| 0 |
Subject: General Betray Us
Posted by: Pancho Villa
- [47161721] Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 11:57
I;m suprised there's been no comment on MoveOn.org's full page ad in the NY Times
I find this ad to be offensive and repulsive, and predict it will have long-term negative effects on the Democratic party's chances in 2008, not only in the Presidential race, but the Congressional as well.
It is an incredible miscalculation that serves no purpose other than to give ammunition to the right that liberals are incapable of supporting the US military. The American people will accept insults about lots of politicians(Cheney comes to mind), but to insult a military commander, especially at a time when he is in the process of some modicum of success on the battlefield, reeks of partisanship beyond debating the pros and cons of the Iraq conflict.
Democratic presidential hopefuls would be wise to condemn the ad immediately.
|
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 103 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:05
|
Yeah. Show me where "liberals" say that.
I doubt any the Liberals here have work with an all Mexican crew.
Such judgements highlight your ignorance (as if they're necessary). In the mid 90s I lived in SC where I worked in a yarn mill. All but one of the employees who held the same position as me were Mexican immigrants. No idea what their status were but none of them spoke English.
When I moved back to NY I took a job waiting tables. Often I needed extra cash when there were no wait shifts available I had no problem filling in as a dishwasher.
Ass.
|
| 104 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:13
|
I did mean deviants and yes many are hard workers, but many are thieves. Liberals refuse to address the criminal factor because they are a minority. This is one reason Liberals should not be setting governmental policy, because of political correctness, they refuse to deal with the entire scope of problems and this covers every aspect of government.
|
| 105 | biliruben
ID: 17502215
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:17
|
Many Republicans are thieves as well.
Would you rather lose your TV or your future?
|
| 106 | Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:19
|
"Many?"
I think if you had any real interaction with actual liberals you'd be very, very surprised. As it is, you have interactions only in your mind, with scarecrow "liberals."
Maybe that's the only way you can win political arguments, but it doesn't bolster your points to continue to mischaracterize the arguments of your political opponents. It makes us believe you lack the ability to deal with their real arguments.
|
| 107 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:23
|
Jag is apparently, blinded by his own hatred(s).
|
| 108 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:01
|
How about the 2nd generations from illegals? Look at their crime rate %. And to make matters worse, Liberals attack businesses hiring illegals, forcing them to resort to crime and drugs and their offspring even moreso, then they want to put them on welfare to put us further in debt, not to mention the lost of manpower, education and healthcare costs. There is no rational arguement for such abhorent policy, you could not come up with worse ideas if you were intentually trying to screw the country up. Dangerous does not even begin to describe such policy.
And for the last time... Quit trying to take credit for Newt's contract with America, the only bill Clinton got passed was gays in the military and I don't think that had any affect on the economy.
|
| 109 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:05
|
Thanks Sarge for taking the time to write out response. I like your idea of simpler income tax system and your correct about small business there are allot of them out there just like you described, though there are many others that are not. i do wonder how getting rid of deductions would effect things like chartable giving and eduction spending would be affected for this. i guess you could extend your simple income tax by allowing you fill out a charity form that says i want these organizations to get a certain % of my tax money and if i want to donate more i can cut a check for more and the government can then send them a check. i mean it sounds a little messy but with a little computer programming it would be practically time less and easily editable.
|
| 110 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:13
|
Jag is apparently, blinded by his own hatred(s).
Liberal's atomic bomb and reason we have so many racial problems today, you can't have an intelligent arguement with a Liberal and not be perfectly political correct without them dropping the bomb. Here is a big one for you Sarge, many of the problems blacks are suffering from today are from their own doing. How dare I not blame everything on whitey, oh what a racist I am. Self-responsibility, a word foreign to Liberals, to quote a great lefty, google it.
|
| 111 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:18
|
re 109...If the only reason you are giving to charity, is for the tax deduction? I'd suggest you're not a charitable person at all, and are doing so for appearances sake only. I REALLY dont think there would be a significant drop. (Part of my reasoning, is observation from when I was in Lions Club many years ago. We had an annual "Pancake Breakfast" fund raiser. When we sold tickets for something like $7 ea for "all you can eat", we did OK. When we dropped the tickets and placed a "donations" basket at the front door, and charged ZILCH...we made out like bandits! Revenue increased by better than 60%.) People who give, give from the heart. People who dont, wont regardless of outside stimuli.
re 110....not worthy of anything further in the way of response.
|
| 112 | Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:50
|
People who give, give from the heart. People who dont, wont regardless of outside stimuli.
This isn't true at all, sarge. The very wealthy give a ton of money to charity, and often have no income tax as a partial result. Many charitable organizations simply wouldn't exist without the charitable write-off, particularly since many people (not a majority, but many nevertheless) have their charitable deductions matched by their employers.
The United Way, the Negro College Fund, and so on would only exist as more efficient charitable organizations because of tax writeoffs.
|
| 113 | Tree
ID: 408272719
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 20:35
|
I doubt any the Liberals here have work with an all Mexican crew.
well, aside from MITH...and myself, who has worked with mostly-Mexican crews in construction, kitchen, and bars.
How about the 2nd generations from illegals? Look at their crime rate %.
ok. i will. show me please.
|
| 114 | Seattle Zen
ID: 86541617
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 22:29
|
Quit feeding the troll!
|
| 115 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 00:12
|
I wouldn't expect someone from Seattle to comment intelligently on racial problems. 7 out of 10 black family homes are fatherless, the dropout rate and crime rate skyrockets with children in single family homes, but just like the Libs won't acknowledge the NYT leans to left, you will never admit the core reason for the disppropriate amount of black crime, which hurts both the black victims and the assailants. Another reason why Liberals are so dangerous, they impede any hope for better race relations.
|
| 116 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 08:48
|
Who denies that inadequite parental involvement is a major contributer to crime rates in poor neighborhoods?
Of course the trend in fatherless families is one of the primary reasons for this. No liberals I'm aware of. Once again your impression of what "liberals" think doesn't match reality.
I should note that very stupid rightists such as yourself frequently fail to acknowledge another primary reason - that poor households require two or more incomes to provide for their families, so many two-parent families in poor neighborhoods face the same issue. To admit this would mean to defy the right's touting of the current employment rate, forcing y'all to acknowledge that newly created jobs at WalMart don't adequately replace the manufacturing jobs we lose every year. And you can't have that, can you?
Claiming the "core reason" for the crime rate in poor areas is black dead-beat-dads is the perfect shield to keep you from acknowledging any other factors which might force you to reconsider the "everything's fine" economic mantra you're trained to tout. It allows you to bash liberals with the "politically correct" label as you happily watch the class and wealth gap continue to widen.
|
| 117 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 10:24
|
Manufactoring jobs are products of big business, yet I have never heard one comment by a Liberal on this forum, that would directly or indirectly help increase manufactoring jobs, in fact you would think big business was worse than Al Queda, according to some of the more Lefty posters.
|
| 118 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 10:40
|
SOME big business is every bit as dangerous as Al Qeada. Just a different kind of danger. A slower, more sinister, more subtle danger. (Slow that is, until their acrobatic accounting catches upto them. Do you recall Ken Lay by chance Jag???)
Others in the arena of "big business", are virtual model companies, upholding their end of the bargain to the local populace. Principal Financial Group for ex in Des Moines, IA...is an OUTSTANDING employer. Active in bettering the local community, paying highly competitive wages which allow its workforce to invest, enjoy the rewards of the efforts etc etc.
Difference Jag between you and I for ex? You ALWAYS maintain the old "right is right and left is wrong" mantra. On occassion, I'll admit the left to be wrong vs maintaining that it never is.
Simple truth...neither side, is ALWAYS right and thus neither side, is ALWAYS wrong. Until you accept that...you will continue to be what SZ said in post 114....a troll.
|
| 119 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:04
|
You are half right, Sarge. The Right is not always right, Bush can be an idiot, but the Left is always wrong.
|
| 120 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:10
|
How can the left be so wrong when it's been the right that has screwed up this country the past 8 years? As PD said, you are projecting (Freud). I mean, the left has had no power, but you harp on how wrong they are. That's just illogical. And, you know that it's not as clean as you'd like it be in your wanna be Hannity shock-provacateur style. Hannity is probably a left leaning liberal himself. And maybe you are, too. Whatever you are, or wanna be, your team is like finishing up a tampa bay 60-100 season and yet you point to some other mediocre team that has basically been on the sidelines and say they are worse. Whatever it takes to rationalize the extreme dissonance you must feel for supporting a bunch of losers. Forget about the left, and or the left's policies for a moment, and think of current events...these current events are not good. And for the future, whomever who gets elected, they aint really set up for success now are they? Bush and his republican backed policies will take a long time to be corrected. You can deflect all you want, but that stuff flies better on Fox TV where there are few opportunities to call out the idiocy. Here, or elsewhere on the net, you are more hard-pressed. Enjoy.
|
| 121 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:10
|
Sarge, what year did you admit the Left was wrong, I would like to check that out.
|
| 122 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:45
|
the Left is always wrong
LOL. Some moderate.
|
| 123 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:50
|
One Strong Ad
|
| 124 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:59
|
I have never heard one comment by a Liberal on this forum, that would directly or indirectly help increase manufactoring jobs
Is that a rightist trashing the left for failing to come up with a government solution to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs?
Anyway, how much more easily would American companies find themselves able to employ American workers at a decent wage if modern executives weren't paid like pro athletes? Much has been made in this forum of the exponentially increasing disparity between worker pay and executive salaries and benefits. But you'll never hear anyone on the right complain, even as the GOP hands out enormous sums to large companies in the form of corporate welfare.
Here's a suggestion: how about making those government bailouts dependant on huge salary cuts to executive level employees? Is that any more intrusive than demanding that single moms on welfare forego their responsibilities to their children and go out and work?
|
| 125 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 12:04
|
Sarge, what year did you admit the Left was wrong
Sarge has a long history of siding with the right on a myriad of issues.
Meanwhile, Jag explains that he doesn't support social security, National Parks, civil rights, women's rights, welfare reform, better armor for troops, dividing homeland security funds according to terrorist risks, etc.
|
| 126 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 12:10
|
Back on topic, American Conservative calls Patraeus a "sycophant". Shall we expect a GOP-proposed Senate hearing to condemn them now?
Hat tip: Daily Dish.
|
| 127 | Perm Dude
ID: 14851288
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 14:25
|
General Casey requests public meeting with Congress to talk about "broken Army."
This guy, who is no liberal by any stretch, is doing heroic work here on the homefront by speaking the truth about what the Iraqi War is doing to the safety and security of our country. We've made it so that we can no longer respond effectively to threats, because we're to busy in Iraq.
|
| 128 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 14:35
|
Obviously both of the two above state in far superior verbiage, what I was trying to say earlier re my impressions of Gen Patraeus and why I felt no qualms with the Betray-Us ad run by moveon.org. They are saying what I tried to, but couldnt apparently find the right words...
The US military IS...broken.
Gen Patraeus has been toeing a political vs military line; in that he has tried to appease the politicians, not properly utilize the requisite military forces. (and he apparently hasnt informed Washington, that we dont HAVE sufficient military forces at our disposal. ie, we cannot field sufficient personnel, and we cannot rotate sufficient numbers, to maintain combat effectiveness.)
Gen Casey, I see as doing his patriotic duty to the military. SOunding the alarm, which so clearly and desperately needs to be heard. Gen Patraeus OTH, I see as being the stereo-typical Washington "Yes man", which we have had FAR too many of over the past several years.
|
| 129 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 15:14
|
So because Patraeus doesn't say what you want, he is traitor. I really believe Liberals want us to fail in Iraq and the economy to crumble to further there own agenda.
|
| 130 | Perm Dude
ID: 14851288
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 15:17
|
Sarge never says Patraeus is a traitor.
|
| 131 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 15:18
|
We ARE failing in Iraq. And to even suggest that I or others WANT for us to fail, is asinine to an extent I cant even begin to describe. Failure there, means the deaths of more and more US soldiers. THAT, is the last thing I want. (Yep, I'd even favor another term of shrub if it meant fewer deaths.) You continue, and continue and continue...to regurgitate the same meaningless crap, that AC does. to make a living passing as a journalist.
You're blind...
you're ignorant of the truth..
and you're blissful because of it.
|
| 132 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 16:47
|
Well, I really believe the neocons want us to fail in Iraq to further their agenda, so there, you idiot!
Why are we not succeeding in Iraq? Too few soldiers from the outset, dismantling the Iraqi army at the outset, and no plan to stabilize the country and provide an infrastructure. The cynic could argue this was all done intentionally, and continues to be "just enough to maintain forces," so that we have to stay in Iraq so that we have permanent bases and much more control or potential to control the oil. Is that the kinda argument you want to have? Goes both ways, except it's YOUR team in power calling the shots and YOUR conservatives who are making the policies. All the liberals can do (and are doing, thanks to the lame Dems) is whine and suggest solutions, but they are not implementing them. At least complain about something freakin observable and tangible done in the last 4 years.
|
| 133 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 16:57
|
So because Patraeus doesn't say what you want, he is traitor. I really believe Liberals want us to fail in Iraq and the economy to crumble to further there own agenda.
Am I alone, or does Jags comment appear as though there is an observation-conclusion, except that there appears to be a vast disconnect between the stated observation and the resulting conclusion? IOW, even if we concede that his first statement were accurate (a concession I am not making FTR), how does that lead us to the conclusion given in the second statement?????????
|
| 134 | walk
ID: 2530286
Sun, Sep 30, 2007, 09:45
|
Thomas Friedman, Sept 30
Not sure where to put this, but thought it was worthy of inclusion somewhere...
|
| 135 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 03:35
|
Fred Thompson re: the current media/Limbaugh imbroglio.Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive? I have always liked the way this guy cuts to the heart of the matter.
|
| 136 | CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 05:04
|
Baldwin
The heart of the matter is the war in Iraq and how poorly/well it is going, if it is worth sustaining the effort, what "success" would mean at this stage and if it is even possible. Republicans have already changed the topic from the war in Iraq to how people talk about the war in Iraq (is it OK to attack Gen. Patraeus is already a change in topic to the question of is his report accurate - which it isn't in many ways - and where do we go from here).
Fred Thompson's line is completely irrelevant to the major issue. But Thompson does drive a red pickup truck (at least from where his limo dropped him off) so you can pledge him your support.
|
| 137 | walk
ID: 2530286
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 06:14
|
Well, Thompson is also claiming that Saddam had WMD and so we were justified in starting the war -- and as proof points to the gassing of the Kurds, 15 years ago. Maybe this is the heart of the matter to him, but I think that'd be more like the appendix or benign cyst of the matter.
|
| 138 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 08:13
|
The heart of that matter is that Democrats in Congress are tyring to divert attention from insults and are pandering to the far left?
Its not that the process of condemning free speech - whoever the speaker is - is an embarrassing and absurd waste of time in Congress?
You really think Congress was doing good work with the condemnation of MoveOn? Was the lack of motions to condemn free speech on the left the reason that their approval ratings have been so poor?
Yeah, he's a real straight shooter, getting right to the heart of the matter.
|
| 139 | J-Bar
ID: 23913411
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:06
|
hey have you seen the new full page ad by moven.orq
***picture of Barack Obama***
caption reads
VOTE for Barack Obama
or is that Balack Osama
or something like that.
|
| 140 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:11
|
^ thats even beneath JAG. (not much, but it is.)
|
| 141 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 19:44
|
Sarge are you saying that the above ad would not be ok? Freedom of speech and all.
|
| 142 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 22:02
|
Worthy of a Senatorial condemnation? Please. That's what you want the country's most powerful legislative body spending its time on?
|
| 143 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 22:41
|
not at all
is that what you got from it lmao
|
| 144 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 23:33
|
My apologies for assuming you were taking part in the currrent discussion. I wasn't sure at first but your reference to free seech in 141 seemed to confirm that it and 139 were reactions to 138.
If they weren't, what in the world is your point? That it's not nice to say mean things?
|
| 145 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 08:09
|
yes, its's not nice to say mean things. but my response was not directly aimed at 138 it was just to point out that a letter here or there and the person involved in the ad can make alot of difference to some so called proponents of free speech.
i agree a complete waste of time for this, rush limbaugh, and just about 90% of the "issues" that our congress, administration, and media feel are important to us.
|
| 146 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 08:55
|
letter here or there and the person involved in the ad can make alot of difference to some so called proponents of free speech
Not me. The General Betray Us ad and your "Balack Osama" bit, whether it comes from you or Move On are both inappropriate. Don't know exacly what Limbaugh said or under what context it was so I can't comment on whether it was also inappropriate (as if Limbaugh is any stranger to inappropriate comments, regardless) but all 3 are clearly free speech and of course none are worth more than a brief moment of Congress' time.
J-Bar, since you apparently haven't specifically commented on it (you referred only to the movement to condemn Limbaugh) I'm curious about your opinion of Congress' condemnation of MoveOn.
|
| 147 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:14
|
I find the condemnations silly and Reid about as disingenuous a politician as you can get. I saw the conversation, when Rush made the "phony soldiers" comment it seemed a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran and as the phone conversation went on, Rush said he was talking about MacBeth but Dems like to point out, it took a minute and 50 seconds to clarify, with the flow of a radio show and giving the callers time to speak, this seems reasonable. I am not a Rush fan, but this is clearly a retaliatory attack by the Democrats in light of the Patraeus fiasco.
|
| 148 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:43
|
Another way you can tell Rush was talking about MacBeth and not soldiers opposed to the war is he says so. Rush has never hid his feelings on any subject or tried to be politically correct.
|
| 149 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:46
|
Rush has never hid his feelings on any subject...
On the contrary. Are you aware of why he got fired from the KC radio station his Dad either ran or owned? (Sorry, but memory fades and I cant recall if his Father was the owner or just the General Manager.)
|
| 150 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:52
|
Agreed, which is the second reason for why post 135 and the quote within it are silly. I really don't know why Baldwin and others on the right are always so quick to resort to a claim the left is engaging in "diversionary" tactics.
Not that the type of retaliation that we agree occurred is any better than the diversion that he and Thompson claim, of course. But the notion of creating a diversion (as if to suggest GOP-led condemnation of MoveOn had accomplished anything) is just silly (not to mention praising Thompson cutting to the heart of the matter).
That said, I haven't paid much attention to all this so I could be wrong but I do suspect that some Democrats may have seen the Limbaugh condemnation as more of an opportunity to display the general silliness of these motions, which of couse would be an entirely counter-productive measure, anyway.
|
| 151 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:53
|
150 responds to 147.
|
| 152 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 14:28
|
Mith the "this" in my sentence referred to the topic of the thread sorry I was not more clear
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|