« Republicans Urging Bush To Release Abramoff Meeting Records | Main | What Will Alito Do About Asthma? »

One more serving of goose-sauce

Last week, I brought up a really stupid "survey" one leftist whacko cooked up in his fried little brain to "test" the depths of their support. I turned it around, taking an almost-as-hyperbolic hypothetical situation and asked anti-Bush readers to answer that one.

In the comments, though, they wouldn't take the bait. But a couple of them in particular proved my point in their refusal. jreid (mentioned earlier today and No Exit both exhibited the frothing moonbat mentality in fine fettle. In fact, No Exit so captured the lunacy, his remarks ought to be printed out and saved in the Smithsonian as an examplar of the species.

But one recurring theme was that the Bush backers (like me, presumably) are mindless automatons, unthinking, willing puppets who just voice their support regardless of whatever he does, and defend his decisions, policies, and actions without any thought for themselves.

This is a load of crap, and sheerest projection. As Synova pointed out, Bush supporters tend to be far more issue-oriented than focusing on the individual. It's the Left that automatically denounces and gainsays Bush.

You want proof? Fine. Let's do a little compare and contrast.

A few months ago, Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. At that time, a lot of his traditional base differed with him -- and quite vocally, to the point where he had to withdraw her and replace her with Samuel Alito. I was one of those voices. Also, when I endorsed Bush for re-election, I specifically cited several instances where I disagreed with his positions.

So, let's see how things are on the other foot. I challenge liberal bloggers to go back and find a single posting where they -- no matter how reluctantly -- supported a single Bush policy, decision, statement, or action. If you don't have a blog of your own, go poking through the archives of some of the bigger left-lurching blogs and find one there. Kos, Atrios, TPM, Cousin Oliver Willis -- find ONE INSTANCE where they didn't just mindlessly oppose Bush.

I'm betting you won't.

In fact, I'll even go so far as to predict that they'll just take the opportunity to engage in more Bush-bashing and Bush supporter bashing. Because that's what it's all about to them -- Bush, not the issues.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference One more serving of goose-sauce:

» ReidBlog linked with The Jay Tea Moonbat Test

» In Search Of Utopia linked with The Jay Tea Challenge....

Comments (62)

I think liberals believe th... (Below threshold)

I think liberals believe that Bush is the issue. Bush is a person, not an issue, but try explaining that to the LLLeft.

Trust me, there are far greater evils out there than GWB.

I don't feel like going on ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

I don't feel like going on a fishing expedition, but I'm sure some people agreed with what Bush said about rebuilding NO and addressing poverty. However, what Bush says and what actually happens can be very different things sometimes. We're still waiting on NO, and addressing poverty seems to have been forgotten about already.

Hmmm.Personally I'... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Personally I'm unhappy with Bush on a number of fronts. The issue of illegal immigration is #1 with a host of other issues coming up behind it. But I don't think Bush is evil or any such nonsense. I just disagree with his position on some issues.

Frankly anyone who thinks Bush is evil has a screw loose.

SeanIMHO a booming... (Below threshold)

Sean

IMHO a booming economy with the lowest unemployment rate in a decade goes a long long way to "addressing poverty."

Amazing how "the poor" get column inches of attention during Republican admins.

I read this post, and I mus... (Below threshold)
gloria:

I read this post, and I must admit it made me laugh. When one thinks of how the right excoriated Bill Clinton when he was president (need I remind everyone of right-wing accusations that the Clintons had Vince Foster "murdered"?), it seems like temper tantrum throwing sore winners who write crap like this. But try and explain that to the right. What right winger here today can honestly say they supported Bill Clinton's policies?

Sean, you have a great point. Bush says alot, but at the end of the day, he accomplishes very little. Talk is cheap.

Darleen, if you think there still aren't poor people in this country have the doctor up your meds, and then get out a little more.

I would be happy to answer ... (Below threshold)
Bill:

I would be happy to answer the "kittens" question about Bush if the people asking it would substitute Cindy Sheehan's name for Bush and answer the same question.
The answer they would give is the same I would give to the Bush version of the question: "(S)he wouldn't do that. It's dumb question."
But do watch that temper next time they bait you, buddy!

Sweet Jesus, Jay. You cite ... (Below threshold)

Sweet Jesus, Jay. You cite THIS as your example of disagreeing with George Bush?:

"For just a few examples, I think he's wrong on the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. But I also believe that he has derived his positions from sincere beliefs and ethical principles, and that is something I can respect."

Why not add that you also love him desperately, just the same? As one of the supposed "frothing moonbats" who can't stop hating George W. Bush, permit me to say that it IS the issues, man! If Mr. Bush (whatever my personal feelings about his intellectual candle wattage or other personal characteristics -- the inarticulateness, the smirk, the radio pack on his back... oh, sorry, frothing again...) were to suddenly espouse a policy I agreed with, I would certainly say so (and I wouldn't feel the need to qualify my support).

However, my problem with Mr. Bush is the very "principles" (your word) by which he seems to have come to all of his policy prescriptions: like hiring corporate cronies to oversee their former industries and then having the PR flaks massage the cronies' boosterism for their former industries into good governance talking points for the regurgitating devices on MSNBC, Fox and CNN to read. Or his habit of hiring campaign flaks (to run the Iraq CPA, FEMA, and now ICE) and shrugging off their clear incompetence and lack of qualifications. Without those things, Mr. Bush's proposals for New Orleans, his stewardship of the mining industry, his ideas for healthcare, social security etc. would be coming from a very different place, and I might even be able to support those ideas.

Then there's this habit Bush has ... or rather, that Cheney has for him ... of discovering new and expansive powers for the president that aren't in the Constitution. I dunno, somehow that bothers me, man...

On Iraq, we have the same problem. Mr. Bush began with a principle I cannot accept (and that other non-Moonbats like George Will and Pat Buchanan don't accept either): namely that it is a proper use of America's military to attack a country that didn't attack or threaten us, and which we have failed to prove could do so in the forseeable future. And then to do it BADLY, without enough troops to pacify the damned country and hand it back to its people in one, rather than a million little pieces? I should support that, why? Bush's roll of the dice with the mad neocons has doomed his presidency, shattered America's prestige, soiled its good name with the dregs of torture, prisoner abuse, secret jails and other Saddam-lite crap, and has brought his fundamental judgment into such question for me, that I really can't see how I support his foreign policy ideas going forward. And Bush seems to be making the same bad judgment calls on everything from Iran to North Korea to Latin America. Am I just supposed to support him because he's the president? (didn't work for Clinton) Because you say he's "principled?" ... or just because you say so?

In other words, I think your question is rather absurd. My disagreements with Mr. Bush ARE about issues -- they're about his POLICIES. His personal attributes are simply made more galling and annoying because he is a total incompetent as president. And by the way, why is it required that opponents of the president, who by definition oppose his methods of arriving at policy, "find something to agree with?" What's the point? To prove that we can? If you ask me, it's far more alarming to watch Bush bot types like yourself prostrate yourselves before the man and insist that he must be supported, even when his policies violate your own supposedly conservative principles (on immigration, for instance).

Trust me, Jay, if Dubya manages to do something -- anything -- right over the next three years, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.

...oh wait! Marriage. ... I support Bush on marriage. Yes! I KNEW I could do it!

Actually, I was pretty happ... (Below threshold)
meep:

Actually, I was pretty happy with Clinton supporting welfare reform and free trade. I might have grumbled a bit about co-option of Republican policies, but I didn't particularly care. The result was more important than the man who got credit.

As for "the poor", part of our problem is in what we define as "the poor". Our "poor" would be pretty well-off in most of the world. Just comparing to 50 years ago, our "poor" fare better than many who considered themselves middle class. I've got people in my family on Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. - and they've got cellphones, TVs, and computers. No, life isn't as smooth for them as it is for me, but no amount of government programs are going to change that.

I fail to see what the "new... (Below threshold)
Brad:

I fail to see what the "new and expansive powers for the president that aren't in the Constitution. I dunno, somehow that bothers me, man..." means. What new and expansive powers?

The problems with the Left isn't just a problem with negatives. When they have a president in power he can do no wrong. What about the FBI files about opponents found in the White house? What about President Clinton's missusing the power of the office of the president? What about "just move on; get over it?" In the whole of the Clinton presidency there was no scandal or abuse of power so large that it couldn't be swallowed whole by Democrats at large.

I guess a more important qu... (Below threshold)
jp2:

I guess a more important question for whoever posted this is: what could possibly make you change your vote? Really, the answer is nothing. I think you'll find that most of the left bloggers are willing to completely criticize the left leadership when it does not hold to their own personal liberal values. This cannot be said about right wingers these days. Party before values. (ie remember when spending and government size was bad?)

Another good question would be for you to find some right-wing-blog support for Kerry. That would be tough, with all the lying that went on.

I think you'll find lots of Democratic opposition to Democrats. Seems like every 10th post at Kos makes some sort of stab at the Dem leadership. Don't find that too much on the right, even with video-doctor-kitten-killer Frist, or DeLay or many of the others involved in the culture of corruption. (Some even found ways to defend Libby and Rove) Even Abramoff's taint seems to get a pass.

As far as specific Bush policies - well, it's tough to find support there. Definitely the most divisive President ever. You'll find (almost) total support of the beginning of the Afghanistan. And then at the beginning of the AIDS funding. (Now, a give-away to religious groups) But all in all - I think you have a good point there.

Brad,I don't know ... (Below threshold)
idola:

Brad,

I don't know what democrats you're referring to, but almost every dem I know is/was embarrassed by Bill Clinton's behavior regarding the Monica Lewinsky mess. I think many liberals today view conservatives in exactly the manner you describe democrats - that George Bush does no wrong. Or if he does, no Republican is willing to admit it - at least in public.

Your comment above highlights this perfectly. "New and expansive" powers means wiretapping people without the search warrants that are readily available to this administration. Why wouldn't Bush simply go to the court that is more than willing to provide the warrants? It will be interesting to see how the very people who support Bush on this issue will react when a Dem president starts doing it - I think there will be lots of hooting and hollering.

However, I think deep in the hearts of many conservatives there's a nervous feeling that Bush isn't doing a very good job, and the current polls would seem to indicate this is true.

GloriaDo you addre... (Below threshold)

Gloria

Do you address things that have never been said?

Sure, poverty exists. But "the poor" as a monolythic, permanent group would appear to exist solely as a political axe to be weilded on the pages of the MSM during Republican admins. A closely related phenom to the "discovery" of "the homeless" during Republican admins.

The vast majority of today's poor will NOT be poor in five to ten years. Similar to all "class" distinctions in the US, it is fluid with individuals moving into and out of classes with regularity.

I wonder, is the phrase "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" lost on you?

::::cough::::values::::cough::::

BTW, Gloria?Please... (Below threshold)

BTW, Gloria?

Please name a prominent Republican party official or elected official that signed on to the Vince Foster conspiracy.

America's military to at... (Below threshold)

America's military to attack a country that didn't attack or threaten us,

Ahh! The Bring-Back-Saddam briggade has arrived.

Ah, Bush Derangement Syndro... (Below threshold)
NorthwestNeocon:

Ah, Bush Derangement Syndrome in all its crazed monkey, juvenile, frothing and spasmodic glory.

Never before has the exclamation point been so abused in sentences as by those under the BDS spell. Somewhere, EB White is rolling over in his grave...

Darleen:You really... (Below threshold)
gloria:

Darleen:

You really are in need of help. To claim that there is no permanent class of poor in this country is akin to claiming the earth is flat. Site your claim that "the vast majority of today's poor will NOT be poor in five to ten years". Not some repubnant blog site, but a real statistic backing you up. I suggest you read "Nickle and Dimed" by Babara Ehrenbach. You obviously need a wake-up call.

And there are no homeless? How about 2 million homeless in this country, Darleen? And that was before Katrina.

I honestly feel sorry for you. The more you post on this site, the more obvious it becomes that you're completely ignorant.

puke:::Darleen:::puke

BTW Darleen:Please... (Below threshold)
gloria:

BTW Darleen:

Please name one prominent Republican party official or elected official who was critical of right-wing groups that promoted the Vince Foster crap? The silence was deafening.

And while we're on it, the same thing happened with the Swift Veterans for "Truth" nonsense. The silence was deafening.

You are such a complete phoney.

And while we're on it, t... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

And while we're on it, the same thing happened with the Swift Veterans for "Truth" nonsense.

Minor problem: everything they said lined up with the known facts. And it was over 200 servicemembers, including guys who were POWs and Medal of Honor winners.

Reading comp isn't your for... (Below threshold)

Reading comp isn't your forte, eh, Gloria?

"The Poor" IS A CLASS that individuals (majority) move into or out of. And as a class it IS relative to the other classes in the group.

Think of "grading on the curve" which at this point I believe you are more than familiar with.

On January 30, 2006, the poor will contain Sue & John Smith, newlywed undergrads, and Mary Jones, 18 y/o single mom, and the Sellers, family of four where breadwinner Dad Seller was laid-off. Do you think any or all of these individuals will be poor until their dying day?

Certainly, there WILL be a minority of people who will remain poor for most of their life... drug addicts, criminals, gangbangers ...

because of their values

Certainly, help those that will need it to move quickly through the downtime, support those who for circumstances beyond their control will never mainstream successfully (mentally ill, physically handicapped, mentally challenged). But don't equate those who can't mainstream with those who WON'T.

GloriaYou're the o... (Below threshold)

Gloria

You're the one that brought Vince Foster conspiracy up. Source it or shut up.

John AA,

Correct. No one, not even Kerry himself has ever proven libel by the Swiftboat Vets.

To this day Kerry has never fully released his military records as promised.

gloria, I seem to recall th... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

gloria, I seem to recall that nearly every single allegation by the Swift Boat veterans was sustained, and Kerry had to retract several elements of his claims -- including the whole Christmas in Cambodia story, which was just flat-out impossible. (A quick recap: Kerry "recalled" being in Cambodia on Christmas day, 1968, listening to President Nixon announce that there were no Americans in Cambodia. Nixon wasn't inaugurated until January 1969.

That being said, I've said a couple of nice things about Kerry on occasion. I still laud him for his work on the BCCI scandal, when he blew up a story that many of the power brokers at the time would have been happy to let it quietly fade away. But that's pretty much the only accomplishment of his 20+ years in the Senate.

J.

Jay is and was throwing or ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay is and was throwing or rather hurling his hat behind Bush in 2004, for his foreign policy initiatives in response to 9/11, since the differences on domestic issues including the economy were less marked .. I will give Jay the point, that it is difficult to find anything that Bush has done that the left bloggers and commenters have found positive, ( I looked hard )but the fault is not entirely of his critics'. It is not our job nor is it the job of public official like this one at NASA "to make the president look good" Besides Iraq, the green and open government issues are really hurting administration creditability with the public and making it difficult to give Bush the benefit of any doubt.

"Certainly, there WILL be a... (Below threshold)
gloria:

"Certainly, there WILL be a minority of people who will remain poor for most of their life... drug addicts, criminals, gangbangers ...because of their values"
Posted by Darleen

Dar-
You are definitely on drugs. Poor people are poor because of their values? Get help - fast!!! I truly hope that you find yourself in financial difficulty someday so that we can blame it on your "values". And I bet you call yourself a Christian too, right?

Jay Tea

Where was George Bush during all this time that John Kerry was supposedly fabricating his Vietnam record? Oh that's right - he was protecting Alabama from the Viet Cong - thank God, right? A quick recap: George Bush can't recall whether or not he fulfilled his duties in the NG. Remember?

What exactly are you referring to when you say that "nearly" every single allegation by the Swift Boat veterans was sustained? By who? Rush (I'm not really a drug addict) Limbaugh? And what accusations couldn't they prove? How about the most significant ones. You conservatives are pathetic - critical of a veteran's service and protecting a chickenhawk.

And you may want to remind Darleen that George Bush has yet to release all of his National Guard records. There is that nagging gap in duty he's never addressed to the American public.

[email protected] "gloria"</p... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ "gloria"

What right winger here today can honestly say they supported Bill Clinton's policies?

Refresh my memory please. What *were* Clinton's policies? Since this is your assertion, would you mind listing them out in detail?

Frankly I don't remember Clinton actually having any policies. There was Welfare Reform, but he reneged on it until a Republican congress forced him to address it. Then there's the Oslo Accords, which were and are a complete and utter failure.

Other than those two, nothing of any note really comes to mind. So here's your chance to step up and refresh my memory.

[email protected] gloria... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ gloria

Poor people are poor because of their values?

If this isn't true, then please explain in detail how immigrants with no money and little education can become wealthy in America. Explain how the Vietnamese Boat People were able to forge a new life in a country where they had little more than the clothes on their backs and no command of the dominant language.

[email protected] gloria... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ gloria

1.

What exactly are you referring to when you say that "nearly" every single allegation by the Swift Boat veterans was sustained? By who?

By John Kerry.

Who was never able to refute any of the allegations made and who in fact had to retreat a multitude of times on assertions he had made over the years in both official and non-official documents.

2.

You conservatives are pathetic - critical of a veteran's service and protecting a chickenhawk.

*shrug* go ahead and insult Bush's military service. I frankly don't give a rat's ass. But since you're feeling your oats and such, why don't you explain for me why Kerry didn't get his Honorable Discharge until 1978. Especially since he joined the USNR in 1966 with a 6 year enlistment.

Strut your stuff; be detailed.

3.

There is that nagging gap in duty he's never addressed to the American public.

Now you're starting to bore me. It's fairly obvious you don't really have a grasp of the issues you're raising.

Learn or continue being ignorant. Your choice.

Hmmm.Looks like ye... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Looks like yet another invasion of the lefties.

Yay. Yet another opportunity to rehash the same damn things all over again. Yet again.

Ed,Thanks for prov... (Below threshold)
gloria:

Ed,

Thanks for proving me right. The idiotic comment that Clinton only had 2 policies goes to show that you're not really willing to debate the presidency of George Bush.

Tell me, are the people of New Orleans who lost everything in Katrina poor because of their "values"? And are you (and pathetic Darleen) telling me that rich people have better "values" than poor people. I guess Ken Lay must have very high "values" in your opinion.

Hmmm.Your... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Your comment above highlights this perfectly. "New and expansive" powers means wiretapping people without the search warrants that are readily available to this administration. Why wouldn't Bush simply go to the court that is more than willing to provide the warrants? It will be interesting to see how the very people who support Bush on this issue will react when a Dem president starts doing it - I think there will be lots of hooting and hollering.

sigh. Who do you think *started* this nonsense in the first place? Who do you think started *rendition* flights? Who do you think reserved the right to wiretap without FISA approval based on national security issues?

Bill Clinton.

Debating lefties means covering the same ground in an endlessly stupefying mobius strip of utter horror. And that's on a good day.

Thanks Jay for giving Kerry... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Thanks Jay for giving Kerry a compiment; that reminded me that Kerry was not always portrayed as soft on America's enemies, and led me to find find this article critical of the BCCI power brokers you spoke of . In the spirit of fair play and your admission; I will suggest that Condi Rice has been surprisingly a much tougher as Secretary of State than anyone expected, certainly more than Colin Powell, and that Bush shows an attractive sense of humulity in humor at times, that can not be entirely explained by the fact that he has much to be humble about.

[email protected] gloria... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ gloria

Thanks for proving me right. The idiotic comment that Clinton only had 2 policies goes to show that you're not really willing to debate the presidency of George Bush.

sigh. Your lack of comprehension is arrow in the heart. Please understand that reading is not comprehension.

I wrote that I could only remember two policies, not that those two policies that I remembered were the only policies, but that those two policies were the only policies that I could remember.

I.e., to diagram this in a simple way:

two policies = what I remember.

what I remember != all of Clinton's policies.

Which is why I asked *you* to list out in detail those Clinton policies that I had not remembered.

*shrug* since you rather ineptly avoided actually answering my question, that rather implies that you can't remember anything either.

I supported NCLB, not the l... (Below threshold)

I supported NCLB, not the lack of funding for it, but I support it.

Ed:Anyone who does... (Below threshold)
nick:

Ed:

Anyone who does it (Democrat or Republican) is wrong. I think you should just answer the question: if the court exists to give the president the search warrants, why would Bush (or Clinton) go around it? It's surruptitious and underhanded - no matter who's doing it.

[email protected] gloria... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ gloria

sigh.

1.

Tell me, are the people of New Orleans who lost everything in Katrina poor because of their "values"?

I would normally hope that someone would understand the logic implicit within their own writing, I see that hope is misplaced here.

The people made poor by Katrina are poor because of Katrina. Not by values. People who are poor and remain that way are poor because they exert themselves in fundamentally inefficient ways.

2.

And are you (and pathetic Darleen) telling me that rich people have better "values" than poor people.

Rich people have "better values" only in the inference that such values are more efficient in wealth generation. I.e. many wealthy people are in fact wealthy because they make a concious effort to live within their means and to allow for as much investment as possible.

I.e. wealthy people are wealthy because they act to maximise both the creation of wealth and the retention of wealth.

Jesus H. Christ. You've claimed a college degree on another thread. WTF? Wasn't logic included?

3.

I guess Ken Lay must have very high "values" in your opinion.

Yawn. You bore me.

Poor people are poor bec... (Below threshold)

Poor people are poor because of their values?

Some are. What utopian cult are you living in?

You think some 30 year old guy with a rapsheet in excess of 10 pages GOT that rapsheet because someone FORCED him into a life of crime?

Good Lord, what is it about the phrase "self responsibility" that makes Left cult members break out in hives?

Here's another quote I'm sure you are unfamiliar with:

He who is merciful to the cruel, will in the end be cruel to the merciful.

Hmmm.Anyo... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Anyone who does it (Democrat or Republican) is wrong. I think you should just answer the question: if the court exists to give the president the search warrants, why would Bush (or Clinton) go around it? It's surruptitious and underhanded - no matter who's doing it.

Because your primary assumptions are wrong.

The reasons why it was and is legal are frankly too involved to through again in a comment post. But basically what we're discussing is a *separation of powers* issue. I.e. there are three co-equal branches in the US federal government. The executive, judicial and legislative branches. Note the word co-equal.

In most situations the legslative branch is paramount with the ability to constrain both the judicial branch and the executive. But in wartime, i.e. AUMF authorization, the executive branch becomes in many ways at least as powerful as the legislative branch and possibly more powerful due to the national defense and head of the military imperatives.

Additionally the FISA court was not designed with modern communications in mind. Perhaps FISA should have been updated, but it's not the President's job to do that but rather the job of Congress. And since the leading members of Congress, in both parties and Houses, were informed then if there were actually any issues then they should have acted to reform the FISA process then and there.

As another point FISA is oriented domestic counter-intelligence efforts. All indications are that the NSA bypassed the FISA court on foreign connections and not domestic ones.

The last point is that nobody of any consequence in the Democratic party has called for the NSA to stop wiretapping these communications with AQ.

So really now. What's the meme to be? It's horribly illegal but way ok?

And I'm out of time, late for an appointment. Good night, good luck and may we all get laid before the morrow.

Poor Ed. That was quite a ... (Below threshold)
gloria:

Poor Ed. That was quite a long winded diatribe. If you could pay attention for more than 3 minutes, you'd see that your conservative comrade Darleen (who has problems stringing a simple sentence together) made the statement that "poor people are poor because of their values." Pay attention.

I love your (non) response to my statement regarding Ken Lay. Typical Republican - avoid anything you can't defend.

edGloria missed my... (Below threshold)

ed

Gloria missed my "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations" quote earlier.

Didn't even take 3 generations to cut Ken Lay off at the knees.

'course, Gloria might be thinking because Lay was "rich" at one point in time, he will be forEVAH.

Left cult members are incapable of logic. They feel something deeply enough, it must be so.

meshugga

Ed,I hope you do g... (Below threshold)
gloria:

Ed,

I hope you do get laid - you really need it. Darleen, maybe you and Ed? Oh no, too foul.

Darleen - how about another one of those rousing bible quotes, little thumper?

That's nice, Oliver. Care t... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

That's nice, Oliver. Care to show where you did so PUBLICLY? Just one posting where you said you agreed with something Bush did?

Ms. Reid: my apologies for misassigning your gender. I believe I might have confused you with another commenter. I would have apologized over on your blog, but you don't seem to allow comments.

Are you that much in love with your own voice, that you don't want to risk hearing others'?

J.

Darleen (who has p... (Below threshold)
Darleen (who has problems stringing a simple sentence together) made the statement that "poor people are poor because of their values."
You can't even quote me correctly in the same friggin' thread. I made the point that MOST "poor people" will NOT remain poor their whole lives and that SOME people will because of their values.

As Ed pointed out vis a vis Katrina, their current status will be TEMPORARY due to a natural disaster. Some of Katrina's victims have already gotten back on their feet in other communities. Some are moving back in and working the clean up.

And some will DO NOTHING, except find useful enablers like you to champion them as victims of The Man.

GloriaIt's from th... (Below threshold)

Gloria

It's from the Midrash, bigot. Want to try again?

hmm @ edWho was... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

hmm @ ed

Who was never able to refute any of the allegations made and who in fact had to retreat a multitude of times on assertions he had made over the years in both official and non-official documents.

wait, was this George Bush we're talking about and Fahrenheit 9/11? Oh, wait it wasn't. Instead, Michael Moore is branded as a loony lefty and the Swift Boaters are hailed as saviors of the democracy from that scoundrel Kerry. Kerry's mistake was addressing the swift boat issues in the first place, cause once he did that, people had to know what he what responding to. Bush OTOH ignores F911 and skates; granted, all of F911 might not have been true, but some of it definitely was.

and gloria/darleen, stop arguing about who is poor or not poor. Everyone knows there is the possibility to lift yourself out of poverty, some do it, some don't. The poverty that has to be addressed is what afflicts our urban centers. Why have large parts of Harlem, South central LA, 9th ward NO, hell even rural swaths of the south and great plains remained poor for years on end? It's the hopelessness some feel in these downtrodden areas that is the true test our country faces in addressing poverty.

Sean what affli... (Below threshold)

Sean

what afflicts our urban centers. Why have large parts of Harlem, South central LA, 9th ward NO, hell even rural swaths of the south and great plains remained poor for years on end?
Culture. Values. Poor choices.

Pretty shocking, eh?

But then, some were shocked, SHOCKED when Hamas won the election. (demonstrated who was paying attention and who was engaged in wishful thinking)

hmm @ ed (might not see it,... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

hmm @ ed (might not see it, supposedly getting laid)

And since the leading members of Congress, in both parties and Houses, were informed then if there were actually any issues then they should have acted to reform the FISA process then and there.

you apparently haven't kept up on the latest. back in 2002, there was a proposal to amend FISA, but the Adm/NSA denied that effort. Check it out at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ and search for "2002", you'll find it. (sorry, I'm too lazy to link to archives)

"... all of F911 might n... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"... all of F911 might not have been true, but some of it definitely was..."

LOL, yeah, I think he got most of the credits right, anyway.

Darleen,Culture... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Darleen,

Culture. Values. Poor choices

For some, but that's a pretty big generalization for everyone. I'd add to that:

opportunity, education, investment.

Now some believe that it's not govt's (at least not federal, more likely state/local) role to offer these things, and you're entitled to your opinion. But with govt's assistance, the people in these areas have a better chance of improving their own and their communities situations. What must also be done is encourage "success stories" in a neighborhood to stay there and provide inspiration and support for others, but that does not take away from the beneficial role govt can offer.

SeanGod lord, don'... (Below threshold)

Sean

God lord, don't pull a Gloria on me. You were talking specifically about the minority portion of "the poor" that do seem to remain poor for their whole lives. There are those that due to circumstance - mentally or physically challenged, that need to be supported by society at large. They are NOT responsible for their condition. Then there are those who WILL NOT, even if you make it available, rise to the opportunity to improve themselves. You have to be very clear on separating sound policies of opportunity provision from ENABLING.

Note, too, that many "urban centers of poverty" change their racial/ethnic makeup every few generations. IE they are the first stop for immigrant families on their way to something better.

Jay, I was going to say tha... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay, I was going to say that the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as prosecutor was obviously something that was deserving of bipartisan plaudits, but now it appears that then acting Attorney- General Comeywho made the appointment probably was not praised by Bush typically, for such a straight arrow appointment,and was later forced out. I really don't understand your enthusiasm for this President...Many, the bright public-spirited ones, that abide the constitution are leaving the reservation.. Perhaps eventually Condi will have had enough fighting off the neo-cons and Cheney supporters and then Bush loath to make a personnel decision, will have to decide who to drop..lets hope it's Cheney.

Darleen,You ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Darleen,

You were talking specifically about the minority portion of "the poor" that do seem to remain poor for their whole lives.

Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific portion of the population, you were. If you read through my posts, I consistently refer to the general problem of poverty persisting in certain locations; the only reference to individuals is to those who do succeed staying around to help their community. Actually addressing the correct argument is much better than setting up a strawman.

B MoeLOL, yeah,... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

B Moe

LOL, yeah, I think he got most of the credits right, anyway.

You're supporting my argument here. Instead of specifically refuting anything, you simply dismiss the entire argument. Thinking back on the Rather documents, the right blogosphere jumped all over the opportunity to disprove them. I don't seem to remember any such thing happening with F911. The way it seems to me, some things could have been refuted, but not all, and those things that could not be disproven would have come back to hurt Bush. So instead, he ignored the whole thing and most right wingers followed obediently as they're trained to.

OK, Sean, you want specific... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

OK, Sean, you want specifics on Moore? How about this list?

J.

SeanI wasn't setti... (Below threshold)

Sean

I wasn't setting up strawmen. One cannot talk about poverty "generally" in any meaningful way without taking into account the individuals and how they live. You seem to be looking at "location" poverty from the outside -- that somehow the individuals in that location have poverty imposed upon them. I see individuals in a location marked by general poverty for a myriad of reasons, only with a minority of the people in that local "locked in" for the duration of their lives. And of the "locked in" portion, many of them are their due to their own choices.

Tell me, do you or do you not continue feeding alcohol to an alcoholic? And when an alcoholic falls off the wagon, who is responsible?

When someone pulls stickups for a living and then can't get a high paying job after jail, who is responsible?

sean nyc/aa,What d... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

sean nyc/aa,

What did the Swifties say--200 of them--that was a lie?

typos -- "in that local" sh... (Below threshold)

typos -- "in that local" should be "in that locale"

"many of them are their" should be "many of them are there"

sean nyc/aa: I ... (Below threshold)
NorthwestNeocon:

sean nyc/aa:

I don't seem to remember any such thing (in disproving the movie) happening with F911. Parens. mine.

Oh, you don't? Here let's go for a little trip across the Internet, shall we?
Try reading for starters. Moore is picked apart, frame by frame, in everything from 'Roger & Me' to 'Bowling' to his ultimate masterpiece in true deception and propaganda, Fahrenheit 9/11.

If reading's not your thing, try a movie about the specific lies of F911. You can also try www.moorewatch.com, though I'm having trouble connecting to it today.

"Some things refuted"? You mean, like the really important "some things" that manipulated his whipped his audience into hatred for Bush? "Some things" like staged news stories, faked headlines and timelines of events, editing trickery, doctoring quotes via sound mixing, misrepresentation of facts, baseless and unproven assertions and on and on and on.

But don't believe me, go read and see it for yourself. If you dare...

Someone murdered Vince Fost... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Someone murdered Vince Foster..........

Hmmm.1. A prime ex... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

1. A prime example of how values and behavior affects wealth generation and retention are those who win large jackpot lotteries, and yet who end up bankrupt. The issue for these people isn't that they don't have money, which as lottery winners they do by definition, but that their values and behaviors simply are not oriented towards preserving that wealth.

Hope you understand.


2. As yet nobody on the left has come forward to explain that 6 year discrepency between actual discharge and awarding of the Honorable Discharge.


3. Why do I assert that values and behaviors important to the generation and retention of wealth? Because I've lived that life. I grew up poor in a very rural part of New Hampshire with an alcoholic father. Didn't graduate high school, ended up as a USMC infantryman, did some oddball jobs. Then I decided that I'd go back to doing something that I loved since I was a kid, programming computers, and went and started doing that.

I've done well for myself ever since, well aside from a pretty awful chronic illness. Yet with that background I should probably be a basketcase. Yet I'm not. Why not? Because I choose to not be a basketcase. I made that choice and every day I continue to make that choice.

It's about values you know.


4.

you apparently haven't kept up on the latest. back in 2002, there was a proposal to amend FISA, but the Adm/NSA denied that effort.

Are you actually trying to assert that congress would never do anything independent of the President? That Democrats would never do anything independent of the President?

Go ahead. Pull the other one.


5.

Kerry's mistake was addressing the swift boat issues in the first place, cause once he did that, people had to know what he what responding to.

Sorry but that's incorrect. Kerry has *never* fully addressed the issues brought forth by the Swift Boat Veterans nd he continues to duck those issues to this day. For one thing, and I'm dying to know more about this, Kerry hasn't ever come clean about his gun-running trips to the Khmer Rouge 4 years prior to their creation whilst violating Cambodia border security during Christmas in 1969 and ferrying secret CIA missions involving a guy with a "magic" bonnie hat.

You really believe that nonsense? You go right ahead. But Kerry is on record talking about all of that bullcrap.


6.

I hope you do get laid - you really need it.

Thank you. I know this is heartfelt.


7.

I love your (non) response to my statement regarding Ken Lay. Typical Republican - avoid anything you can't defend.

*shrug* what statement?

I guess Ken Lay must have very high "values" in your opinion.

That was the entirety of your "statement" concerning Ken Lay. Frankly I ignored it as both inconsequential and rather more of a rhetorical ploy than anything else. If you've actually got something to write about Ken Lay then do so. But if you think I'm going to respond to every oddball half-sentence you care to toss out, then you're sadly delusional.

And while we're on this subject. I've written quite a few things that you haven't addressed. And none of those were half-sentences either. In fact I specifically requested that you respond in detail.

Yet another pathetic dodge there "gloria".

Jaytea, it is on the old ve... (Below threshold)

Jaytea, it is on the old version of my blog that is no longer online (I was using either blogger or movabletype at the time), right when NCLB passed (when Bush actually worked with the loathed Ted Kennedy on it). But I supported it and still do - I just don't like the systematic underfunding of it, and its about the only Bush policy I do support.

You guys aren't being fair.... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

You guys aren't being fair. SOME of F911 was DEFINITELY factual, as I am sure some kid somewhere flew a kite in Iraq before we showed Saddam why he shouldn't be shooting at our pilots.

Also, the President does enjoy a good game of golf now and then....

I think that about sums up the accuracies in the movie.

I went through and read the... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

I went through and read the whole list JT linked to, quite comprehensive. There were 59 "deceits", so I won't address all of them, but here's a few.

Most of them are deceits of what Michael Moore specifically says, which are undoubtedly deceits. But I could probably go through a large number of Bush quotes (or Cheney) and find evidence disputing those statements as well. That is to be expected from any partisan figure, and Moore is known to be partisan.

Secondly, some of the proof used to refute Moore is quotes from other partisan figures. Ex: Hitchens (whom he cites several times) rhetorically asks,

why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets...then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their[s]....They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory."

I have several reasons which dispute Hitchens quote. Why should the Saudis care about Kabul? I highly doubt they were getting any kind of aid from or that there was any economic incentive for that gov't to stay in power. They had no significant power in the region to assist against Iran. Moving the military ops is quite an easy answer. No Muslim country wants the US to launch an attack on another Muslim country from its soil. Moving out of SA benefits the Saudi govt by keeping its population slightly happier. And as far as oil competition, look at oil prices. Did the war help or hurt the Saudi bank account?

All I'm trying to say is that Moore certainly is no saint, but that doesn't mean everything he says is untrue. Much of it may be, but the Bush/Bath/bin Laden triangle (despite the site's reference) is still very suspicious. And the image of the Cong. Black Caucus being denied a voice when the electoral votes where being counted is very disturbing. And the approval of the Patriot Act (which even the site says is accurate) w/o question is troubling. And the influence of Saudi Arabia on American policy/economy. And then there is the WMD and al qaeda connection which we can argue about all day. All of these are worthy of discussion which Moore was trying to bring into the spotlight.

Maybe the swift boaters were trying to do the same thing, but their claims are about one man, unlike Moore's which mostly address US policy on a whole.

'if you are not with us you... (Below threshold)
datsun:

'if you are not with us you are against us'

this is debate in the 21st century




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy