of that person to be secretary of state? then absolutely they would be pertinent. So overall, on your question, as you stated it. I don’t have an opinion. Boxer’s situation was entirely different and it had no place there.
As for whether Barbara actually meant you are Ken( himself) or Ken (in style and substance) I don’t know. I took it as the latter for the reasons I stated before.
Here is the undesirable characteristic: Come on site, make statements indicating everybody but you is an idiot, won’t answer any question about what you write, ask many questions about what we write, criticize us for not answering your dozens of questions and insinuating we are ignorant if we don’t. Acting if there is no basis for questioning you. I could go on and on, but you get the point, I’m sure. Now, go back to some of your earliest posts and see if that doesn’t describe you. Yes, now that we said what we did about you, you’re trying to moderate a little(and you have) but it was your earlier visits that set the tone.
I went over to your site and read a little and notice you seem to use the tactic of bashing conservatives as your forte. an example:
“claims that eritrea may pose a threat to the u.s.
sometimes i think conservative publications spend all their time dreaming up new ways to get their readers to s**t their pants with terror.”
First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?
By the way, I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. I find in general that it is a total waste of time to talk with Libs, they generally are very uninformed, and only get involved to bash conservatives and Pres Bush or to ‘feel good’ about what they do. Most of them don’t know the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and would think it is silly to know them. Most of them won’t stand up for the nationa anthem or their mother. That’s my experience.
Upyer, ignore this paragraph:
I went over to your site and read a few things. I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.
It got in their twice in my cutting and pasting.
because she pointed out that she had ‘children’ and ‘greandchildren’ while Rice had none.”
no she didn’t. she just said that rice wasn’t gonna “pay a price” with any immediate family members. just as boxer said that she herself “wasn’t paying a price.” if it was an attack boxer was attacking herself just as much as she was attacking rice. which is why your interpretation is so implausible
You made a point of saying you were a lawyer as if that should influence the validity of your argument. Did you not?
i did not. i first raised the issue just to explain why i was amused by your “i rest my case” line. it had nothing to do with my argument. and your decision to pick up on the lawyer thing in this thread had nothing to do with this argument otherwise.
I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.
i disagree with your characterization. but hey, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. do you have any particular example?
On the comments by Laura Bush, first I suspect you got something wrong in that. I don’t know what job she was talking about, what the context was, was it on the record in an official meeting? If the question was “Do you think a person’s personal family situation will have an impact on the qualifications of that person to be secretary of state? then absolutely they would be pertinent. So overall, on your question, as you stated it. I don’t have an opinion. Boxer’s situation was entirely different and it had no place there.
in other words you are bringing up “context” to make excuses for what laura bush said. if you wanted you could have hunted down the original interview to see the context yourself. but you didn’t. i guess some people’s making comments about someone else’s personal life is worse than when other people do them. i mean, laura bush was questioning whether rice was qualified for a job simply because she is single and childless. that’s a lot more direct than anything boxer said.
Come on site, make statements indicating everybody but you is an idiot, won’t answer any question about what you write, ask many questions about what we write, criticize us for not answering your dozens of questions and insinuating we are ignorant if we don’t.
once again you’re making a lot of accusations against me without giving a single example. i disagree with that characterization (i am especially offended that you claim i have indicated that other people here are idiots. i don’t know why you keep saying that. let me say again and again, i do not think anyone here is an idiot. why are you and barbara so insecure about this?)
here’s the thing: i suspect a lot of your problem with me is simply that i’m not toeing the party line like everyone else here is. i presume that ken also disagreed with you. the horror! why are you having such a hard time dealing with the existence of dissent? i am trying to make substantive points about the post and inevitably someone raises an issue about me personally rather than the substance of what i am saying. that’s happened on a lot of different threads here, but it takes on an extra ironic dimension here, considering the topic of the thread.
First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?
the article claimed that eritrea may be a threat to the safety of the u.s.
it didn’t say it wasn’t friendly (in fact, that’s a hard case to make. eritrea was a member of the “coalition of the willing” after all), it claimed that an impoverished normally ally of the u.s. poses a danger to you and i. that is patently ridiculous and frankly seems to be simply an attempt to get people excited about another country in the wide world. much of what the weekly standard writes is fear-mongering, this is just the latest and most ridiculous example.
that was my point. i wasn’t bashing conservatives, i was bashing the conservative press and specifically the weekly standard.
By the way, I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. I find in general that it is a total waste of time to talk with Libs, they generally are very uninformed, and only get involved to bash conservatives and Pres Bush or to ‘feel good’ about what they do. Most of them don’t know the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and would think it is silly to know them. Most of them won’t stand up for the nationa anthem or their mother. That’s my experience.
so you’re both close-minded and are generalizing me into some caracature of a “liberal.” nice
riddle me this: for over a year i have tried to find a conservative who is willing to have an honest discussion with me. you know, one who is willing to change his mind if i prove him wrong and to whom i will promise to change my mind if he proves me wrong. the weird thing is i have changed my mind and issued corrections about stuff i have gotten wrong before. but i have yet to find a single conservative online who will do it. why is that?
(for some reason this is only a problem with online conservatives. my real life friends span the political spectrum and i find it quite easy to have open and honest discussions with people in meat-land)
because she pointed out that she had ‘children’ and ‘grandchildren’ while Rice had none.”
no she didn’t. she just said that rice wasn’t gonna “pay a price” with any immediate family members
Yes she did. Saying I have children and grandchildren and you have no immediate family is personal. If and that’s a bif if, she wanted to be impersonal, she could have left out both references or she could have said: Neither of us will be influenced by our immediate family” but by saying ‘my children and grandchildren’ and you don’t have an immediate family was CLEARLY for personal reasons. you may as well drop that subject, you are apparently closeminded. ANY MENTION OF FAMILY IS PERSONAL.
I notice you seem to have a style of just writing or linking and insinuating that people on the right…… well, don’t have a clue.
i disagree with your characterization. but hey, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. do you have any particular example?
I said that was a duplication and did give an example on the other one.
in other words you are bringing up “context” to make excuses for what laura bush said. if you wanted you could have hunted down the original interview to see the context yourself. but you didn’t. i guess some people’s making comments about someone else’s personal life is worse than when other people do them. i mean, laura bush was questioning whether rice was qualified for a job simply because she is single and childless. that’s a lot more direct than anything boxer said.
It’s not the same. First, you brought up the example, and left out the context. Why should I hunt it up? I clearly said context makes a difference and gave an example, which you chose to ignore. Wasn’t that my point about you ignoring what is said in response.
First, we both know Boxer’s context. You know Laura’s. Will you agree that if she were asked, in public, by news people. Would Condi Rice’s family situation affect her opinions and judgements if she were Secretary of State. Then yes, it would be appropriate to respond to the question with an answer, in context. it would be personal, but it was asked specifically to question her personal situation in context with the job.
So what she said may have been an exact answer to the question. I’m not making excuses, pointing out difference in context.
Come on site, make statements indicating everybody but you is an idiot, won’t answer any question about what you write, ask many questions about what we write, criticize us for not answering your dozens of questions and insinuating we are ignorant if we don’t.
once again you’re making a lot of accusations against me without giving a single example. i disagree with that characterization (i am especially offended that you claim i have indicated that other people here are idiots. i don’t know why you keep saying that. let me say again and again, i do not think anyone here is an idiot. why are you and barbara so insecure about this?)
See, you are too sensitive, I said this is the typical lib that comes on the site and their modus operandi and that you were very typical. Yes, one or two things might not apply to you, but most do. As I said, you’ve begun to moderate a little. We were speaking of the typical lib and you came on very similarly.
here’s the thing: i suspect a lot of your problem with me is simply that i’m not toeing the party line like everyone else here is. i presume that ken also disagreed with you. the horror! why are you having such a hard time dealing with the existence of dissent?
Ha ha, I don’t. I don’t care who’s line you toe. I don’t like dishonesty and I don’t like BDS and that defines 99% of the libs in the world.
I have no problem with dissent. I dissent from your opinions regularly.
i am trying to make substantive points about the post and inevitably someone raises an issue about me personally.
Ah, but there you are wrong. It is the libs that attack the person. They never have a valid argument, they never attack the message, they always attack the messenger. That is their MO. and you are typical in this respect.
First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?
the article claimed that eritrea may be a threat to the safety of the u.s.
it didn’t say it wasn’t friendly (in fact, that’s a hard case to make. eritrea was a member of the “coalition of the willing” after all), it claimed that an impoverished normally ally of the u.s. poses a danger to you and i.
No, it didn’t. claiming it does and raising the issue are 2 different things.
much of what the weekly standard writes is fear-mongering, this is just the latest and most ridiculous example.
This is YOUR example of them fear mongering? I’m missing something.
that was my point. i wasn’t bashing conservatives, i was bashing the conservative press and specifically the weekly standard.
God, then how can you not bash the NYT?
By the way, I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. I find in general that it is a total waste of time to talk with Libs, they generally are very uninformed, and only get involved to bash conservatives and Pres Bush or to ‘feel good’ about what they do. Most of them don’t know the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and would think it is silly to know them. Most of them won’t stand up for the nationa anthem or their mother. That’s my experience.
so you’re both close-minded and are generalizing me into some caracature of a “liberal.” nice
You deny you are a lib, every single sentence you’ve written parrots libs positions, and you’re saying you’re not?
Do you deny the substance of what I said? uninformed, unpatriotic, allegiance, anthem? those things?
riddle me this: for over a year i have tried to find a conservative who is willing to have an honest discussion with me. you know, one who is willing to change his mind if i prove him wrong and to whom i will promise to change my mind if he proves me wrong. the weird thing is i have changed my mind and issued corrections about stuff i have gotten wrong before. but i have yet to find a single conservative online who will do it. why is that?
Well that’s simple. I’m sure you only change your mind if proven wrong and my experience with you implies that ain’t gonna happen. I’ve seen no willingness of you to even listen to opinion. As I mentioned before. If I say you are wrong about ‘Position A’ you come back and tell me why you’re not wrong about ‘Position B’
totally changing the subject until backed into a corner and then just dropping it without answering it. Again, typical Liberal.
So in your opinion libs are the good guys that will always compromise, change their mind, be open minded and the conservatives are the opposite. I’ve got some cheap ocean front property in Az, you interested?
My experience is the opposite.
(for some reason this is only a problem with online conservatives. my real life friends span the political spectrum and i find it quite easy to have open and honest discussions with people in meat-land)
where is meat-land?
Google says it is St. Petersburg, Russia.
upyer, would you point me to a post on your site that is either not liberal or is pro conservative. I only ask because you say you are not lib. At least you question me labeling you as one.
ANY MENTION OF FAMILY IS PERSONAL
as i said above, i’m not denying that it is personal. boxer did bring up rice’s immediate family. i am denying it is a personal attack.
and, as i also said above, boxer applied her comments equally to rice and to herself–she said neither one of them were “paying the price.” so if she were really “attacking” rice, she was also attacking herself, which i think makes no sense.
First, you brought up the example, and left out the context.
no, i gave a link. the context is there if you want it.
Why should I hunt it up?
because you’re trying to claim that the context changes the apparent meaning of laura’s statement. if it really does, it’s up to you to show me how. otherwise, your argument is weak and looks a little desperate. at least that’s what i always thinks when i see people claim something is “out of context” and then completely fail to explain how the context would change the meaning.
Will you agree that if she were asked, in public, by news people. Would Condi Rice’s family situation affect her opinions and judgements if she were Secretary of State. Then yes, it would be appropriate to respond to the question with an answer, in context. it would be personal, but it was asked specifically to question her personal situation in context with the job.
look, this all started because strata claimed that boxer was being “cruel” for bringing up rice’s childlessness in the context of her job. but, in fact, boxer did no such thing. instead she spoke more generally about whether rice had any immediate relatives serving in iraq. the world “childless” does not appear in what boxer said at all. instead strata and others read that implication into her comments. the funny thing is that rice herself did not protest until the next day. i’ve seen the video of the exchange and rice simply answered the question, she didn’t indicate that she was insulted at all at the time. it’s not like rice can’t stand up for herself either.
and contrast that with what laura said. she directly brought up rice’s lack of children when asked about whether rice would make a good secretary of state. i think if i were rice, i would find laura’s comments to be far more cruel than boxers. and it is amusing to watch you work so hard to distinguish between the two in this case. is it really so hard to acknowledge that the first lady may have said something wrong?
See, you are too sensitive, I said this is the typical lib that comes on the site and their modus operandi and that you were very typical. Yes, one or two things might not apply to you, but most do.
that’s the problem in a nut shell. rather than dealing with me as an individual, you’re treating me as if i am part of some liberal team. i am not trying to answer for anyone except for myself. i sometimes disagree with both conservatives and liberals. i try to think for myself rather than towing any party line. that means i am not responsible if some other liberal may have come by here and acted like a jerk. just like i don’t hold you responsible if someone with the same party affiliation as you says something rude to me.
either a criticism applies to me or it doesn’t. it isn’t good enough to say i am like a “typical liberal” and then start talking about the faults of typical liberals. if you want to talk about me, by all means talk about me. what i think you’re doing is dodging a real discussion by arguing against a straw man, a theoretical liberal rather than a breathing human being. for example:
It is the libs that attack the person. They never have a valid argument, they never attack the message, they always attack the messenger. That is their MO. and you are typical in this respect.
see? you’re only talking in generalities. give me an example where i have “attack[ed] the person” or “attack[ed] the messenger.”
i don’t think i have. indeed, despite barbara’s attempt to get personal with me about my identity i have consciously refrained from doing anything like that back to her. you’re not actually arguing with me when you go into the “typical liberal” you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent instead. and to me it just looks like you’re trying to avoid my actual arguments.
First the article seems to imply that place is not friendly toward the US, but I didn’t see where it was trying to terrorize anyone. Did you really read that into it, or was it just a silly opportunity to bash conservatives for no reason?
the article said eritrea was challenging ethiopia in somalia by supporting the IUC. from that it raised the spector that eritrea was a threat to the u.s. which makes no sense, but by putting the threat to the u.s. in the headline it followed the weekly standards long practice of hyping everything as a threat to the existence of the u.s. in this case, even a weak impoverished ally of the u.s.
God, then how can you not bash the NYT?
who said i don’t? they definitely deserve it sometimes.
Do you deny the substance of what I said? uninformed, unpatriotic, allegiance, anthem? those things?
i deny that your stereotype of a liberal has nothing to do with me, so yes. certainly, there are probably liberals who are uninformed, unpatriotic, and don’t know the words to the pledge and anthem. but so what, there are also liberals who are not any of those things. and there are conservatives who also fall on both sides of those questions. the extent that people are informed is not a liberal or conservative thing. again, when you fall back on simplistic stereotypes i begin to wonder if you have any first hand experience with living breathing liberals.
Well that’s simple. I’m sure you only change your mind if proven wrong and my experience with you implies that ain’t gonna happen.
oh, but you’re wrong. i have changed my mind many times. want proof? a couple of weeks ago i wrote this post. you’ll note it is partially retracted. one of the conservatives who is a regular at my site pointed out that i was being unfair to rice and that her comments in context could not be read the way i said they should be taken. i read what he wrote and decided he was right. then i wrote the update to my post admitting that i was being unfair to condi rice.
i have more examples too. it’s funny how you simply concluded that i won’t change my mind or admit a mistake, even when i admitted that i made a mistake and misunderstood your comments earlier today. on the other hand, i’ve yet to see you give any ground on anything. and yet i am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
where is meat-land?
meatland is my attempt at being funny. i was referring to the offline world. you know, where people are walking around in physical bodies (meat) and are not just words written in electricity on a screen
I only ask because you say you are not lib. At least you question me labeling you as one.
oh, i am liberal. but it’s an adjective not an affiliation. in other words, i think it’s fair to call me liberal because my views generally follow what is thought of as liberal views in the u.s. but i do not identify with being on some liberal team. if you can convince me that i am wrong about something i am willing to change my mind and admit i was wrong.
upyer, you’re making progress.
as i said above, i’m not denying that it is personal. boxer did bring up rice’s immediate family. i am denying it is a personal attack.
I said personal, I didn’t say ‘attack’ I didn’t go back to check, She did attack Rice, but I’m not saying the personal part was an attack, just personal.
Personal HAD no place in the discussion.
Then that part about Laura Bush, first yes you gave a link to nothing. the link just says exactly what you said.
But you may be a lost cause on that whole issue. I’m going to attempt one more time to define the difference. If you don’t see it this time, then just drop that issue.
What Boxer said had no place at all. Under no circumstances should she have made a point that Boxer had children and grandchildren, but Rice had ‘no immediate family’ you can interpret that as well as anybody, if you want to. Sounds like you just want to be contrary for no good reason.
Now on to Laura Bush’s comments. First, again, there is NO CONTEXT stated. What job were they even talking about? But suppose this were the question. Mrs Bush do you think that a person’s family, whether they have young children, whether they have a supportive family could live here in the White House and how would that affect their thinking and actions? If that were the question then I think this would be a very appropriate answer. Don’t you.
Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn’t easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.
As I stated, as far as I know, that’s exactly what happened. But even after I said I don’t know the context, you insist I did because you linked it. YOUR LINK WENT NOWHERE, IT ONLY SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING YOU SAID.
another example of why libs are frustrating, you aren’t reading a damn thing I’m saying and if you are, you not addressing WHAT I say, only say something to distract. ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
the article said eritrea was challenging……. yada yada yada, so basically you’re saying you just made it up, the article never said it. You just applied it because it sounded good. You didn’t cite one sentence in the article that said what you said it did.
So, now you’ll say well, I thought I did. The point is, you as a typical liberal just thought you would blow a little smoke and I would agree.
Cite the sentence, or admit you are wrong.
i begin to wonder if you have any first hand experience with living breathing liberals. Very condesending. typical liberal. But to answer your wondering, As little as I can, there’s nothing nice about them and they only hate America. They basically think America is an evil place that does more bad than good. Do you fit that category? The jury is still out. But they are deliberating and it ain’t looking too good right now.
Went to that link, yes you did change your mind. And yes earlier you did admit you had misinterpreted something I had said. So yes I’ll admit that I was wrong about that one little point. The larger picture is not so clear tho.
I actually like this paragraph. If it’s true, there is some hope for you.
oh, i am liberal. but it’s an adjective not an affiliation. in other words, i think it’s fair to call me liberal because my views generally follow what is thought of as liberal views in the u.s. but i do not identify with being on some liberal team. if you can convince me that i am wrong about something i am willing to change my mind and admit i was wrong.
I find that many people have many views, most have some of both liberal and conservative traits. I may have some liberal thoughts, right now i can’t think of any, but if I do, I’ll let you know.
Are you familiar with Culture Warrior by Bill O’reilly where he defines Secular Progressives (describes most libs) and Traditionalists. The SP’s are the America haters.
Never heard of meatland but after googling it, I thought you were Russian, and figured that made sense.
Just kidding.
YOUR LINK WENT NOWHERE, IT ONLY SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING YOU SAID.
hey, you’re right. the link on brendan’s site is broken. it wasn’t always. i wonder what happened. i’ll have to email him to see if he can fix it.
the article said eritrea was challenging……. yada yada yada, so basically you’re saying you just made it up, the article never said it. You just applied it because it sounded good. You didn’t cite one sentence in the article that said what you said it did.
i cited the title of the article. i’m not saying i made it up. the title is: “eritrea a threat to the u.s.?” just as i said, the weekly standard was suggesting that eritrea might be a threat to the u.s. i didn’t make that up again.
As little as I can, there’s nothing nice about them and they only hate America. They basically think America is an evil place that does more bad than good. Do you fit that category? The jury is still out. But they are deliberating and it ain’t looking too good right now.
i can prove you wrong right now:
(1) i am liberal
(2) i don’t hate america or think it is evil
therefore, i win!!!
see how easy that was? in all seriousness, any time you base an argument on what is going on in my head, you will lose the argument. it’s just that simple. i simply know better what i think, or what i hate or don’t hate than you do. so long as you are not a liberal, you cannot be certain what is going on in a liberal’s head. if you insist upon basing your arguments on the premise that liberals “hate america” you will simply lose ever time. i am a liberal, and i do not hate america. there’s a counter-example that you cannot contradict because i have better access to my own thoughts than you do. Q.E.D.
Are you familiar with Culture Warrior by Bill O’reilly where he defines Secular Progressives (describes most libs) and Traditionalists. The SP’s are the America haters.
i’m familiar with it, but haven’t read the book (o’reilly is a bit of a buffoon IMHO)
also he (or you?) is wrong to say that SPs hate america, for the same reasons i wrote above. after all, i fit the definition of a progressive and i am definitely secular (though raised and ethnically jewish, i am basically no religion). and yet i love my country precisely because i can be an SP here.
Upyer, 2 things.
Define progressive.
How can a Jew support a democrat?
and here is the inconsistency:
(2) i don’t hate america or think it is evil
All liberals say this but all, without fail do everything that a person that hates America would do.
So I judge more by what you do than say. Even tho I can only judge by what you write.
You write that you don’t hate America, but you endorse everything and everyone that do.
Answer this. Is America a force for good in the world, or is it a force for evil?
Do you think there is a war on Christmas?
I don’t think what’s in your head is significantly different than all the other SP’s in the world. In fact I’ll bet you sing about 95% of the same songs. (and I’m not talking about music)
upyer
i cited the title of the article. i’m not saying i made it up. the title is: “eritrea a threat to the u.s.?” just as i said, the weekly standard was suggesting that eritrea might be a threat to the u.s. i didn’t make that up again.
So asking the question is the same as stating it is? Logical?
No. I think they asked the question and then presented their facts and left it up to the reader to decide. I personally didn’t see anything in it that would imply any threat to the US and really don’t know what they saw that made them think it.
I sure think you read a whole lot more into that title than I did.
Barbara Boxer bon mots…
Having spent the day in boring busy work, I’ve had the chance to ruminate about the many, many things wrong with Barbara Boxer’s attack on Condi Rice. To refresh your recollection, here’s what happened (courtesy of the New York Post,…