my choice of words was directed at frank rich, who is using cindy sheehan just as surely as you accuse conseravtives of using her. what's happened to her in the past year, loss of a son, loss of a marriage, perhaps loss of her mother, is truly tragic. however, she chose to insert herself into an extremely emotional and divisive debate. her supporters on the left, including moveon, rich, kos, et al, have attempted to capitalize on her grief in an extremely exploitative manner. my opprobrium is directed at them, not at ms. sheehan.
If I cross your path again, who knows where, who knows when On some morning without number, on some highway without end Don't grasp my hand and say "Fate has brought you here today" Oh fate is only fooling with us, friend Keep your distance, oh keep your distance When I feel you close to me what can I do but fall Keep your distance, keep your distance Ah with us it must be all or none at all It's a desperate game we play, throw our souls, our lives, away Wounds that can't be mended and debts that can't be paid O I played and I got stung now I'm biting back my tongue I'm sweeping out the footprints where I strayed Keep your distance, keep your distance When I feel you close to me what can I do but fall Keep your distance, oh keep your distance With us it must be all or none at all
Math according to basso: Supporting Sheehan, calling her a hero = Calling her a liar, saying she's running a scam. Psychology according to basso: Sheehan is just upset because her personal world is crumbling. Don't bother listening to the mother of one of those troops we "support." She can't think for herself through her grief. She doesn't mean any of the things she says -- she's just being manipulated. Where do we go from here according to basso: As in all things, clap harder.
This from the guy who named a thread about a Zell Miller "Democrat" after me and called it wishful thinking. WEIR-DO. Make you a deal. The second you stop posting patently offensive, intellectually dishonest stuff I will stop posting to say you're posting patently offensive, intellectually dishonest stuff. It doesn't get any fairer than that.
It may have been camelot for jack and jacqueline But on the che guevara highway filling up with gasoline Fidel castro’s brother spies a rich lady who’s crying Over luxury’s disappointment So he walks over and he’s trying To sympathise with her but he thinks that he should warn her That the third world is just around the corner In the soviet union a scientist is blinded By the resumption of nuclear testing and he is reminded That dr robert oppenheimer’s optimism fell At the first hurdle In the cheese pavilion and the only noise I hear Is the sound of someone stacking chairs And mopping up spilt beer And someone asking questions and basking in the light Of the fifteen fame filled minutes of the fanzine writer Mixing pop and politics he asks me what the use is I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses While looking down the corridor Out to where the van is waiting I’m looking for the great leap forwards Jumble sales are organised and pamphlets have been posted Even after closing time there’s still parties to be hosted You can be active with the activists Or sleep in with the sleepers While you’re waiting for the great leap forwards One leap forward, two leaps back Will politics get me the sack? Here comes the future and you can’t run from it If you’ve got a blacklist I want to be on it It’s a mighty long way down rock ’n roll From top of the pops to drawing the dole If no one seems to understand Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman In a perfect world we’d all sing in tune But this is reality so give me some room So join the struggle while you may The revolution is just a t-shirt away Waiting for the great leap forwards
oh that's rich, frankly... let me amend my comment above about my opprobrium for those exploiting cindy sheehan to include those posters here who indulge in gratuitous ultimatums, and shamelessly trumpet their own defeatism while claiming to "support the troops."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Case in point. For those who might be behind the curve, the "gratuitous ultimatum" to which basso refers is the one where I told him to stop calling me and other liberals here anti-American terrorist sympathizers that love abortion and want US troops to die. That's not TOO offensive, is it?
Would you toss a very well known and respected Republican senator into that gumbo? From a AP story in the New York Times: August 21, 2005 GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 3:52 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago. Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq. Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing. ''We should start figuring out how we get out of there,'' Hagel said on ''This Week'' on ABC. ''But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.'' Hagel said ''stay the course'' is not a policy. ''By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning,'' he said. President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home. Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war. In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week. Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis. ''I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq,'' said Allen, also on ABC. ''The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt.'' Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today. ''We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,'' Hagel said. ''The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have.'' Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing. ''What I think the White House does not yet understand -- and some of my colleagues -- the dam has broke on this policy,'' Hagel said. ''The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together.'' The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well over 100,000 -- for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient. ''The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution,'' Graham said on ''Fox News Sunday. Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as ''complete folly.'' ''I don't know where he's going to get these troops,'' Hagel said. ''There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years.'' Hagel added: ''It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out.'' Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has ''a way to go'' before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's ''Meet the Press.'' ''I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more,'' Lott said, by telling people ''why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time.'' http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html Keep D&D Civil!!
the more you post, the more i'm convinced your moniker should be changed to Batman Macbeth. defensive, self-rightous, must-have-the-last-word, and constantly engaged in pointless bbs smackdowns...it's uncanny- did you date a p*rn star too?
I missed senator hagel's sheehan reference- perhaps you could bold it for me? man has a right to his opinion- to me, he seems to have learned the wrong lessons from his time in vietnam. also, he's running for president, so he's looking for ways to distinguish himself in what will be a wide open republican race in 2008.
let me amend my comment above about my opprobrium for those exploiting cindy sheehan to include those posters here who indulge in gratuitous ultimatums, and shamelessly trumpet their own defeatism while claiming to "support the troops." ~basso Oh, I was responding to your own post, basso, as you know very well. I think bolding what stands out, at least to me, in an article or column helps those scanning a thread to see if it's worth reading. It can help me, on occasion, although I tend to either read the whole damn thing or skip it if it's a bazillion words. Keep D&D Civil!!
Here you go: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said yesterday that Bush would have been smarter to see Sheehan. "I do know that he met with her and other families prior, but I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her into the ranch," Hagel said on CNN. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801644_pf.html
With the possible exception of giddyup, you are the weirdest dude on the board. Bar none. I mean, you outpace ROXRAN without breaking a sweat -- a neat trick even for an effete Francophile like yourself. Are you trying to accuse me of exaggerating stories of my personal life now into the bargain? Or is this just clumsy, throw anything at the wall and see what sticks style Swift Boating? In other words, apart from opposing the war, I have about as much in common with MacBeth as Saddam does with 9/11. Oh, wait a minute... Now I get it... See, that's the intellectual dishonesty. As for the defensive, self-righteous, last word, pointless BBS smackdown stuff, I agree with every bit of it in your case. And, in your case, every single bit of it goes to the day you called me and other Democrats lovers of abortion, lovers of terrorists and Saddam, haters of the troops and America (for nothing but opposing this president and his elective war) and said we wanted US troops to die. You're ******* right I'm defensive and self-righteous about that patently offensive, outright slander. You're ******* right I'm going to have the last word about it and you're ******* right I'm going to engage in smackdowns about it (pointless or not) until you man up and apologize, leave the board or stop making the same libelous accusations. Your disgustingly smirky "Liberals or terrorists " post in the other thread didn't help.
Hey basso, do me a favor and don't quote Batman Jones. It defeats the purpose of the ignore list. Thanks.
actually, i didn't know that, i thought you were suggesting senator hagel was among those exploiting cindy sheehan's tragedy, and i didn't catch a reference to that in the article. however, batman rich macbeth has now helpfully provided context, so i will comment: hagel seems like a decent enough guy, but i think he's wrong here. as you may have noticed, republicans and supporters of the war do not march in lockstep. I don't know why that should surprise anyone.
Gosh, you're right. That joke about how I love it when babies and American troops die was pretty funny now that I think about it. Guess I was just being uptight.
No, I saw it. And I responded in that same thread that there was nothing in my thread-starting post that I hadn't said before. It was ludicrous in the face of that for you make the accusations in the first place, you made them repeatedly and you continue to make them. I wouldn't be dredging the whole thing up if you didn't continue to do it all over the forum. The 'liberals or terrorists ' post was only one example. And, particularly given your steady slander of me and other liberals on this board, the smilie was about as effective as it is here: "Republicans or Nazis? ." The difference between you and me is that I wouldn't make that sort of statement ever, while you do it repeatedly, say "Cheerfully retracted" and then continue to make the same BS accusation. It's not that I lack a sense of humor. It's that it's not funny.
You are abosolutely right about Basso and others making those accusations time and time again. Basso makes them despite mine and others best efforts to show that a difference of opinion in our nations direction and actions doesn't equal not supporting the troops, loving terrorists, or wishing for more abortions. The only thing this repeated tactic from Basso and others leads me to believe is it is one of the only pieces they have in a very limited arsenal. If I had position that I could no longer defend with reasoned evidence, or support, and had to resort to demonizing the other side without any rational connection or basis in reality, I would seriously think about changing my position.
