Imagine a President interested in the details of the Iraq War/Occupation versus one consumed by fixing all of his fuc*ps by giving *defining* speech. There is a dramatic disconnect between the words and actions of GWB. I have recently given up listening to what he has to say and instead am looking at what he is doing.
Is this the kind of dialogue you want? Would it be constructive dialogue if I was to say about the president, "I have trouble taking that alcaholic, former drug user seriously, so forgive me if I discount everything he now says and don't address the substance of even one single issue he brings up." I am asking in an effort to make this a better message board let's stop the one line characterizations and address only substance and debate ideas as much as possible. You seem like you have that capability but for some reason prefer not to. most of the time.
I find it particularly fascinating that the new "mccarthy tactics" mem emerged at the same moment "Good Night, Good Luck" was released. exhuming mccarthy, indeed.
Basso, what do you think is the proper way to criticize our leader's decisions during a time of war? Is there ever a good way to voice disapproval of a war-time President's decisions besides voting for or against him? How do you feel about conservatives who have criticized the war effort? So how do Democrats usually reconcile this? I'm apologize in advance for asking this question, for I'm sure this has been debated many times in the D&D. But I'm new to this side so I'm just wondering.
LOL, basso is probably still grinning majestically to himself after he saw somebody mention Robert Byrd, so he can remind us for the ten zillionth time that he was a KKK guy. It's like if everytiem we mentioned the declaration of Independence, somebody said "Yeah, but THOMAS JEFFERSON was a Slaveholder!", or if every time anybody mentioned any number of Republican Congressmen (or the whole history of the Republican party from the 1970s through the 80's was based on co-opting a generation of anti civil rights Republicans who were the bastions of the Jim Crow South and served on Whites Citizens councils, etc etc etc. Hell President Bush triedto put a former segregationist on a federal appellate court. OR maybe Ishould just type "TRENT LOTT TRENT LOTT TRENT LOTT" over and over again for no reason. But let's not do that, that would be stupid. I'm going to try to kill this dead horse again once and for all. F Robert Byrd. I didn't vote for him. I have never voted for him. I don't think anybodyhere is from WV either so neither did they. He should retire, or better yet, move over to the Republican party where racist pasts have been embraced with open arms since the 60's. So there basso. I've disowned Robert Byrd, based solely on your personal abhorrence of the KKK, and based nothing on his record since then, whatever it may be. WHOOO HOOO Now I can go to a black neighborhood with my head held high.
Of course you failed to address the content of even that one question. But in response to your non-response Deckard pointed out the similarities prior to the release of "Goodnight and Good Luck." I am just curious why you would want to use his tactics.
I was going to post that basso saw the flick and, instead of seeing the bravery of those who took Joe on, was instead impressed by McCarthy's rhetoric. Thanks for saving me from the error. Instead, I would hazard to say that basso apparently follows a riff on your signature, FB. For him it's, "I Would Rather Fail and Be Dishonorable." Karsai must be scratching his head. Keep D&D Civil.
the mccarthyism charge is simply laughable- the president himself said there is a proper place for dissent in war. that however, does not mean all dissent is proper. vwiggin's post above deserves a more thoughtful response, which i hope to provide later. but this mccarthy nonsense that franchise and batman have started is one of the more ridiculous bandwagons they have started. Deckard, i would have thought it intellectually beneath you to jump on board.
I thought the first time I saw the charge it was from Deckard, but it could have been from batman. The truth is that you accuse people with absolutely zero proof, evidence or logic, of supporting terrorists. You repeat it often, and try to use it as a label rather than addressing substance. Those tactics are pure McCarthy, and you continue to use them and the whole 'fellow traveler' line over and over again. You attempt to misuse patriotism not to defend what the nation stands for, but mischaracterize anyone who has a disagreement with the President about the war in Iraq. It isn't starting a bandwagon to point out similarities. If you would address substance 70% of the time, I wouldn't point out anything other than subtance issues with your posts. You don't seem to want to do that.
"fellow traveler" is a rhetorical device, much like "fifth column" which i've also used on more than one occasion. will you now accuse me of being a franco sympathizer?
Only if you use his tactics. It the tactics used and constant veering away from content and into mischaracterizations that earn the label, not just a phrase here and there.
Actually, it emerged when Ann Coulter released a book saying that McCarthy was a good guy who fell victim to the evil liberal media. This post is a perfect example of why nobody on this forum likes you, basso. You constantly misrpresent positions and put words into everybody else's mouth - believe it or not, agreeing with McCain on a few issues doesn't mean you agree with everything he says. Learn about fallacies of logic and then get back to us.
You're fundamentally mistaking basso's position here. basso agrees with pretty much everything Bush does. That's not because he's thinking about it. It's because Bush did it. Remember - fascism wouldn't have existed if it hadn't had support. There are still these types of people among us - those who are so afraid that they would gladly welcome a leader with complete and unquestionable control. As near as I can tell, basso would advocate something very close to a dictatorship.
