To My Liberal Friends

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philip P:
It shouldn’t matter whether a Republican or Democrat or other makes the point.
But it does matter. External criticism is more difficult to swallow, especially from quarters where self-examination is long overdue. :whistle: “B’fore you 'cuse me…take a look at yorself…”
Philip P:
It’s only a partisan issue in so far as that the president is commander-in-chief, and so has final responsiblity over the actions of the miltary. I expect him to put an end to prisoner abuse not because he’s a Republican, but because he’s the president. Being against abortion does not give him license to violate other moral imperatives, nor excuse him from failing to fulfill his responsibilities.
No arguement there.
 
**Philip P:**Durbin should have been more careful - it’s generally best to avoid mentioning Nazi unless you are literally talking about Nazis. However, more important than his rhetorical slip-up is the substance of the accusation. Are we mistreating prisoners, and if so how do we remedy this situation?
**Miguel:**I don’t disagree. But you must understand that when a conservative hears a liberal talking that way, the words sound hollow. Equal protection under the law must apply to the unborn as well. And this is a beam issue for Democrats.
Philip P:It shouldn’t matter whether a Republican or Democrat or other makes the point.
**Miguel:**But it does matter. External criticism is more difficult to swallow, especially from quarters where self-examination is long overdue. :whistle: “B’fore you 'cuse me…take a look at yorself…”
Well then it seems that we agree that mistreatment of prisoners is wrong and should not be tolerated, and our disagreement comes from how the issue is raised and framed. So then the question is how do we talk about this in a way that doesn’t degenerate into partisan wrangling? How would you as a conservative frame the issue?
 
Philip P:
Well then it seems that we agree that mistreatment of prisoners is wrong and should not be tolerated, and our disagreement comes from how the issue is raised and framed. So then the question is how do we talk about this in a way that doesn’t degenerate into partisan wrangling? How would you as a conservative frame the issue?
1: Demand that any/all American personnel (keeping in mind my personal belief there really hasn’t been any torture to speak of–I’ve seen drunk plebes treated worse at frat parties than the folks at AbuGhraib & in America, that’s known as hazing, not torture) accused of torture be investigated and if probable cause is found, have there case adjudicated in the proper court.
  1. Accept the reality there are a few bad eggs in every basket and this includes the military. Some are going to behave in an unprofessional manner and when they do, see #1.
  2. Discuss the issue all you want, but do so in a way that never has a chance to affect the morale of the troops in the field. Durbin and Co forgot this recently and they should be ashamed. If someone in the Congress wishes to raise the issue, do so in a secure setting as they do with intelligence briefings and such. Issues of national security, including investigations are done and have been done this way for years.
And when we do discuss this issue publically, always do so in a manner that respects the morale of the troops in the field FIRST! They and their familes deserve nothing less.

Finally, cease using all inaccurate and historical comparisons between Bush and the Nazi’s unless a valid instance/event that warrants such a comparison actually appears. The term nazi has been misused so often the left and the MSM are going to soon make the term meaningless–which IMO is more dangerous than they seem to know.

That’s a portion of what I would suggest. I have to fix lunch now:)
 
thestickman said:
1: Demand that any/all American personnel (keeping in mind my personal belief there really hasn’t been any torture to speak of–I’ve seen drunk plebes treated worse at frat parties than the folks at AbuGhraib & in America, that’s known as hazing, not torture) accused of torture be investigated and if probable cause is found, have there case adjudicated in the proper court.
  1. Accept the reality there are a few bad eggs in every basket and this includes the military. Some are going to behave in an unprofessional manner and when they do, see #1.
  2. Discuss the issue all you want, but do so in a way that never has a chance to affect the morale of the troops in the field. Durbin and Co forgot this recently and they should be ashamed. If someone in the Congress wishes to raise the issue, do so in a secure setting as they do with intelligence briefings and such. Issues of national security, including investigations are done and have been done this way for years.
And when we do discuss this issue publically, always do so in a manner that respects the morale of the troops in the field FIRST! They and their familes deserve nothing less.

Finally, cease using all inaccurate and historical comparisons between Bush and the Nazi’s unless a valid instance/event that warrants such a comparison actually appears. The term nazi has been misused so often the left and the MSM are going to soon make the term meaningless–which IMO is more dangerous than they seem to know.

That’s a portion of what I would suggest. I have to fix lunch now:)

Wow, that was great! The sad thing is the left will not subscribe to this, as that will not tear down Bush publically. Tearing Bush down seems to be their first priority. Righting the perceived wrongs is secondary.
 
40.png
thestickman:
1: Demand that any/all American personnel (keeping in mind my personal belief there really hasn’t been any torture to speak of–I’ve seen drunk plebes treated worse at frat parties than the folks at AbuGhraib & in America, that’s known as hazing, not torture) accused of torture be investigated and if probable cause is found, have there case adjudicated in the proper court.
2. Accept the reality there are a few bad eggs in every basket and this includes the military. Some are going to behave in an unprofessional manner and when they do, see #1…
I don’t have much more to add to this, except that before we can seriously talk about torture, someone needs to produce the evidence. It’s very easy to sit around and condemn it. Convincing people that it exists, that it’s widespread and systematic, and the direct result of administration policy is another matter. BTW, my instinctive conservative mistrust of government keeps me from having blinders on here.
40.png
qmvsimp:
…Tearing Bush down seems to be their first priority. Righting the perceived wrongs is secondary.
I think this is a valid point. If they were seriously interested in prisoner abuse, they would be attacking things like homosexual rape in the prison system. But focusing on that doesn’t further anyone’s political objectives. (Besides, it might embarrass the gays.)
 
thestickman said:
1: Demand that any/all American personnel (keeping in mind my personal belief there really hasn’t been any torture to speak of–I’ve seen drunk plebes treated worse at frat parties than the folks at AbuGhraib & in America, that’s known as hazing, not torture) accused of torture be investigated and if probable cause is found, have there case adjudicated in the proper court.

Sounds very close to the sort of tactics used to justify slavery (oh, but they LIKE it, and we treat them well, and I’ve seen free men treated worse…) but whatever, I don’t feel like arguing this point now. I agree with the rest of it - full and open investigations scrupulously conducted according to the rule of law. I would also add that action should be swift - no foot dragging or stonewalling like we saw with Abu Ghraib. Delay just makes it look like there’s something to hide.
  1. Accept the reality there are a few bad eggs in every basket and this includes the military. Some are going to behave in an unprofessional manner and when they do, see #1.
Again, I agree, but it needs to be swift.
  1. Discuss the issue all you want, but do so in a way that never has a chance to affect the morale of the troops in the field. Durbin and Co forgot this recently and they should be ashamed. If someone in the Congress wishes to raise the issue, do so in a secure setting as they do with intelligence briefings and such. Issues of national security, including investigations are done and have been done this way for years.
And when we do discuss this issue publically, always do so in a manner that respects the morale of the troops in the field FIRST! They and their familes deserve nothing less.

Finally, cease using all inaccurate and historical comparisons between Bush and the Nazi’s unless a valid instance/event that warrants such a comparison actually appears. The term nazi has been misused so often the left and the MSM are going to soon make the term meaningless–which IMO is more dangerous than they seem to know.

That’s a portion of what I would suggest. I have to fix lunch now:)
A little more responsible rhetoric on both sides would be helpful. It’s absurd for Republicans to call Democrats traitors whenever they criticize the administration, and intoducing Nazis into debate is just, well, stupid. It never works or accomplishes anything of any value in conversation.

I would raise an issue with public discussion “in a manner that respects the morale of the troops.” This seems like a (dare I call it) code word for “never criticize President Bush.” Not supporting the war seems to be ipso facto not supporting the troops in the minds of many conservatives, which means that no criticism is ever allowed. That’s not workable. Maybe you’d like to provide a more specific description of what you mean by this?
 
Sounds very close to the sort of tactics used to justify slavery (oh, but they LIKE it, and we treat them well, and I’ve seen free men treated worse…) but whatever, I don’t feel like arguing this point now.
Hahahaha! That’s a funny one, for sure. Fallacious, but very funny. 😉
Philip P:
I would raise an issue with public discussion “in a manner that respects the morale of the troops.” This seems like a (dare I call it) code word for “never criticize President Bush.” Not supporting the war seems to be ipso facto not supporting the troops in the minds of many conservatives, which means that no criticism is ever allowed. That’s not workable. Maybe you’d like to provide a more specific description of what you mean by this?
LOL!! What a mess of spin. Time for you to answer a simple question. Do you want the troops to meet all their objectives in Iraq?

The leftist line about no criticism is ever allowed, IMO is one of the reasons the left continues to lose ground amoung the American electorate; they want to whine about everything Bush does but they don’t ever wish to be held responsible for it.

If you personally want to complain about Bush, the war, whatever–have at it. If you’re a member of Congress and want to complain about the way Bush is running the war in Iraq, do so in closed session. Like I said earlier, Congress has does this regarding national security issues for decades. Again, our troops in the field and their families deserve nothing less.
 
Philip P:
…full and open investigations scrupulously conducted according to the rule of law. I would also add that action should be swift - no foot dragging or stonewalling like we saw with Abu Ghraib. Delay just makes it look like there’s something to hide.
What exactly do you mean by full and open? What should these investigations include?
Philip P:
…and intoducing Nazis into debate is just, well, stupid. It never works or accomplishes anything of any value in conversation.
I wouldn’t go that far. Sometimes bringing up the lessons of history is warranted, especially when accurate comparisons can be drawn, like numbers of murdered, etc. Personally, I reserve the right to compare the Supreme Court’s de-humanization of the unborn with the Nazis de-humanization of Jews. In both cases, the door was opened to mass slaughter. Democrats (and some Republicans) may not like to hear that. But it is absolutely accurate.
Philip P:
…Not supporting the war seems to be ipso facto not supporting the troops in the minds of many conservatives, which means that no criticism is ever allowed. That’s not workable…
I agree with you on this point. Along these lines, Sean Hannity was pigeon-holing as liberal, anyone who didn’t get on his Iraqi war bandwagon. As a conservative opposed to this war, I resented that. You can support the troops with strong defense budgets and by not putting them in harms way unless absolutely necessary. The hyping of WMDs that preceded this war raised red flags in my mind. Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo. And the fact that we’re now in a protracted guerilla war is not surprising either. What did they expect? When faced with overwhelming military superiority, guerilla war has proven time and again to be an effective resistance. But now that we’re in there, I hope we leave it better off than we found it. And the jury is still out on that one.
 
40.png
miguel:
As a conservative opposed to this war, I resented that. You can support the troops with strong defense budgets and by not putting them in harms way unless absolutely necessary. The hyping of WMDs that preceded this war raised red flags in my mind. Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo. And the fact that we’re now in a protracted guerilla war is not surprising either. What did they expect? When faced with overwhelming military superiority, guerilla has proven time and again to be an effective resistance. But now that we’re in there, I hope we leave it better off than we found it. And the jury is still out on that one.
Marvelous. I suspected that it wasn’t just us liberals who either opposed or had reservations about the war, but I presumed that strong peer pressure had prevented concerned conservatives from breaking ranks with the Administration. Thank you for your expressed opinion.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Marvelous. I suspected that it wasn’t just us liberals who either opposed or had reservations about the war, but I presumed that strong peer pressure had prevented concerned conservatives from breaking ranks with the Administration. Thank you for your expressed opinion.
You’re welcome. But don’t count on me breaking ranks in the voting booth. I vote against Democrats every chance I get. And I do that because of the baby killing.
 
40.png
miguel:
You’re welcome. But don’t count on me breaking ranks in the voting booth. I vote against Democrats every chance I get. And I do that because of the baby killing.
I would never do so. Your vote (and mine) are our votes, and we should be the only judges of those votes. If you find it impossible to vote for Democrats, I respect your decision.

What I don’t respect is the notion of anyone who presumes to demand that the electorate vote for a particular candidate for whatever reason.
 
40.png
Richardols:
I would never do so. Your vote (and mine) are our votes, and we should be the only judges of those votes. If you find it impossible to vote for Democrats, I respect your decision.

What I don’t respect is the notion of anyone who presumes to demand that the electorate vote for a particular candidate for whatever reason.
Hey, you have to justify your decision to vote for these people to God, not me. Good luck.
 
40.png
miguel:
Hey, you have to justify your decision to vote for these people to God, not me. Good luck.
Something we each must do when we vote for any candidate, to be sure.
 
Can Catholics in good conscience vote for higher OR lower taxes?? YES

Can Catholics in good conscience vote for government regulation OR government deregulation?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote in favor OR against capital punishment?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote in favor OR against military action for national security reasons?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote in favor of public sector initiatives OR private sector initiatives to better society?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote pro-life OR pro-abort???

NO.
 
40.png
jlw:
Can Catholics in good conscience vote for higher OR lower taxes?? YES

Can Catholics in good conscience vote for government regulation OR government deregulation?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote in favor OR against capital punishment?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote in favor OR against military action for national security reasons?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote in favor of public sector initiatives OR private sector initiatives to better society?? YES.

Can Catholics in good conscience vote pro-life OR pro-abort???

NO.
Amen! People who equate negotiable issues with non-negotiable issues are just trying to justify their anti-Catholic vote.

That’s what the CA Voter’s Guide was all about - instructing Catholics on how to make a moral choice in the voter’s booth.
 
Philip P:
It’s absurd for Republicans to call Democrats traitors whenever they criticize the administration, and intoducing Nazis into debate is just, well, stupid.
Please give me any quote from a Republican politician where they referred to a Democrat (or Democrats) as traiters for criticizing the administration.

If you can’t find one, please rephrase your comment so we can understand what you really mean.
 
40.png
jlw:
From www.wizbangblog.com

(re: Dems reply to Rove)

You know guys, sometimes life really is simple.

When Dick Durbin called our soldiers Nazis, Harry Reid supported him. Reid only found his misplaced sense of outrage when Rove called Dems whims.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi says we should stop this whole fighting the terrorists thing and instead focus on how we bad americans might have hurt those terrorists’ feelings. [Panties on the head and a stuck air conditioner ain’t abuse, get over it)

Dozens of Dems who didn’t mind our soldiers being called Nazis a few days ago are now outraged at Rove.

So you can blather all you want about how we really are worse than the Nazis and how panties on the head really is the same as killing 12 million people… You can blather all day long about how evil Bush and Rummy are…

But when you wake up after losing the next election and you wonder why you lost… Don’t worry about voter fraud… Don’t worry about suppressing the minority vote… Don’t worry about exit polls.

When you guys lose the next election --and make no mistake at the rate you are going, you will lose the next election-- when you wonder why you lost, remember this day.

This is why you will lose the next election. Until you guys figure out that protecting America is actually more important to the American people than protecting terrorists, we won’t trust you with the keys.

*It really is that simple
.

What Rove said? nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23rove.html?ei=5090&en=be050f4c6a1d0259&ex=1277179200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Hopefully, the American public will wake up to the horse hockey of this administration. Of course, with the MSM on the side of corporate interests, that probably isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

“The Sheep (including you) Look Up”
~John Brunner~

Peace (and God help you, you truly need it)
The Canon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top