Those of you who are single and childless can now stop discussing war and politics

[nbs2]

At least, Barbara Boxer (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070112-0041-us-iraq-oldandnew.html) seems to believe so.

Now, what would have happened if the administration had made that comment?

Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian. You would think that regardless of party there would be a level of decency that would not be crossed. I mean, aren't most recruits minority males? Does that mean that whites and women are not qualified to consider ramifications of war?

You know, a few months ago, I was beginning to think that the Democrats might bring some needed oversight to the administration. But with things like this? Screw that.

[zimv20]

it was a dumb thing for boxer to say, but i don't think it's fair to punish all the dems in the senate and house for that.

[After G]

I thought of that comment as being critical of the idea that "It's okay to have a war as long as you don't send my kid to Iraq."

You don't see President Bush's daughters becoming medics in the front line. It's a statement decrying half-baked support for the war, not dismissing rational discussion of the consequences. If the high-profile supporters of the war put their own resources into it, and not have everyone else paying the cost, you wouldn't hear this kind of statement.

It's one thing for Rice to visit the hospitals, it's another for her to see her own kid in a hospital. She doesn't have any to send to Iraq, so there's a dimension of the war she won't understand no matter how many families she visits.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I was thinking about this and I do believe that someone with Kids has a different look at things then someone who doesnt have children. I know my thoughts have changed after becoming a parent and look at things different now.

Though I havent read all her comments it seems to me putting our troops in the middle of this civil war and all the factions who are fighting in Iraq isnt much different then using them as targets for the bad guys. How does a U.S. trooper tell the difference between a good Iraqi? and a bad Iraqi?

Vietnam or Iraq whats the difference? we tried to save both countries by bombing the hell out of them. It doesnt work like that, someone please tell George. If only George & his Dick Cheney had served they may have learned the lessons of Nam.

If George had to put his two daughters on the front lines he would have thought harder on Iraq. Boxer has a point.

[skunk]

Does that mean that whites and women are not qualified to consider ramifications of war?Nowhere that I can see did anyone suggest that.

[Thomas Veil]

Boxer made it personal.

“I'm not going to pay a personal price,” she said. “My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Boxer talked about families losing loved ones and soldiers in hospital burn units. “These are the people who pay the price.”

Rice said evenly that she understands the sacrifice of service members and their families.

“I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom – “

Boxer cut her off. Aside from Boxer rudely interrupting Rice, I don't see a problem here.

[BoyBach]

I think that Boxer makes a very good point. The problem with the leadership of this 'War on Terror' is that no one in the Bush or Blair hierarchy has served in the military. Their war is what Hollywood and Fox News has shown it to be.

Don't forget that George W. Bush's Vietnam War was spent defending the Texas sky.

[clevin]

for Rice, i can be as mean as i can, she just like a puppy, other than defending prez, she didn't do anything. after 4 years of frustration, 4 years of lying with diplomatic words, 4 years of respectful disrespect, everybody get frustrated, listen to those bs for 4 years, what do you expect?

[mactastic]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Or in this case, nbs2. Are you going to boycott California now because one person from there said something that made you mad?

Please. If you're going to get all huffy about decorum on the Senate floor, whining about lines that shouldn't be crossed, well you can just go **** yourself. Right?

Besides, if you actually take Boxers comments in context, instead of buying the Limbaugh spin, you'll see that by your logic Boxer herself shouldn't be criticizing the war. She did say she's not going to pay a price too you know. Or did you miss that in your righteous righty zeal?

[takao]

i think our family photo-albums with the typical "didn't came back from war" photos from ww1&2 are enough to make up for me being single and childless

heck even the lifes of those who survived makes someone's opinion quite different about current events .. i guess i would think different if my grandfather wouldn't have been a POW in an american camp or if the brother from my grandmother literally got home on the last train from russia in 1955 13 years after he got drafted

my other grandfather made it back from Vietnam early enough before it went downhill, he was in the french foreign legion
any other fellow macrumor members who had legionaries in their family ? or prisoners of war ?

[zimv20]

any other fellow macrumor members who had legionaries in their family ? or prisoners of war ?
no, but my grandfather survived being surrounded by germans in bastogne.

[nbs2]

Nowhere that I can see did anyone suggest that.

My point was that if you believe that a person cannot appreciate or intelligently manage foreign policy (remember, she is the SecState, not SecDef) because they do not have children who will bear the consequences or a spouse why may outlive them, that is clearly absurd. In arguing that being a single non-parent, she is ill-qualified to address the war issue, suggests to me that you need to have an intimate association with the military. Since whites could never fully appreciate the needs/concerns of minorities and women could never fully appreciate the concerns of men, they are also ill-qualified to address the needs of today's military.

As for the concern that people's children are not serving in the military, when did parental control extend to children who are adults? To say that any administration of any party is taking action what they wouldn't take if their children were in the military is far too speculative. My parents didn't hold a gun to my head when I enrolled in an ROTC program. My parents didn't whip me when I was medically discharged with my bum knee. Adults make decisions for themselves.

zimv20 - As for my comment regarding Democratic oversight, I think you misunderstood my concern. I'm not blaming the entire party forevermore. It's just a really bad first impression - Iraq oversight is gearing up, and confrontation between the branches isn't going to solve anything. It's not going to solve anything and make progression even more confrontational. It's too bad so many people, on both sides of the aisle (I'm sure this even includes me at times), are more concerned with defending what you would have otherwise vilified rather than just acknowledging stupidity.

[BoyBach]

any other fellow macrumor members who had legionaries in their family ? or prisoners of war ?


My fathers uncle (apparently I 'take after him' because I'm the first in the family since him to be over 6' tall) was captured at Dunkirk. He was eventually released and when he got back home he died a few years later of a massive heart attack. He was in a bus on his way into town. I never met him.

Also, my mothers grandfather was a Nazi during the same war. Her father disowned him and left the country before marrying my nan. I never met him, either.

Maybe, my 'family' were shooting at each other during WWII?

[takao]

no, but my grandfather survived being surrounded by germans in bastogne.

congratulation on being here then

next time i'm at home i'll go and check how many times my existence had luck before 1930 ;)

[zimv20]

congratulation on being here then
actually, my dad had already been born. but i'm glad my grandpa made it back, at least i got to know him for a few years before he died.

i've been doing family research and discovered that, while in bastogne, he wasn't that far from where his mother was born, near saarbrucken. i wonder if he knew.

and just a couple months ago, i acquired two photos of my grandfather posing in the uniform of a captured SS officer -- kind of weird to see.

[takao]

actually, my dad had already been born. but i'm glad my grandpa made it back, at least i got to know him for a few years before he died.

mine married after the war, he wasn't that old after all in 1945 ... 19/20 afaik
and in his he was even more lucky because he survived a grenade injury where he was wounded at the neck and back of the head (some splinters couldn't be removed from the neck which followed him his whole life)

and just a couple months ago, i acquired two photos of my grandfather posing in the uniform of a captured SS officer -- kind of weird to see.

such stuff are always the most weird things ever .. like when we found a former uniform belt buckle with the swastika on the bottom of the eagle which have gotten removed with a file, in the attic of our house in one of the lockers filled with all different kinds rubbish normally located in attics

[skunk]

My point was that if you believe that a person cannot appreciate or intelligently manage foreign policy (remember, she is the SecState, not SecDef) because they do not have children who will bear the consequences or a spouse why may outlive them, that is clearly absurd. In arguing that being a single non-parent, she is ill-qualified to address the war issue, suggests to me that you need to have an intimate association with the military.You are entirely misrepresenting what she said.
Boxer made it personal.

“I'm not going to pay a personal price,” she said. “My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Boxer talked about families losing loved ones and soldiers in hospital burn units. “These are the people who pay the price.”She is saying that those who go to war on false pretences for the sake of political gain would be less gung-ho about it if going to war meant sending their own children into harm's way. Your Administration has been more reckless with others' lives than they would dream of being with their own. To read it as anything else betrays a partisan agenda on your part which does nothing to elucidate the issue, answer the charge or provide a solution. You will no doubt be a consummate party politician.

[zimv20]

he survived a grenade injury where he was wounded at the neck and back of the head
then congratulations on you being here!

like when we found a former uniform belt buckle with the swastika on the bottom of the eagle which have gotten removed with a file, in the attic of our house in one of the lockers filled with all different kinds rubbish normally located in attics
neat!

[Ugg]

My point was that if you believe that a person cannot appreciate or intelligently manage foreign policy (remember, she is the SecState, not SecDef) because they do not have children who will bear the consequences or a spouse why may outlive them, that is clearly absurd. In arguing that being a single non-parent, she is ill-qualified to address the war issue, suggests to me that you need to have an intimate association with the military.


I don't see how you equate "immediate family" with being chlldless. To me that would include nephews, nieces and cousins or relative by marriage.

What Boxer's statements make clear to me is that bushco has spent too much time and effort dehumanizing this war. No flag draped coffins, no presidential presence at funerals, no public apologies to the families who've lost children, husbands, wives, etc.

War is first and foremost about the people on the front lines and when they lose their lives. It's time that this illegal and immoral war end and the only way that's going to happen is if those who have lost family stand up and say enough is enough.

Once again, you're only interested in inflammatory statements and only too willing to ignore the substance behind the speech. Rice looks, talks and acts like an automaton, it's nice to see Boxer stand up and force her to defend the fact that she along with all the other neocons are directly responsible for thousands upons thousands of dead human beings. It's not surprising that Rice reacted like the cold fish she is.

[Ugg]

and just a couple months ago, i acquired two photos of my grandfather posing in the uniform of a captured SS officer -- kind of weird to see.

My grandmother passed away last year and I've been compiling a family history. Her cousin's stepson was an officer in the Wehrmacht. Mimi had sent a photo of him and his 4 year old daughter to my grandmother in 1942. He was wearing full dress uniform. Sort of weird that it had survived all these years. He was killed in 1944 so maybe that's why she kept it.

[Eraserhead]

I thought of that comment as being critical of the idea that "It's okay to have a war as long as you don't send my kid to Iraq."

From reading the article that is clearly what she is saying.

[After G]

From reading the article that is clearly what she is saying.Just wondering how nbs2 could take it the way he/she is.

I too want to see the war's end but I know it won't happen with Bush around and I am afraid of what will happen if we don't plan it properly.

[zimv20]

He was wearing full dress uniform. Sort of weird that it had survived all these years.
along w/ the photos, my grandmother gave me his dress uniform, campaign ribbons, notebooks, and some other stuff.

reserved for my dad or uncle is the SS sword confiscated from the SS officer.

[skunk]

Just wondering how nbs2 could take it the way he/she is.Me, I'm just wondering whether nbs2 is going to attempt to defend his point.

[Ugg]

Me, I'm just wondering whether nbs2 is going to attempt to defend his point.

Nah, he's just another cut and runner. (oops, I almost added an "n" to one of those words!)

[pseudobrit]

At least, Barbara Boxer (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070112-0041-us-iraq-oldandnew.html) seems to believe so.

I think you're presuming a little too much about Boxer's comment.
I'm single and childless and still have "immediate family" in Iraq.

Rice is also and does not. Boxer was using that fact to slap her around.

[obeygiant]

Why is everyone defending Boxer? That was a low blow and everyone knows it. Its like you guys are blindly defending the democratic party and not looking at what actually happend. That statement was unnecessary the same point could have been made in a more tactful way. Just like when Kerry made that comment about U.S. Soldiers and cost himself another presidential bid.

[pseudobrit]

Why is everyone defending Boxer? That was a low blow and everyone knows it.

So what?

Boxer hasn't ****ed up the country. Rice has.

[After G]

Why is everyone defending Boxer? That was a low blow and everyone knows it. Its like you guys are blindly defending the democratic party and not looking at what actually happend. That statement was unnecessary the same point could have been made in a more tactful way. Just like when Kerry made that comment about U.S. Soldiers and cost himself another presidential bid.Should we be more worried about tact or about the country going to hell in a handbasket?

[hulugu]

Why is everyone defending Boxer? That was a low blow and everyone knows it. Its like you guys are blindly defending the democratic party and not looking at what actually happend. That statement was unnecessary the same point could have been made in a more tactful way. Just like when Kerry made that comment about U.S. Soldiers and cost himself another presidential bid.

So, if I agree with Boxer—for whatever reason—I'm 'blindly' defending her. Then what have you been doing for the last year? Haven't you been 'blindly' defending the Bush administration?

Or maybe it's more complicated than that.

Furthermore, I'm sure Boxer's comment will be exactly like Kerry's, it will be immediately twisted by the various apparatchiks of the right into some grotesque slight while ignoring the substance of either argument.

[DZ/015]

Why is everyone defending Boxer?

Because the majority of posters here are liberal and agree with the Democrats (I'm not and I don't). Therefore, they will not speak ill of their own.

[BoyBach]

That statement was unnecessary the same point could have been made in a more tactful way. Just like when Kerry made that comment about U.S. Soldiers and cost himself another presidential bid.


Is this the bit when John Kerry told a group of college students that if you neglected in your education that you would end up "stuck in Iraq"?

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well."

He added: "If you don't you get stuck in Iraq."

If it is, then it was clearly an attack on George Bush and his advisors who didn't do their "homework" and didn't "make an effort to be smart" - remember when they said the Iraqi invasion would be "cakewalk" and that the US Army would be greeted in the street as "liberators" - and who are now "stuck in Iraq."


Its like you guys are blindly defending the democratic party and not looking at what actually happend.


"Blindly defending"? Oh! :rolleyes:

[skunk]

"Blindly defending"? Oh! :rolleyes:Shouldn't that be :cool: ?

[solvs]

Because the majority of posters here are liberal and agree with the Democrats (I'm not and I don't). Therefore, they will not speak ill of their own.
Yeah, just like when that Dem got caught with a hundred grand in his freezer. Except, of course, for the fact that none of us did. :rolleyes: This is, however, exactly like the Kerry thing, where someone's words are being completely twisted against them in a way that has nothing to do with anything they actually said.

Nowhere did she say anything anywhere near this:

Those of you who are single and childless can now stop discussing war and politics

Does that mean that whites and women are not qualified to consider ramifications of war?
Just proves that some are so desperate for something bad to say about the other side they'll jump on whatever they can. But we're partisans for pointing out the spin. :confused: Despite all the valid complaints we have made about Kerry and the Dems.

Isn't it obvious? The Dems are just as bad as the neocons, if not worse, because the things they kind-of, might have, possibly, maybe, implied are just as bad, if not worse, than the things this administration has actually done. Even if it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever for her to mean it like that. Just as anyone who isn't a partisan hack knows exactly what Kerry was saying too. But hey, gotta try something. When you don't have substance, style is all you got.

[mactastic]

Because the majority of posters here are liberal and agree with the Democrats (I'm not and I don't). Therefore, they will not speak ill of their own.
************. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3233616&postcount=32) It's because people like you are so desperate for anything to attack the Democrats with, that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I know it hurts to have been slapped so hard during the recent election, and I can understand the desire to lash out against those you obviously despise, but the country doesn't respond well to such angry, shrill, obviously partisan attacks. You're just going to build more resentment against conservatives if you keep it up.

Let go of the hatred. It's the only way you guys will return to power in Congress.

[calculus]

any other fellow macrumor members who had legionaries in their family ? or prisoners of war ?

My father was taken prisoner by the Japanese in WWII. He was always reluctant to talk about what it was like but some of the things that he did tell me were truly awful.

[clevin]

Why is everyone defending Boxer? That was a low blow and everyone knows it. Its like you guys are blindly defending the democratic party and not looking at what actually happend. That statement was unnecessary the same point could have been made in a more tactful way. Just like when Kerry made that comment about U.S. Soldiers and cost himself another presidential bid.

its easy, because i would do the same after how rice respectfully disrespect me and telling me bs for 4 years.

if i will do it, i won't blame others who did it, im not defending Boxer, im defending myself and whoever would do the same.

why u defending rice? what did she do that deserve ur defense?

[nbs2]

Nah, he's just another cut and runner. (oops, I almost added an "n" to one of those words!)

Me, I'm just wondering whether nbs2 is going to attempt to defend his point.

Just wondering how nbs2 could take it the way he/she is.

Not a cut and runner - just have a social life that doesn't revolve around MR (especially the PRS forum). Heck, this will probably be my only post today. Moreover, I take offense to that assertion. I believe you, skunk, and many others should be able to attest to my participation in these forums (even if I keep telling myself that I'm done).

Anyway, your interpretation is entirely reasonable. My issue is that they way it was stated (immediate family = parents, siblings when a child; spouse, children when adult) made me wonder exactly who Boxer believes would be qualified to handle this war. If I hadn't met Lori, I'd still be single and childless. Would my training in national security policy and military strategy render me ill-qualified? How do Lori and the impending child (5 more weeks:eek: ) suddenly make me more capable?

[mactastic]

Not a cut and runner - just have a social life that doesn't revolve around MR (especially the PRS forum). Heck, this will probably be my only post today. Moreover, I take offense to that assertion. I believe you, skunk, and many others should be able to attest to my participation in these forums (even if I keep telling myself that I'm done).

Anyway, your interpretation is entirely reasonable. My issue is that they way it was stated (immediate family = parents, siblings when a child; spouse, children when adult) made me wonder exactly who Boxer believes would be qualified to handle this war. If I hadn't met Lori, I'd still be single and childless. Would my training in national security policy and military strategy render me ill-qualified? How do Lori and the impending child (5 more weeks:eek: ) suddenly make me more capable?
You're reading it all wrong. Boxer isn't questioning Rice's capability, she's questioning the logic of Bush's call for sacrifice, and asking what it is that those of us who aren't serving in the military are actually putting on the line here.

For most Americans, the answer is Nothing. Is that right?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Though Boxer came off wrong she is making a point of this Administration who not one of these liars Bush,Cheney,Rice, etc have someone getting killed over their lies & mismanagement. Not one offspring. Dont tell me that if these spin machines had children serving their decision process might have been different.
Plus you have the history of the people who put us in Iraq and they all have a common theme, draft dodgers from the vietnam era. The Republican party during this time looked like a national draft dodger association.
Bush
Cheney
Hastert
Delay
Rove
Lot
Libbey
etc ,all working hard to get us in Iraq, not a one ever served in the military and they wanted others to risk their only life over lies & spin and still do.

[zimv20]

Lori and the impending child (5 more weeks:eek: )
congratulations!

[pseudobrit]

My issue is that they way it was stated (immediate family = parents, siblings when a child; spouse, children when adult)

I think of my brother as immediate family. I think your narrow interpretation of "immediate family" has resulted in your blowing the statement out of proportion.

If Boxer really wanted to be cruel she could have said something about how Rice is saving herself for her Georgie.

[michaelsaxon]

I mean, aren't most recruits minority males?

Fallacy.

[michaelsaxon]

I think this is much ado about nothing. I agree that, if a Republican said it, people would be going bonkers, but they'd be wrong then too.

War is certainly personal in a unique way if you have family members involved in it. This is not to say that war policy can't be decided by people who don't have personal ties to it, however. If that were the case, it would be impossible to formulate a war policy, as most of our representatives on both sides of the aisle have no investment in this war in that way. I think Boxer was trying to get at the former point, but did it in a ham-handed way.

One of our greatest wartime presidents, Abraham Lincoln, had no personal experience with war.

This is reminiscent of the whole "chickenhawk" label, which is just as foolish.

[skunk]

War is certainly personal in a unique way if you have family members involved in it....I think Boxer was trying to get at the former point, but did it in a ham-handed way.I fully agree, and commend you for saying this.

[aquajet]

Because the majority of posters here are liberal and agree with the Democrats (I'm not and I don't). Therefore, they will not speak ill of their own.

You better get crackin' reviewing through the million or so posts to reference in the PRSI forum in order to back up your claim. Otherwise, cut it out with your nonsense because as it stands, you're trolling.

[aquajet]

<snip>

Yep, something on which I can agree with you. It does seem like kind of a rash comment but only because it guaranteed some level of backlash, as we can see. But in reality, what Boxer said is absolutely true.

[hulugu]

Because the majority of posters here are liberal and agree with the Democrats (I'm not and I don't). Therefore, they will not speak ill of their own.

Thanks for letting me know I was toeing the party-line, otherwise I might get the wrong impression that I was thinking for myself. Whew!

[DZ/015]

people like you are so desperate for anything to attack the Democrats with

Not true. I'm a Libertarian/Independent. I don't agree with the either major party entirely. I do generally tend to be more conservative than liberal, to be honest.

I actually am glad that the Republicans got pushed out this past election. I supported them when they took power in '94. However, they got very far away from their promises of smaller, less intrusive government.

As for your linked comment, I am glad to hear it. I hope others here who have condemned the Republicans will be as eager to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire for their mistakes, which will come. Unfortunately, I believe I will be let down.

P.S. I did say majority, not all.

[solvs]

I agree that, if a Republican said it, people would be going bonkers, but they'd be wrong then too.

Actually, I heard the quote before I knew who said it and thought nothing of it. The Kerry thing could be misinterpreted, as did the Trent Lott comment about Strom Thurmond. But that happens on both sides of the fence all the time. Partisans on both sides like to attack people on the other side, but usually they have at least some substance to them. And some times they are obvious, like Goode's comments about Ellison or Rush's comments about Michael J Fox (or pretty much anything Coulter says). Sometimes they aren't (see almost anything GW says). Sometimes, the good stuff with substance actually seems to be missed, like when someone in the Bush administration (sorry, don't remember who) actually did outright blame the troops and the generals for all the problems in Iraq. Not saying neocons don't get caught, or that Dems are innocent either (look at Biden's racist joke), but this is a non issue no matter how said it.

Sorry nbs2 if it seems like we're attacking you, but this is simply a misunderstanding. She didn't say anything near what you heard or what you think she meant. Pardon us for being defensive, but we're already seeing the desperation of the pundits attacking people over nothing.

Which is especially stupid since there are perfectly legitimate reasons to attack them. ;)

[solvs]

Unfortunately, I believe I will be let down.
Hopefully because the Dems don't suck as much. As I've said, I really don't see how they could. Then again, I have been surprised before by how bad things could get, so I'm not counting them out just yet.

We certainly will hold them responsible for their screw ups, as we have in the past, but there will be some dispute over what counts as good or bad for some things, so yeah, you may be let down for those things.

P.S. I did say majority, not all.
That would still be incorrect. ;)

Again, I point to the William Jefferson thread, or any time John Kerry comes up.

[DZ/015]

there will be some dispute over what counts as good or bad

Which only makes me believe I am correct when I question whether the Democrats will be held accountable by those who post regularly on this forum.

Many of the posters here are idealogues and will excuse the mistakes made by the Dems in Congress. Please note that I said many, not all, before you respond.

[toontra]

Which only makes me believe I am correct when I question whether the Democrats will be held accountable by those who post regularly on this forum.

Many of the posters here are idealogues and will excuse the mistakes made by the Dems in Congress. Please note that I said many, not all, before you respond.

There is a parallel in the UK. We have had a so-called "socialist" Government for the past 10 years. It's fiercest critics in this forum are usually the disillusioned "leftist" or liberal voters, who feel as though they have been let down by a party which they hoped would represent them.

I fully expect the same would happen in the US if the Dems are elected and they ****** up.

[solvs]

Many of the posters here are idealogues and will excuse the mistakes made by the Dems in Congress. Please note that I said many, not all, before you respond.

And I still disagree. One of the people here who seems to hate Bush the most is a former Republican who actually voted for him and defended the Iraq war in the beginning. Most of us have problems with the Dems, and have condemned them in the past when they do some things that are inexcusable no matter which side you're on and will continue to do so. Like Jefferson and his 100 grand in the freezer. That crosses party lines. We may debate whether things like stem cell research or rights for homosexuals are good things, but for those things that are non partisan screw ups, we have already proven to you that we are willing to criticize.

Most, if not all, would not excuse the mistakes made by Bush even if he had a (D) after his name. I didn't even care much about politics before he started screwing things up after 9/11 and the lead up to Iraq. I used to criticize Clinton once in awhile, and still do, as do most of us here, but Bush has taken things to new lows a bj couldn't come close to. For you to imply that even most of us are partisans who will ignore the Dems screw ups because we sometimes agree with their ideals (which, even that I would disagree with), well, I'm guessing you must be new here, because that ain't gonna happen. It already isn't, unless you want to point to this thread as defending the mistakes of the Dems. But I gotta tell you, if this is the worst they can do, they will definitely be better than the last Congress.

What I meant, though, was that sometimes we may argue over what's good and bad, but other times, it will be obvious on both sides when a mistake has been made and we will criticize, as we already have, which makes your point about ideology clouding our judgment moot.

[skunk]

Thanks for letting me know I was toeing the party-line, otherwise I might get the wrong impression that I was thinking for myself. Whew!At last! Someone who knows the difference between toeing a line and towing it! :)

[Thomas Veil]

I'm a Dem, and I was quite sarcastic about William Jefferson (hiding money in the freezer -- yeah, that looks innocent). I was critical of Rep. Cynthia McKinney for that idiotic brouhaha she had with the Capitol guard. I'm critical of this Congress for not having the balls to talk about impeachment. And I'm critical in general because both parties are still under corporate control.

Thing is, I think most of the indies, Dems and various liberal types around here are pretty much like me. We can't overlook Democratic stupidity, because such dishonesty is like shooting ourselves in the foot. It destroys any credibility we have to criticize Republicans. So we have to call b___s___ on the Democrats when we see it.

If there are any idealogues around here who overlook the bad things the Democrats do, I'd like to know who they are.

[Ugg]

Which only makes me believe I am correct when I question whether the Democrats will be held accountable by those who post regularly on this forum.

Many of the posters here are idealogues and will excuse the mistakes made by the Dems in Congress. Please note that I said many, not all, before you respond.

Would you care to name them?

It's early days yet, but I think we can count on Pelosi to bring a human, impassioned touch to the House. Not one that cloaks American military deaths in such terms as "collateral damage" or "loss of American assets". It will be a welcome change from Condi's robot like demeanor and the neocons inability to accept that their inability to see past their own noses led to the current chaos in Iraq.

If egos get bruised in the process, tough luck. bushco is responsible and they need to pay the price.

[pseudobrit]

I think this is much ado about nothing. I agree that, if a Republican said it, people would be going bonkers

You mean like how the ravenous lefties came out here and tore into the media who accidentally besmirched one of their own:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=265683

[zimv20]

Which only makes me believe I am correct when I question whether the Democrats will be held accountable by those who post regularly on this forum.
i don't think there's any way you can characterize this forum as one in which the "liberal" (whatever that means) posters consistently back the democratic party.

there have been so many posts asking "wtf are the dems doing?", especially while bush's numbers were so high. no, i think people call BS when they see it. not too much unquestioning cheerleading going on in here.

now, when a dem does something right, there's support, but i think your characterization is way off base.

[obeygiant]

i don't think there's any way you can characterize this forum as one in which the "liberal" (whatever that means) posters consistently back the democratic party.

I'm not sure thats acurate, but if you say so.

Even when Boxer says something that out-of-line to Rice, people here defend it as "being blown out of proportion." or "a mountain out of a mole hill."

[hulugu]

Which only makes me believe I am correct when I question whether the Democrats will be held accountable by those who post regularly on this forum.

Many of the posters here are idealogues and will excuse the mistakes made by the Dems in Congress. Please note that I said many, not all, before you respond.

The qualification is appreciated, but I still disagree with your statement. It's a bit of intellectual judo akin to one of those paper finger cuffs, and I'm wary of the trap. If I agree with the Democrats I can be dismissed as an idealogue without any further thought. If I disagree with the Democrats, is it because I actually disagree with them, or is it because I'm afraid my statement will be dismissed?
Is there a way to prove I'm only adhearing to my own ideas?

Vice versa, can you DZ/015 really prove that you're not an idealogue, trapped in your own confirmation bias, and unable to agree with anyone in the Democratic party?

[solvs]

Thing is, I think most of the indies, Dems and various liberal types around here are pretty much like me. We can't overlook Democratic stupidity, because such dishonesty is like shooting ourselves in the foot. It destroys any credibility we have to criticize Republicans. So we have to call b___s___ on the Democrats when we see it.
That seems to be the difference. Some of us believe that by criticizing the mistakes, we seek to make it better. Much in the way we criticize Apple (mostly constructively) when they do something we disagree with. Sure, sometimes it's just whining, sometimes it's debatable whether or not it's that big of a deal. The other side sees any criticism as an attack. Someone disagrees with the Pres, they must be a liberal. Dems disagree with each other, and it's all infighting because they can't get along.

Yet we're all a bunch of partisans because we don't want to twist the words of someone who clearly didn't say what people are trying to say she did? :confused:

Even when Boxer says something that out-of-line to Rice, people here defend it as "being blown out of proportion." or "a mountain out of a mole hill."
What exactly do you think she said?

I'm still missing the obvious apparently. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

You mean like how the ravenous lefties came out here and tore into the media who accidentally besmirched one of their own:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=265683
Heh... yeah, we were vicious there for sure. :p