« A Boxer "Speaks Truth To Power" | Main | Missing a point or two »

"It's not personal. It's strictly business."

One of the more unpleasant developments I've noted of the past few years is the ever-increasing amount of subjectivism in politics. The idea that the individual takes precedence over objective reality is growing more and more pervasive, and taking many forms -- and I do not believe it bodes well for the future.

One form was demonstrated last week, with the discussion between Senator Boxer and Secretary of State Rice. Senator Boxer disagrees with Secretary Rice, but chose not to base her disagreement on matters of policy, philosophy, or to find fault in Secretary Rice's education or professional qualifications. Rather, Secretary Rice's personal decisions and lifestyle choices (she is unmarried and has no children) were cited as the reasons why Senator Boxer disagrees with Secretary Rice.

It came up yet again with the 13 zillionth invocation of the "chickenhawk" argument on Thursday, when I tried to bring up the "big picture" on the story of Iraq. In response to that piece, "nogo postal" decided that the matter of whether or not the US mission in Iraq was appropriate was far less significant than the earth-shattering matter of whether or not I have ever served in the military. (The appropriate answer, of course, is "none of your fucking business." A closing "asswipe" is optional.)

There's an old saying -- "don't shoot the messenger." These days, it seems a hell of a lot easier to do just that. Why bother mustering arguments and facts and positions and ideas when, instead, you can simply attack the messenger and turn the issue to the perceived failings of that person? It's so much simpler, and human nature will be your able assistant -- nearly everyone, when attacked, wants to defend themselves, and that just furthers the move away from the topic at hand.

It's a seductively easy tactic, one I've fallen for on more than one occasion -- and, shamefully, engaged in it myself. (Whenever I talk about Senator Ted Kennedy, for example, I am utterly unable to resist at least one gratuitous cheap shot.)

It's bad. It's wrong. It's shameful. It's corrosive. And we should do what we can to call out those who use it, even when it's each other.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "It's not personal. It's strictly business.":

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Senate panel scraps with Rice over Iraq strategy

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

Comments (62)

For years, page one of the ... (Below threshold)

For years, page one of the Democrats playbook calls for them to attack, belittle and demonize those on the other side of an issue. They know if they succeed then they don't have to argue the merits of their particular position.

Think back to Paula Jones, Monica and Gennifer Flowers; all were trashed (and quite successfully). Gingrich was never taken on over the issues of smaller government; he was attacked personally and portrayed as stupid, selfish, dangerous and so on. Republicans wanting to get rid of affirmative action are racists, those wanting to reduce welfare are cheap and selfish, those in favor of aggressively going after terrorists are warmongers, Bush=Hitler, we invaded Iraq for Halliburton, yadda, yadda, yadda.

And they continue to do this because, one, they know they can't argue on the merits, and two, they know they can get away with it. Can any of you remember a time, any time, that the MSM called a Democrat to task for their tactics and pushed that the Democrat answer the merits of the GOP position? Remember when the media refused to get into the game of Gingrich's supposed tantrum over not getting to sit up front on Air Force One? Remember when Matt Lauer chided Hillary for her ridiculous VRWC comment? Remember when the media challenged Clinton's blaming rightwingers for the culture that led to Oklahoma City? Remember when the media refused to give the Democrats airtime to blast Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers as all being lying, cheating trash, and insisted that the Lanny Davis' answer the merits of what Clinton did?

Yeah, me neither.

Amen.... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Amen.

Well, Amen to Jay. Not to t... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well, Amen to Jay. Not to the "objective" response from stevestrum.

"The appropriate answer, of... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"The appropriate answer, of course, is 'none of your fucking business.' A closing "asswipe" is optional." -- Mr. Tea

I'll take that to mean, "Yes, I'm a chickenhawk, and I'm ashamed to admit it."

No, Herman, it means you're... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

No, Herman, it means you're an asshat, and we all know it.

Jay, I would just suggest banning anyone using the chickenhawk meme. They contribute nothing, and they've proven they are incapable of rational thought with that poorly thought out ad hominem attack.

It's bizarre seeing leftist... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

It's bizarre seeing leftists argue that the only people with any right to discuss military matters must be guys who served in the military.

I thought we opposed military rule in this country.
-=Mike
...Really makes their defense of Clinton's military actions all the more baffling.

It's interesting that so ma... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

It's interesting that so many of you righties complain about the "chickenhawk" ruse yet remain silent about the favorite right ad hominem attack:"terrorist supporter" or "hate America..."

Both sides who use those tactics are equally wrong and should be equally condemned. Yet it is rare indeed to see the right be consistent about it.

John Irving Jay, I woul... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

John Irving Jay, I would just suggest banning anyone using the chickenhawk meme By the same token, does that mean that combat veterans receive no extra courtesy on this blog.? I think not...I don't dismiss the chickenhawk argument entirely....It seems a reasonable premise that often battle scared veterans have a tendency to be cautious or careful about sending boys into battle from Cincinnatus on. At the same time, we shouldn't unconditionally accept the military or war records of politicians, by their own account, whether they be Bush, Kerry, or Kurt Waldheim.

Crickmore,A veteran ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Crickmore,
A veteran of any filed naturally caries more weight when discussing said topic. Veterans, I've found, get plenty of courtesy about their service and knowledge. If they behave like jackasses, that doesn't protect them being being treated as such.
Now, the chickenhawk retort... the nasty part of it is that it's simply an attempt to silence debate by limiting only those that have served to expressing an opinion. Doubly nasty since it is often invoked by those that have also not served and have very little respect for those that have.
It's the same logic that says only a parent can discuss childcare, only a doctor can discuss healthcare etc. While these some people may have more weight behind their opinions, it doesn't mean they have a corner on the market.
That, and the name itself is used to infer cowardice, again making it's invocation by those who have also chosen not to serve a poor reflection on any argument they make.
In cases like Jay's, who has chronic health issues, accusing him of cowardice because of an acident of his birth is well beyond crass.
Not to say you in this case have done it, but folks like nogo, are always quick to silence debate or change the topic when it heads in directions they don't like.

All politicians,at one time... (Below threshold)
Allen:

All politicians,at one time or another, make stupid comments. And 99.9% of them are full of BS. My personal take on Boxer's comments was she was correct in saying the military families are the ones who suffer. Seems like most people over look that part of her BS line.

Who cares if Boxer has children and Condi doesn't? Who cares if someone is called a "chickenhawk" or not? As a individual, you have to look in the mirror each morning, so you should know what you are, right?

Name calling is just one way to get your mind off the problems at hand, such as the Iraq war, gov't opening our mail, gov't looking at our financial records, etc.

As much as I dislike B43, at least he has the balls to go after these radical Muslims, (common thugs) who are called terrorists. The bleeding hearts on the far left think thats wrong. Well, most Americans don't. The majority of Americans feel that the Iraq was is wrong, and that B43 lied to the American people, and they are correct in that. Arguing about that is not going to change a damn thing.

B43 wants the Demo's to come up with a plan if they don't support him. They will not come up with a plan, except to cut and run. This puts more pressure on B43 to find a solution for Iraq that will work, because what he is doing, and has done for several years is not working.

Argue all you want, but in the mean time, our soldiers families will be the ones suffering!

Allen, Boxer doesn't have c... (Below threshold)
David:

Allen, Boxer doesn't have children either.

Herman, you are frankly intellectually vacuous. Interestingly most (all?) at my local AFW is for finishing the Iraq action victoriously. My new view for people who use the chickenhawk approach is chickenshit, but Herman, in your case that demeans bird shit everywhere.

Er VFW, my touch typing is ... (Below threshold)
David:

Er VFW, my touch typing is begining to really stink.

I've noticed two different ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I've noticed two different kinds of liberal posters.

In the past the most common was actually those that came here to poke at conservatives, but they debated issues honestly for the most part. Honestly in the sense that they stayed on topic and tried to win their arguments that way. Since they were liberals, they believed they were right and superior so they were condescending. But they argued their viewpoints because they believed their viewpoints.

What is common now isn't new except for the quantity of them. The second kind are coming here to be deliberately disruptive. They want to sour Wizbang as a place to get out non-liberal ideas and thoughts. The simpler way is to directly insult others or simple post stuff that is off-topic. Some take things off topic with direct post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Others exhibit a little more creativity and subtlety, but their posting is a conscious effort to get things off-topic.

They'll argue a topic if they can. And they can do it very well when the counter arguments are likely to exist in pre-existing talking points. Press them far enough and they start making crap up and acting like they made a legitimate point. Often the non-point is applauded by another poster of their ilk.

All in all, Their purpose is not discuss issues. Whether it is self-initiated or they are operating under other direction, they are here to obfuscate the discuss and failing that to simply disrupt it.

There was an influx of this second group in the '04 elections but they left as soon as they came. There was a bigger influx with this last election and they are staying. I suspect they are here to protect the image of Democrats in congress, among other things.

Make a post about Pelosi and chances are better than not the comments will be 70% or more from this category of poster.

They are a deliberate part of a 'free speech for me and not for thee' movement from the Left & Democrats.

As for engaging them, it really doesn't matter. If they can't win the argument or get things to go off-topic, they'll start being insulting or simple post things that are blatantly off-topic. They'll try to win by shear volume of comments.

I guess to do a play on wor... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I guess to do a play on works with Jay's title, "It's Their Business to Make it Personal" if their other tactics are failing.

I've never been a liberal a... (Below threshold)
Tim:

I've never been a liberal asshat so I have no comment on them.

jpm100,When those ... (Below threshold)
Live@9:

jpm100,

When those on the other side of an issue you're debating do as you claim in the last paragraph of your post:

"As for engaging them, it really doesn't matter. If they can't win the argument or get things to go off-topic, they'll start being insulting or simple post things that are blatantly off-topic. They'll try to win by shear volume of comments."

When your debating opponent resorts to that, doesn't that by definition mean that you've won the debate? So why the complaining? Just call them out and take the win. What's the problem with that?

If you have no logical argu... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

If you have no logical arguments, then you are reduced to ad hominem attacks--it's the story of the Dims. these last several years.

Since I am not black, I can't vote on issues affecting blacks, if I'm not latin, ditto latins, if I'm not this, I can't opine on that . . .

If Boxer et al could get their gaze off their own navels, maybe they could come up with a compelling counter-policy on Iraq that would involve analysis of tactics, diplomacy etc. instead of platitudes.

Conservatives should expect... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Conservatives should expect this behavior from the left by now. How about a compelling POLICY on Iraq from the RIGHT "that would involve analysiis of tactics, diplomacy etc. instead of platitudes."

Sadly that is missing as well......

Let me see if I get the lef... (Below threshold)
David:

Let me see if I get the left's arguements correct. I am Cherokee, so I am one of the few people here who gets any say on stuff the BIA does, right? So now that there is a moratorium on granting tribal recognition, I am one of the few that can discuss it, being Cherokee and all. There is a group of people in the NE that want to be recognized as Nipmunck (other than the recognized Nipmuncks in Maine). Well I don't want them recognized, and since I am a recognized American Indian (I find the term native American demeaning) only I can debate this and the Nipmunck wannabes need to shut their pieholes as they are not viewed as Indians right?

This is assinine. It is a debate for all interested Americans.

Fun fact of the day, the Dine (Navaho) weren't the only code talkers. Shoshones and Cheyenes were used in Europe for the same purpose. My people were used mostly as riflemen. A distant cousin of mine, who is as dark as most blacks fought in a white unit. Go figure.

Boxer spoke truthiness to p... (Below threshold)
JB:

Boxer spoke truthiness to power.

Dang JT, with WB getting so... (Below threshold)
epador:

Dang JT, with WB getting sober and ethical and all, there won't be room for pointed or dull personal jibes and attempts at humor. Sigh.

Kum-ba-yah, Kum-ba-yah [c'mon now, lets all hold hands and sing together now).

Do you have to play profess... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Do you have to play professional sports to be a sports commentator?

JT, I can't think of when t... (Below threshold)
blackcat77:

JT, I can't think of when this has happened before, but I agree with you completely on this. Politicians are putting their own egos above the good of the people.

SCSIwuzzy...Eloquently sa... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

SCSIwuzzy...Eloquently said at 10:28....I think experience in combat is obviously an intangible. Now Bush,9(ike much of his team) without having any such experience compounded by his habitiual incurious outlook to ask questions (unlike Jay who can make up for any lack of experience by attentive reading) the president is unwilling to compensate or couldn't up until now when things didn't go according to plan...Good instincts will get you only so far outside the borders of your own life experience.. I remenber David Frum his neocon speechwriter from 2002 to 2002, said that the President's lack of interest in most things was Bush's most troubling and surprising personality characteristic. No one has ever said that Bush hampered by living in a bubble, is a quick study, but finally in 2007, Bush seems not to be deferring exclusively to the imperious Cheneys' of the world, but to people like Timothy M. Carney, who with the benefit of experience in Vietnam, Cambodia and Somalia realise to paraphrase Jay 'It's not personal or ideology.... It's strictly the wise pragmatism of listening to the Iraqis and working with them." that might bring us victory. This could really be part of 'the new way' and not just a slogan.

Some interesting observatio... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

Some interesting observations

1. Pres. Clinton was one of my 3 former Commander in Chiefs (Regan and Bush I were the others) and I never heard anyone put on him the requirement of wearing a military uniform, yet alone seeing combat. Bush was in the ANG. Ask people in the military, and they see no distinction between the service of the ANG/Reserves and Active Duty. We train together, we go through basic together, and in times of war, fight together. Just ask Senator Kerry, who when his 5th deferrment was denied, he finagled his way into an INACTIVE NAVY RESERVE UNIT, that was later activated

2. Liberals have an axe to grind with Bush. They don't give a damn about the military. While Clinton was over seeing the "Age of Prosperity", he continued to cut military spending, recommended pay freezes for personnel that was below civilian pay to begin with, and did abosulutely jack-s**t when the military was attacked in Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African Embassies, etc. He also implemented policies (Women in combat, open gays in the military, ending CHAMPUS military dependent healthcare) without the benefit of even putting on a uniform and sitting behind a desk.

3. What qualifications does Boxer have, to question the qualifications of Rice. Boxer's political acumen is basically the result of a cliche' : Rich, white, spoon-fed liberal woman running for office representing a state that is considered by most to be too expensive too live and too amoral to survive.

4. Without offering any alternatives, the Dems will snipe and bitch at any Bush policy (surge or redeployment) to gain dominance in '08. If given the option of supporting the war to ensure victory and making Bush look good, and undermining the war, making Bush twist in the wind, but winning the White House in '08, the Dems would choose the latter with no hesitation. How do I know? That is their policy being carried out now.

5.Dems and liberals always need a cause to hang their agenda on because on the merits, their arguments are vapid and superficial to say the least. Today, the cause celebre are the troops, which is funny because most of the troops despise many of the prominent Dems, and resent being represented as stupid, helpless charges who had to choose between being migrant farmers or being in the military

It's fine to refer to polic... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

It's fine to refer to policy makers and shakers as chickenhawks if that's what they are. Hawk now, chicken then; if the shoe fits, etc. No reason to let them pretend they're "Great Americans". During WWII, to be a male in his 20s to early 30s and stateside without a G.I. haircut would mean weekly embarrassing episodes of old folks asking "why aren't you in the service?" As for labelling commenters: no need: sitting out "World War III" is something they can reconcile later.

A few words on the chickenh... (Below threshold)
marc:

A few words on the chickenhawk BS

Show me a single instance of a Lib politician or blog/forum participant using chickenhawk to describe Bill Clinton during his Balkans intervention. (Another "illegal" war BTW if the same people are consistent)

Many that use the CW invective also believe and use the now common Dem talking point "shared sacrifice."

Lets "correct" that.

1. Start by a tax increase across the board of 5%, no exceptions, it would be levied on those from the bottom bracket to the highest income bracket and funds would be earmarked to improve health care for ALL military vets.

2. 2 year mandatory service for all (no exemptions for any reason aside from health/mental issues) upon reaching the age of 18 and to be one of the following:
A. U.S. Military (active)
B. National Guard
C. Peace Corps
D. As a "volunteer" at a Va or civilian hospital (mandatory 40 hours a week)
E. "Volunteer" at an Senior Citizens facility. (mandatory 40 hours a week)

NOTE 1: Those in categories c,d,and e would receive pay at the same rate as the military.

NOTE 2: If neccessary to fill requirements of the Military or National Guard a lottery (where have I heard that before) would be held containing the names for categories c,d, and e to meet those requirements.

SHARE THAT!

And finally a question to those that use the chickenhawk BS.

Is it safe to assume both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are off your list as potential presidential candidates?

I.E. that are not eligible utilizing your criteria for election to the the highest office in the land because of the failure to serve in the military.

Oops, CW above should read ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oops, CW above should read CH, i.e. chickenhawk.

Bryan, I have absolutely no... (Below threshold)
David:

Bryan, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Try again.

During WWII, to be a ma... (Below threshold)
marc:

During WWII, to be a male in his 20s to early 30s and stateside without a G.I. haircut would mean weekly embarrassing episodes........bryan

So that's your argument? To point to very sad abhorrent behavior of 60 years ago to justify your position today?

Question BryanD, given the US Constitution is written to give civilian control of the military would you be in favor of an amendment to change it to dictate only those that have served be able to vote on any related issues?

Jay chose to use the Boxer/... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay chose to use the Boxer/Rice reference to define his point in regard to "subjectivism in politics" with this remark, "Senator Boxer disagrees with Secretary Rice, but chose not to base her disagreement on matters of policy, philosophy, or to find fault in Secretary Rice's education or professional qualifications. Rather, Secretary Rice's personal decisions and lifestyle choices (she is unmarried and has no children) were cited as the reasons why Senator Boxer disagrees with Secretary Rice."

The transcript of the exchange is below, from the NY Times.

"Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact "

I'd like to know, from this transcript, just how the hell Boxer has attacked Rice for not being married and I'd like to know how Boxer was using Rice's marital status as a "basis of disagreement."

Boxer was simply making the point that neither she herself nor Rice had any immediate family who might pay the price of deployment, injury or death.

Oh, I suppose the evil Boxer was also poking at Rice for being an "Only child."

Ok Bryan, who has ultimate ... (Below threshold)
David:

Ok Bryan, who has ultimate moral authority on war in the following story:

A woman has two sons, the eldest chooses not to enlist whereas the youngest go a commission in the Navy. The yougest, my father, spent WWII in NM, UT, NV, and CA. The oldest, my Uncle, sailed convoy in the North Atlantic in the early war.

Oh, and how about the contractors that are risking life and limb to build hospitals and schools in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Woodrow Wilson, probably the worst chicken hawk in American history, as a boy he saw the ravages of war. He never saw battle, never joined the military and had the unmitigated gall to get us involved in WWI. Oh the shame, the chicken hawkery.

When Pukeface has to resort... (Below threshold)

When Pukeface has to resort to that kind of pettiness to avoid actually discussing the matter at hand, I know I've done my job right. Thanks for the affirmation.

J.

Chickenhawk: A fierce, pred... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Chickenhawk: A fierce, predatory bird that hunts, kills and feasts on chickens and other birds. Jes' sayin'....

Sorry for the interference ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Sorry for the interference w/ your talking points, Jay.


Clearly, when it comes to you, no one is gonna interfere w/ your phoney point about Boxer.

I like our islamofascist ha... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I like our islamofascist hawks, then. Hunt, kill, and feast on these totalitarian fanatics in the Middle East.

So, Pukeface, you're saying... (Below threshold)

So, Pukeface, you're saying that Senator Boxer was NOT trying to personalize the debate over Iraq, and was actually talking about whether current policy was correct or incorrect on a purely rational basis? That she was NOT trying to bypass reason and make a 100% emotional argument? That she would have made the same argument to Secretary Rice if she happened to have an immediate relative serving there?

Every now and then you surprise me, Pukeface.

This ain't one of those times.

J.

"I'm not going to pay a per... (Below threshold)
Reality:

"I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Answer the question, J, how is that an attack on Rice's unmarried status?

"When Pukeface has to resort to that kind of pettiness to avoid actually discussing the matter at hand, I know I've done my job right. Thanks for the affirmation."

Seems to me that YOU refuse to discuss the issue. Disappointing, but not surprising for you. You always resort to ad hominems when the light of truth is shown into the dark cavern of Wizbang.

Repuklican, people aren't b... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Repuklican, people aren't buying the old Hannity talking points that cons peddle anymore. That was proven 11/7 and is even more true now. People are sick of their children dying in this war, and all the faux outrage over quotes out of context isn't going to change it.

Hey, reality, what is the a... (Below threshold)
David:

Hey, reality, what is the average age of those killed in Iraq? Take a swing for the walls, then tell me why they are children.

marc, you said: "To point t... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc, you said: "To point to very sad abhorrent behavior of 60 years ago to justify your position today?" re: embarrassing episodes of old folks asking "why aren't you in the service?" (during WWII)...Answer: it's not abhorrent to the one asking. It was the question everybody THOUGHT but were usually too tactful to ask. Old timers are just more blunt. As for your next question, re: no go/ no vote: No. I would, however waive all income and payroll taxes of current servicemen (though with no declared war or mission, that's tricky) and institute a marginally lower tax rate for all honourably discharged veterans in perpetuity.

Jay, your use of "pukeface'... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay, your use of "pukeface' seems to me an illustration of the point I thought you were trying to make....npnetheless

Did you even bother to check the NY Times link or did you simply write it off to the idea that the NY Times is vested in America losing the Iraq war?

You say to me, "and was actually talking about whether current policy was correct or incorrect on a purely rational basis? That she was NOT trying to bypass reason and make a 100% emotional argument?"

And I reply, from the transcript, "For example, October 19th '05, you came before this committee to discuss, in your words, how we assure victory in Iraq, and you said the following. In answer to Senator Feingold, "I have no doubt that as the Iraqi security forces get better -- and they are getting better and are holding territory, and they are doing the things with minimal help -- we are going to be able to bring down the level of our forces. I have no doubt" -- I want to reiterate -- "I have no doubt that that's going to happen in a reasonable time frame." You had no doubt, not a doubt. And last night, the president's announcement of an escalation is a total rebuke of your confident pronouncement."

That was the immediate lead-in to the gawd-awful Boxer's impugnation or so-called trashing of Rice's marital status. I don't think that that rises to the level of "That she was NOT trying to bypass reason and make a 100% emotional argument", unless, of course, one is hide-bound to make their talking point srick.

David: I don't know what yo... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

David: I don't know what you mean by "ultimate moral authority" when citing human beings; ask a papist. But your uncle, father, etc. are apparently salt-of-the-earth type people. They go where they're needed. And I agree about Wilson's Crusader Rabbit tendencies. Read "Lusitania" by Colin Simpson. All about Winston Churchill's Operation Livebait to involve the US.

Lovely. We have an antisem... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Lovely. We have an antisemite (puke, at the least) in the thread and now a Catholic hater.
All we need are the homophobes from the other Rice thread, and our trolls will have themselves a trifecta of hate as only the tolerant left can muster.

SCSIwuzzyBecause I... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

SCSIwuzzy

Because I don't subscribe to the total innocence of the Israeli government during most of its various incarnations since 1967, I presumes that, in your eyes, that makes me an anti-semite.

"Repuklican, people aren't... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Repuklican, people aren't buying the old Hannity talking points that cons peddle anymore. That was proven 11/7 and is even more true now. People are sick of their children dying in this war, and all the faux outrage over quotes out of context isn't going to change it."


Democrat Troll going by the name "Reality" is a typical democrat fraud. Just like they like to use the words "Inconvienant truth" "American...." "Americans for Truth...." . They are nothing but lies told by the party of liars.

"That was proven 11/7 and is even more true now."

Democrats are stupid and so are their Leaders . They just happen to be smart criminals, lol.... "and is even more true now."

You dumb sheep are screwing up your talking points. There are no children in the Military stupid. How is it possible that water being proven wet on 11/7 is much more "TRUE" three months later? lol How much more dumber can you dummies get....lol Water is wetterer today that it was yesterday.lol.

Keep coming back.

For all of you so impassion... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

For all of you so impassioned here about Barbara Boxer raking Rice for being "childless" you might want to see this extended video clip from last Friday's McLaughlin Group, tho I doubt Jay Tea will be interested because he knows what his talking points already tell him.

These Lib. "pukes" are idio... (Below threshold)
Inconvenient Truth:

These Lib. "pukes" are idiots and underserving of my time this pleasant Monday pm.

The Truth hurts, but it's the Truth, after all.

So, get over it.

Pukeface, you chose your ow... (Below threshold)

Pukeface, you chose your own name. I didn't give it to you. If I should abbreviate it and focus on the part of it you chose so proudly, what is your problem?

If you don't like being referred to in terms of regurgitation, then perhaps you shouldn't have chosen a name based on the slang term for it.

He who lives by the technicolor yawn, dies by the technicolor yawn.

J.

No. I would, howev... (Below threshold)
marc:
No. I would, however waive all income and payroll taxes of current servicemen (though with no declared war or mission, that's tricky) and institute a marginally lower tax rate for all honourably [sic] discharged veterans in perpetuity. :: by bryanD on January 14, 2007 7:11 PM ::
Better grab the tail of that cat before it gets completely out of the bag.

Your clueless about some military affairs!

All servicemen and women deployed to a war zone are already exempt from all federal taxes. At present that includes Afgan/Iraq and the few that are in Somalia now. For US Navy purposes the demarcation line is about 600 miles southeast of the Straits of Hormuz. At that line Fed taxes stop and remain so for every month, or a portion of a month, you are within that boundary.

Without searching and only from memory of when I started gaining this benefit the practice goes back to at least 1988.

Some States also exempt mil members from State taxes , MI being one Cal another, and Minn has a bill to do the same on the table.

2 thingsWhat about... (Below threshold)

2 things

What about the rest of America that suffers if we don't fight now. The victims of 9/11 who suffered because our intelligence agencies couldn't get their act together? If our military doesn't "sacrifice" and fight now, what future civilians could sacrifice and suffer later?

Also Marc, you didn't include the Merchant Marine. It is a valid service, and having more and more American Flag ships and Americans sailing as officers and crewmembers on board our commercial fleets (if we have any left) is definitely beneficial.

marc: I stand corrected. (A... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc: I stand corrected. (And I prefer the British spelling - sometimes)....SCSIwuzzy: I have nothing against nominal Catholics; they're born into it and go through the motions (or not; usually not!). And of course, who doesn't like Polish girls? Friendly!! But the Pope is NOT God's Substitute (he's the "little horn") and the Holy See is NOT the source of salvation (It's the harlot who rides the beast)! Mary is not co-redemptrix, and Babylon is Rome.

How appropriate: a missive... (Below threshold)
epador:

How appropriate: a missive on the error of personal attacks quickly degrades into repeated personal attacks. Well done all! But bryanD's hallucinogenic incoherences, now that's a whole different Ave Maria!

Jay Tea...you know, my refe... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay Tea...you know, my referencing your adaptation to my nic was no more than simply pointing to the nature of your thread and your willingness to trash the spirit of what you wrote.

Insofar as your remake on my nic that you used, I couldn't care less.

However, since you are unable or unwilling to explain or justify the linkage you made w/ your use of the Boxer/Rice hearings exchange in spite of the actual transript, I would assume that your little treatise was no more than a further "regurgitation" of the right's talking point of the day that Boxer had been inexcusably rude to Mde. Secretary.

SCSIwuzzy:(...)But the P... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

SCSIwuzzy:(...)But the Pope is NOT God's Substitute (he's the "little horn") and the Holy See is NOT the source of salvation (It's the harlot who rides the beast)! Mary is not co-redemptrix, and Babylon is Rome

And none of those things, not one, you bigoted twit, are what Catholics believe.
What, are you a Westboro Baptist?

Man, if this issue doesn't ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Man, if this issue doesn't scream "we got nothing, so we'll make up stuff to get angry about", I don't know what does.

Boxer (accurately) told Rice, "neither you nor I have skin in the game". Now, the right could have chosen to debate whether having skin in the game is a requirement for playing. But no, instead, you chose to ignore Boxer's inclusion of herself in the characterization, and to engage in a collective *gasp* that Boxer was commenting on Rice's "lifestyle choices". (Which, for those not paying attention, is the right's codephrase for "she might be a lesbian".)

Tell me, if she had said "my kids are too old, Rumsfeld's kids are too old, Cheney's kids are too old, you don't have kids", would you still be shouting that it was a personal attack on Rice?

Yes, Brian, they would, the... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Yes, Brian, they would, the way you phrased it, they would be calling attention to latent Republican lesbianism. You see, after Foley and Haggart, they're sensitive to such accusations.

But most importantly, it's what Boxer said, following on that remark, " That's who is going to pay the price.

And then you have the most moving thing I've ever heard on a radio station, which is a visit to a burn unit and a talk with the nurse. Devon suffered burns over 93 percent of his body, three amputations: both legs, one arm. His back was broken, internal organs exposed. As the hospital staff entered the room, they would see photographs on the wall, pictures of a healthy private standing proud in his dark-green Army dress uniform.

"It's very important," says the major, "that nurses see the patient as a person, because the majority of our patients have facial burns, and they're unrecognizable, and they're extremely disfigured."that the Wizchoir and the rest of the right-wingnut blogs and talk-radio shows don't want you to hear.

That was Boxer's unforgivable statement...the truth of Bush/Cheney's willful carnage in a war of choice.

ARepukelican,What ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

ARepukelican,

What a touching story you quoted.

Funny how you can pull out *just the right* story from the radio when you need it - and add 'direct quotes' as well. *wink*

Since you claimed in the other thread that the station nearest your computer was turned to conservative talk radio, should we assume that this was a conservative station that visited the ward or that your have various radios tuned to different stations and spend your day going from one to the other and are just lucky to be at the *right* radio at the *right* moment to hear what you need to hear?

Brian,

Since you still haven't read Boxer's whole comment, let's just focus on the part that you quoted. (And lets leave the ugly reference to "skin" out of this since she didn't use the word ...)

Boxer has every right in the world to say that she cannot understand because she does not have an immediate family member involved.

Where's her resignation?

If you honestly believe that you cannot adequately make decisions in a situation because you have not experienced the situation personally, then the honorable thing to do would be to resign and let someone who *can* make those decisions take your place.

No resignation? So she didn't *really* mean herself, did she?

As to including Rice, since her point was that you have to have the experience to understand it, then she obviously can't speak for Rice and her inclusion of Rice was inappropriate. By her own admission, she does not share Rice's experience.

(Which, for those not paying attention, is the right's codephrase for "she might be a lesbian".)

So you don't agree with Boxer either, then. Unless you are a closet conservative, you can't possibly know what "the right" means by the phrase. *wink*

As a conservative, I can't comment because I've never heard a person on the right make the comment.... every time I have heard it, it has come from someone on the left who believes they can speak for the right.

Boxer has every right in... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Boxer has every right in the world to say that she cannot understand because she does not have an immediate family member involved.

Fine, that's what she did. If she has every right to say that, why the outrage?

As to including Rice, since her point was that you have to have the experience to understand it, then she obviously can't speak for Rice and her inclusion of Rice was inappropriate.

By your own admission, the topic was having an immediate family member involved. Since it is public information as to whether Rice has an immediate family member in Iraq, Boxer obviously can speak to that point, and it was in no way inappropriate.

Unless you are a closet conservative, you can't possibly know what "the right" means by the phrase. *wink*

What an impossibly stupid statement. So because I'm not a closet member of the KKK, I can't possibly know what they mean by some of the words they use? You need to have that *wink* checked by a doctor.

As a conservative, I can't comment because I've never heard a person on the right make the comment.... every time I have heard it, it has come from someone on the left who believes they can speak for the right.

Yeah, because we never heard comments like that when Janet Reno was around.

Fine, that's what she di... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Fine, that's what she did. If she has every right to say that, why the outrage?

You really don't get Boxer's point, do you? According to her, if you haven't experienced it, you can't speak to it or make decisions about it.

As I asked before, where's Boxer's resignation?

By your own admission, the topic was having an immediate family member involved.

No, it wasn't.

And the part of the quote you left out was ...

"By her own admission, she does not share Rice's experience."

What an impossibly stupid statement. So because I'm not a closet member of the KKK, I can't possibly know what they mean by some of the words they use?

I absolutely agree. When Boxer used that argument I thought it was an impossibly stupid argument too. YOU were the one defending the logic - not I.

Thanks for providing the example.

Yeah, because we never heard comments like that when Janet Reno was around.

I can't speak to what you and your friends discuss.

According to her, if you... (Below threshold)
Brian:

According to her, if you haven't experienced it, you can't speak to it or make decisions about it.

That's not what she said. You keep claiming it was, but that doesn't make it true. Since you obviously can't read, have someone read her statement to you, then comment on it.

I can't speak to what you and your friends discuss.

OK, now you're just being a dishonest hack. Begone with you.

Brian, I know that you thin... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Brian, I know that you think 'well, you are a poopy head ...." is a brilliant argument ... but not so much.

The fact your position is indefensible is not my problem. You have demonstrated that you cannot defend what and all she actually said, but you keep trying to do so and insulting everyone who dares to question you.

It's not my literacy level that is called into question by the defensiveness of your behavior.




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:

tips@wizbangblog.com

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