Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Knock it off!
Topic Started: May 21 2004, 10:02 AM (885 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Intrepid2002
May 23 2004, 07:29 AM
doctortobe
May 23 2004, 04:49 AM
Back on topic, I think that it is unfair for one side to demand the other to stop the name calling unless they also promise to stop it.  As Wichita pointed out, while the right calls the left unpatriotic, the left calls the right Nazis.  Which is the more hurtful term?

No one form of name calling is more hurtful than the other but it doesn't stop at the level of name calling. A lot of times it is just plain old dirty politics. Case in point, Max Cleland. How on the face of this earth can a man like Max Cleland be deemed unpatriotic by the likes of republicans like Saxby Chambliss? :no: It just boggles my mind. If the same thing happened to John McCain, my head would still be shaking. Maybe MY bias is for the veteran and not moreso for a particular political party.

But I'm sure hundreds of other examples from the right can be presented as well.
Dirty politics. No one is safe.

So I'm not concerned with who hurts the most or who throws out the more hurtful statement. I just wish it would stop.

As IE would say, "Knock it Off".

Max Cleland was not called unpatriotic for his service, but for his actions in Congress. BIG difference. I'm sorry, Cleland doesn't get a free pass any more than Bob Dole would.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
I think Max Clealand was playing the Patriot Card and his rival showed his voting record.

Why is it some one can serve (say for seven months) call himself a vet and patriot and vote against things like spending on intelligence and the military?

I sense hypocracy from both sides of the aisle. Mostly due to the fact that the modern voter gets thier information from ten second sound bites. So instead of a intelligent diliberate debate over the issues at hand we get name calling, simplistic analysis and hateful discourse.

Problem is the modern politician, not statesmen, believes this is how it should be done. Heck I fully believe the Pelosi is a hateful Dem with no concept of whats at stake, other than a political office. Yes, I believe her to be petty and incompetent as a leader. But thewn I believe that some one needs to take the credit card from Bush. I thought it was the job of congress to spend money but Bush. Never met a appropriations bill he didn't like.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
May 22 2004, 09:08 PM
ImpulseEngine
May 21 2004, 05:34 PM
doctortobe
May 21 2004, 01:20 PM
To both sides of the spectrum, I can say only this.

Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot, you are blacker then a thousand midnights.

Both sides are guilty of rhetoric. Only one side is guilty of claims attacking people's patriotism and making accusations about aiding terrorists. THAT kind of rhetoric is inexcusable, counterproductive, and completely appalling.

Personal Response

Since I finally had a chance to hear all of Pelosi's comments today, I'm going have to revise my response.

I do not believe that those who question presidential decisions to be unpatriotic or aiding terrorists. However that isn't relevant here because Pelosi didn't question decisions or suggest alternatives.

She called the President stupid. Her comments were simply another version of the attacks during the campaign, in 2001, in 2002, and 2003 about the President's intellect. Further, I think that her suggestion that the mission could have been accomplished without loss of life or cost to the taxpayers calls into question her qualifications for judging the President's intelligence. (That is what she said.)

Do I think she owes the President an apology? No, but I do think that her use of the KIA in a highly partisan attack is appalling. If an apology is owed, its owed to the soldiers in the field and the families of those lost.

Yes, I know I am ranting - I'm done now. ;)

IE now for the reason I quoted your post ...

I will disagree with your assessment that only one party is calling the other unpatriotic. The Democrats may have better euphanisms, but several party leaders have done just that.

IMO:

When you say someone has betrayed their country, it's calling them unpatriotic.
And that is just one example.

Like I said before, BOTH sides need to knock it off because all of this crap is counterproductive.

End of Personal Response

I find it interesting that you so want to stick with Pelosi's exact words, yet last summer at ST.com when I brought up a lot of idiotic things Bush had said, I was raked over the coals for not being more sensitive concerning the president's difficulty with public speaking. It was demanded of me that I NOT take him literally and that I recognize he doesn't always say what he means.

But ok, since we're being literal with our interpretations of what people say, I don't see anywhere in your post or in the article I read that started this thread where Pelosi said Bush betrayed the country or where she called him "stupid".

I have already agreed that both sides are guilty of inappopriate rhetoric. By that, I mean things like when one side exaggerates the others side's position or one side misrepresents the other's views by discussing only the unfavorable portion of some aspect of those views.

But that isn't why I started this post. To say that someone is aiding the terrorists brings "rhetoric" to a whole new level because THAT "rhetoric" in an accusation on the lines of criminal conduct. Statements about lack of patriotism, while not quite on the same plane with aiding terrorists, still brings the rhetoric on a new level as well.

There is one more factor here that's relevant and that concerns the accuracy of the statements. If truly accurate, then they're not rhetoric at all, but statements of facts. However, I have not seen anything to substantiate the "truth" in these accusations so, for now, they appear to be nothing but rhetoric.

Now, back to your point about betraying the country. I don't agree that this equates to calling the president "unpatriotic" (since we're being literal), but I do agree that it's on the same level of inappropriateness with the statements I complained about in the start of this thread. So far, I haven't seen proof that Bush actually betrayed the country so, at present, this would remain for me in the classification of rhetoric. So prove to me that Pelosi said this, and I'll probably agree with you. So far, I haven't heard or read about this from her myself.

I have the same to say about the term "Nazi" being used. It would certainly be inappropriate, but then again I haven't heard this term used by public officials or anyone else in a position of influence (and that is who I'm talking about; the average Joe Schmo is not who I'm talking about).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
May 24 2004, 03:18 PM
I find it interesting that you so want to stick with Pelosi's exact words, yet last summer at ST.com when I brought up a lot of idiotic things Bush had said, I was raked over the coals for not being more sensitive concerning the president's difficulty with public speaking.  It was demanded of me that I NOT take him literally and that I recognize he doesn't always say what he means.

Personal Response

I'm going to have to take your word for that one. Personally I remember saying that a problem speaking doesn't equate with being stupid, but, hey, who knows. :shrug: I've stopped referring to those posts since someone pointed out to me that opinions can change.

Quote:
 
But ok, since we're being literal with our interpretations of what people say, I don't see anywhere in your post or in the article I read that started this thread where Pelosi said Bush betrayed the country or where she called him "stupid".


I never said that Pelosi said Bush betrayed this country. I was referring specifically to Al Gore and Howard Dean, but, if you look over some of the failed Democratic candidate speeches, I'm sure you could find more.

As to her remarks:

On 5/21, Minority Leader Pelosi said this:
"I believe that the president's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, and experience," Pelosi told reporters gathered to hear her remarks.

"This president should have known ... when you decide to go to war you have to know what the consequences of your action are and how you can accomplish the mission," Pelosi said.

The House Democratic leader added, "There was plenty of intelligence to say there would be chaos in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad."

"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon."

"Not to get personal about it, but the president's capacity to lead has never been there," Pelosi said.

"In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none," she added.


Source

As I said, better euphanisms....

Quote:
 
Now, back to your point about betraying the country.  I don't agree that this equates to calling the president "unpatriotic" (since we're being literal), but I do agree that it's on the same level of inappropriateness with the statements I complained about in the start of this thread.


So we have different dictionaries ... :shrug:

Quote:
 
I have the same to say about the term "Nazi" being used.  It would certainly be inappropriate, but then again I haven't heard this term used by public officials or anyone else in a position of influence (and that is who I'm talking about; the average Joe Schmo is not who I'm talking about).


Here I will have to apologize. I was under the impression that it bothered you when other posters called people who questioned the war unpatriotic. (I have have to correct my previous comment because there are certainly members of the right who have questioned it as well.)

End of Personal Comments
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Quote:
 
"I believe that the president's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, and experience," Pelosi told reporters gathered to hear her remarks.

"This president should have known ... when you decide to go to war you have to know what the consequences of your action are and how you can accomplish the mission," Pelosi said.

The House Democratic leader added, "There was plenty of intelligence to say there would be chaos in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad."

"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon."

"Not to get personal about it, but the president's capacity to lead has never been there," Pelosi said.

"In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none," she added.


I can't see what's so offensive about the above statements. Seems to me Pelosi was making a fair and reasonable set of assessments of Bush Jr's performance.
I would rate it - if some asked me to do a performance review on him is Marginal and I've done a few performance reviews in my time.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2004, 07:27 PM


Speaking of doing better, I expected more from you than that www.johnkerry.com comment. I've been to his site numerous times and between bouts of hysterical laughter and too much head scratching I've come to the conclusion that Kerry keeps a moistened finger up to figure out which way the wind blows.

I need more practice being sarcastic. :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I, too, have been to John Kerry's website. I wrote a bunch of stuff on here a few months ago about it. Anyway, it could be used a training material for hopeful new politicians who need to learn how to not say anything in 500 pages or more. No where in any of the stuff I read (and I spent a lot of time reading his site) did I see him take anything resembling a stance on an issue. It was all double-speak try to ride both sides of the fence BS like his here Clinton always did.

To quote a word that is currently all the rage: It was a pantload.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^^
From what I remember, it's quite similar to the lack of stance on Bush's website in 2000. :yes: Just a lot of what he intended to do and very little about how.

Kerry's website is nothing unusual. Those who dislike him will criticize it because they dislike him, but then they'd criticize it if everything was spelled out in specific details too.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
May 24 2004, 10:12 AM
I can't see what's so offensive about the above statements. Seems to me Pelosi was making a fair and reasonable set of assessments of Bush Jr's performance.
I would rate it - if some asked me to do a performance review on him is Marginal and I've done a few performance reviews in my time.

Why, because she agrees with you, Sparky?

By the way, is there anything you haven't done? Geez...

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus