127 replies to this topic

[Nonny]

Shalamar, on Jul 8 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

And Waterpanter, Nonny, et al.. You are certainly welcome to have your opinions of the president...but you know your continued abuse and virtol at him are getting quite tiresome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's really getting tiresome is the commander-in-chief's treatment of the troops, both in the field and in the military and VA hospitals.  

Shalamar, on Jul 8 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

If Kerry had won and people were speaking of him the same way you are of Bush, I have no doubt but that we'd be hearing you all complaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's where you're wrong.  If Kerry had won, and if Kerry were behaving as Bush is behaving, I'd be speaking of him exactly as I am speaking of Bush.  

Nonny

[waterpanther]

Quote

You don't think calling the President a lying cheating coward is an insult?

I call it the plain truth.  

"Sociopath" I'm willing to negotiate on.  "Wet drunk" might be appropriate, or "nasty, brutal adolescent in a man's body."

[Nonny]

waterpanther, on Jul 9 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

Quote

You don't think calling the President a lying cheating coward is an insult?

I call it the plain truth.  

"Sociopath" I'm willing to negotiate on.  "Wet drunk" might be appropriate, or "nasty, brutal adolescent in a man's body."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd go with "nasty, brutal adolescent in a man's body" for Bush.  Rove I'd call a sociopath.

Nonny

[waterpanther]

Quote

And Waterpanter, Nonny, et al.. You are certainly welcome to have your opinions of the president...but you know your continued abuse and virtol at him are getting quite tiresome. If Kerry had won and people were speaking of him the same way you are of Bush, I have no doubt but that we'd be hearing you all complaining.

We know how you think/ feel etc abpout him, so just lay off, we don't need our noses rubbed in it.

But right-wingers on this board "abuse" and aim "vitriol" at progressives daily, and they do it without the targets running whimpering to the mods and without a scolding from you.  

Complaining, no.  Answering, yes.

[waterpanther]

Quote

I'd go with "nasty, brutal adolescent in a man's body" for Bush. Rove I'd call a sociopath.

  

Can't argue with that.  

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Spectacles: Sadly, if we're going to have moderator defense, official or otherwise, for placing tinfoil hats on other posters for things they didn't say, I'm afraid we can expect the tone of discussion around here to deteriorate even further.

I didn’t see Shal defending what was said in any shape or form.  She just asked everyone to tone it down and that was something that needed to be said.  Now if you want to discuss this matter further I suggest you move it to the AQG.

Quote

Waterpanther: I call it the plain truth.

Someone who flew F-102 Delta Daggers is a far cry from a coward.  These planes were a classic widow maker and a tough bird to control.  The aircraft had several design flaws that made it inherently dangerous to fly and resulted in several crashes a year.  The F-102 if IIRC has an accident rate of about 3 times greater than the F-16 Falcon.  On top of that at the time of Bush’s enlistment the ANG F-102s were still in combat over Vietnam.  So you had a plane with many flaws being used for a mission it really didn’t fit.  The F-102s were sometimes used as a CAS aircraft.  The last thing you wanted to be doing in a F-102 is moving mud.  So overall if Bush was a coward who wanted to stay out of danger the F-102 was the wrong assignment to accept.  Sure there was more dangerous spots in the active duty force at the time in Vietnam but the F-102s were not safe aircraft

[waterpanther]

Quote

Someone who flew F-102 Delta Daggers is a far cry from a coward.

The F-102 still gave better odds of a whole hide than combat in Vietnam.  Sorry, I'm not impressed.

[eloisel]

Spectacles, on Jul 9 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

After several people pointed out that Eloisel had misinterpreted Nonny's post, that Nonny was referring to Keith and not Bush, rather than issuing a more appropriate "nevermind," Eloisel said she was angry about Nonny's earlier characterization of Bush as "lying" and "cheating" and plowed ahead.

I understand that some people still support Bush, still think he's a fine president, and naturally take offense when others criticize him. I think that objecting to what they consider to be unfair criticisms is natural and right--as it should be for anyone. But I also think that when we misinterpret one another and blow a gasket over something we think someone said rather than what they actually said, then it's best to acknowledge our error. Eloisel is carrying on as though her attack on Nonny was appropriate because Nonny had said something else that Eloisel didn't appreciate.

Sadly, if we're going to have moderator defense, official or otherwise, for placing tinfoil hats on other posters for things they didn't say, I'm afraid we can expect the tone of discussion around here to deteriorate even further.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I did admit error.  I copied the post that I read -  A number of posts that were cut and pasted in such a manner it appeared to me that the allegation was Bush attacked the Dixie Chicks first.  That is what I first responded to.  As you and others pointed out, that wasn't exactly the case.  When I backed up and saw the posts the snippets in the one I had read were taken from I understood what you and others were talking about.  I wrote - "My error for not backing up."  

So far as continuing the attack on Nonny for the slander and accusations regarding the Dixie Chicks incident and the President, she still hasn't answered.  

Quote

So, WHO spread lies about the incident to make it seem as the Dixie Chicks were criticizing anyone but President Bush? And, exactly how did they do that when her statement was extremely clear about who she was criticizing?

If you wish to admonish me for the tin foil hat comment, then you are correct.  I was out of line.  For that I will apologise.

[Shalamar]

Quote

But right-wingers on this board "abuse" and aim "vitriol" at progressives daily

Examples please?

Quote

they do it without the targets running whimpering to the mods and without a scolding from you.

No one ran whimpering to me. I'm not defending any one as a mod. I'm not a mod in this forum.

And yes eloisel did get confused, and make a mistake- I wasn't defending her - She should not have made the tin foil cap remark, and she should read through the thread again and realise that she did get confused.- just my opinion.

Editing to add, since I am such a slow poster that Eloisel got in ahead of me qand posted - thank you Eliosel for doing so.

I was speaking, and still am, as an exasterated board member who finds continued put downs and slander of another person distasteful.

Like I said - I'd guess that any one here who visits OT knows exactly how some feel about Bush.  Why do they keep repeating it? I see little need to, and it just makes for arguments instead of debate, for name calling instead of trying to understand, and worse.

I did not say speaking of Kerry if he were acting like Bush

I said speaking of Kerry the way Bush is being spoken of. - critism I have no complaints with - how ever slander, defamation of character, and name calling are a different things in my eyes.

Quote

I call it the plain truth

  No, more like your opinion. Which you are certainly most entitled to have.

Edited by Shalamar, 09 July 2005 - 02:15 PM.

[waterpanther]

Quote

QUOTE
But right-wingers on this board "abuse" and aim "vitriol" at progressives daily


Examples please?

Here's two:  eloisel's equation of the American religious left with "communists" and Delvo's reference to Democratic Underground members as "rabid weasels."  Now, George Bush is not, as far as I know, a member of this board, whose rules forbid bashing board members.  Several members of this board are members of, or hang out at, DU--so trashing them should be against the rules, no?  Yet I seriously doubt that anyone went whining to the mods about a vast right-wing conspiracy against progressives on this board.  Just a different approach, is all.  (And for the record, I'm not complaining now.  I can take care of myself in debate very well, thank you.   )

Quote

QUOTE
I call it the plain truth
No more like your opinion.

Tch.  You're right.  There really were WMD's in Iraq, and Saddam really was trying to buyyellowcake.  Faced with the prospect of going to Vietnam, George Bush hastened to volunteer for combat duty and was wounded several times while saving his buddies from certain death.  Futhermore, when the whole nation was apparently under attack on 9/11, he leaped up out of his chair in that Florida school and raced straight for New York, to live or die with his people at the heart of the disaster.

And oh, yeah.  He can beat Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France any day.

[eloisel]

waterpanther, on Jul 9 2005, 07:28 PM, said:

Quote

QUOTE
But right-wingers on this board "abuse" and aim "vitriol" at progressives daily


Examples please?

Here's two:  eloisel's equation of the American religious left with "communists"

Separating fact from fiction

So you are attacking me by taking my comments out of context?  That comment was in a thread to discuss what is truth and what is fiction regarding the  left and the right.  I didn't slam the American Religious Left by calling them a bunch of communist pinko fags.  I didn't slam anyone as being a communist.  I don't even have a problem with communism as an economic system if it worked in principle.  Where is the abuse and vitriol in my comments?

Edited by eloisel, 09 July 2005 - 02:45 PM.

[Gambler]

Quote

I didn't slam the American Religious Left by calling them a bunch of communist pinko fags

[eloisel]

Gambler, on Jul 9 2005, 07:43 PM, said:

Quote

I didn't slam the American Religious Left by calling them a bunch of communist pinko fags

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't!  I didn't call them any disparaging names at all!

[waterpanther]

Here ya go.  Please note that no one said you did call the religious left "communist pinko fags,"  just communists:

Quote

The Christian left supports egalitarianism, pacifism, justice, human rights, rejection of excessive wealth, socialism, communism.

[Spectacles]

Quote

CJ: I didn’t see Shal defending what was said in any shape or form. She just asked everyone to tone it down and that was something that needed to be said. Now if you want to discuss this matter further I suggest you move it to the AQG.

God, no, not AQG! I'm not going there, but if you wish to move this, be my guest.

I agree that the thread needed to be toned down. It still does.

I was trying to point out, nicely, that Shal's remarks were at first confined to (1) not staying on topic and (2) making unflattering remarks about Bush. My understanding of the board's rules is that staying on topic isn't a violation. Neither is stating negative opinions about public figures (Bush, Kerry, Clinton, etc.)

Such vitriolic statements may be annoying, but they aren't rules violations. I understand that Shal was not speaking as a moderator when she expressed her annoyance, but her first request that the thread be returned "on topic" was moderatorly--and ignored the personal attack that Eloisel launched into as a result of her misreading Nonny's post.

However, personally attacking another poster is a rules violation. Unfortunately, that went unremarked on until just a few posts back.  

I do appreciate both Eloisel's and Shal's acknowledgment that the tinfoil hat business was over the line. Maybe everyone can take a few breaths and a few steps back and avoid a bloodbath here that will serve no purpose other than to convince the conservatives that liberals are evil and convince liberals that conservatives are evil--with both sides steamed at moderator bias for letting certain remarks go unaddressed.

[Nonny]

CJ AEGIS, on Jul 9 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

Someone who flew F-102 Delta Daggers is a far cry from a coward.  These planes were a classic widow maker and a tough bird to control.  The aircraft had several design flaws that made it inherently dangerous to fly and resulted in several crashes a year.  The F-102 if IIRC has an accident rate of about 3 times greater than the F-16 Falcon.  On top of that at the time of Bush’s enlistment the ANG F-102s were still in combat over Vietnam.  So you had a plane with many flaws being used for a mission it really didn’t fit.  The F-102s were sometimes used as a CAS aircraft.  The last thing you wanted to be doing in a F-102 is moving mud.  So overall if Bush was a coward who wanted to stay out of danger the F-102 was the wrong assignment to accept.  Sure there was more dangerous spots in the active duty force at the time in Vietnam but the F-102s were not safe aircraft

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone who supported the war in Vietnam so long as others fought it sure is.   Whatever he flew, he didn't fly it in combat.  

Nonny

[tennyson]

Tch. You're right. There really were WMD's in Iraq, and Saddam really was trying to buyyellowcake. Faced with the prospect of going to Vietnam, George Bush hastened to volunteer for combat duty and was wounded several times while saving his buddies from certain death. Futhermore, when the whole nation was apparently under attack on 9/11, he leaped up out of his chair in that Florida school and raced straight for New York, to live or die with his people at the heart of the disaster.

And oh, yeah. He can beat Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France any day.
[QUOTE]

What does any of this sarcasm have to do with anything? Why do you continue to mock and belittle anyone who disagrees with you in slightest? Why do you think demonizing people as your enemy is the appropriate way to interact with those who differ from you?
1.There really were biological, chemical and nuclear and materials and weapons in Iraq, they were well detailed after 1991 in several UN reports and nearly everyone involved, France, Germany, the American leadership, the British, the Russians, Iraq's nieghbors and on and on still thought Iraq had something left as of 2002. Even the Iraq leadership's own actions still seemed to show that they had something to hide. This assumption made by intelligence agencies around the world turned out to not be right but you can't judge someone's descion making based on information that they didn't have to work with when the choice was made. A choice was made based on some good information, some bad information and some ambigous information and with new information after the fact it seems to have been the wrong choice.
But if you are saying that the sitting president knowingly lied because he had information that thier were no unconventional weapons in Iraq then I don't believe you unless you provide me with good enough evidence to convince me. One of my maxims for living is "don't claim conspiracy when incompetance will do". People are inperfect, they can be misinformed and almost never have enough information to make a fully analyzed choice. The consequences of this are magnified if the person has more power or authority but the same effect holds.  

2.That's not what anyone I know of has ever claimed until now with you and that would be wrong since it didn't happen.

3. Why can't a president be a human being? be stunned when something so massive happened? I know I was as all I could do was simply watch in stunned silence for hours that day until the need to meet with my Japanese conversation partner at least got me moving if not really that functional. and again I have never seen anyone make the claim that you just made as parody.

4. Claim never made by anyone but you to my knowledge.

[Nonny]

Spectacles, on Jul 9 2005, 11:59 AM, said:

I do appreciate both Eloisel's and Shal's acknowledgment that the tinfoil hat business was over the line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They did that?  Then I appreciate it too.  

Nonny

[eloisel]

waterpanther, on Jul 9 2005, 07:49 PM, said:

Here ya go.  Please note that no one said you did call the religious left "communist pinko fags,"  just communists:

Quote

The Christian left supports egalitarianism, pacifism, justice, human rights, rejection of excessive wealth, socialism, communism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where is the abuse and vitriol in that statement, which you have also taken out of context?  (linked and posted in entirety below)

Comparison of Left and Right

Quote

You are probably right, Eskaminzim. Actually, Christian Right is the better term to use than Religious Right.

Lets look at what is considered "Christian Right" and compare it to "Christian Left" - see if we agree to those statements, and then figure out where those two points of view figure into the political scheme of things.

The Christian Right supports sodomy laws, creationism, abstinence programs and school prayer while opposing euthanasia, same-sex marriage, abortion, feminism, sex education, secularism and the exclusive teaching of evolution without religious based alternatives.

The Christian left supports egalitarianism, pacifism, justice, human rights, rejection of excessive wealth, socialism, communism. I left out "racial equality" because it is redundant - if one is an egalitarianist, then that should cover racial equality as well - can't be more equal than equal.

Do we agree? Something to add? Something to remove?

[Nonny]

tennyson, on Jul 9 2005, 12:03 PM, said:

3. Why can't a president be a human being?

We can afford a human being for our president.  We cannot afford an incompetent one, and the military sure can't afford an incompetent c-i-c.  

Nonny