The GOP's One-Fingered Salute...

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Link
Rep. Bobby Jindal is planning to demonstrate solidarity with Iraqi voters by dipping a finger in purple ink before President Bush's State of the Union speech Wednesday.

Iraqis who participated in Sunday's elections had a finger stained with purple ink to prove they had voted.

In a letter to be circulated Wednesday among fellow lawmakers, Jindal, R-Louisiana, said he would have ink available for anyone attending the speech who wanted to make a gesture of support for Iraqis and "people throughout the world who seek freedom."
"Look at those nasty liberals who don't support the Iraqis. They don't have their finger in the air..." :rolleyes:
 

Durandal7

macrumors 68040
Feb 24, 2001
3,153
0
mactastic said:
"Look at those nasty liberals who don't support the Iraqis. They don't have their finger in the air..." :rolleyes:
Perhaps if the left hadn't staked it's future on American failure in Iraq this wouldn't be so offensive to you.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
WTF???!!?

Lots of venom here from folks I thought knew better...


First, before I forget... a little riff on the opening Post:

" Um, senator.... Wrong finger...." :eek:

I have come to the conclusion that those who identify more with the left or center than the right should consider themselves a repressed minority. We're somewhat like what the Sunnis will soon be in Iraq... Out of power and on the run.

We must take a lesson from history on this. Many groups have survived oppression by either removing the identifyers from their lives or by joining the oppressors in order to subvert them.

I believe that anyone who opposes the neocons should do exactly that. Join the GOP to subvert it or re-register as "undaclared" to remove yourself from the definable competition.

On the subject of Iraq: Failure of the "New Iraq" is only a matter of time. There will be a continuous fundamentalist bloc from Pakistan to Chad very soon because of Bush's blunders and Clinton's lack of foresight. Similarly, we will soon see a social conservative coup de tas in Washington that will remind all those currently in the center who support the neocons of why the left existed in the first place.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Durandal7 said:
Perhaps if the left hadn't staked it's future on American failure in Iraq this wouldn't be so offensive to you.
Perhaps if the right hadn't wagered all of our futures on Iraq I wouldn't have to be offended...

And if you think this is the motivation of the left, you know less than I've given you credit for.
 

Durandal7

macrumors 68040
Feb 24, 2001
3,153
0
mactastic said:
And if you think this is the motivation of the left, you know less than I've given you credit for.
I don't think this is the motivation of the left but the end result is the same.

I'm just amazed at this angry reaction to a low-key celebration of elections in Iraq. You guys ought to be happy about this too. Instead, you view it as an attack on liberalism.

This vehement anti-Bush style of reactionary thinking is one of the main reasons the Democrat Party is in such disarray. The Left has taken the stance that anything that benefits the Bush Administration is bad even if it is good for the country.

It's really a shame, I always thought that a healthy opposition was helpful in maintaining some government gridlock and keeping wasteful spending in check. Maybe the Liberterians can become a viable second party....
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Durandal7 said:
I don't think this is the motivation of the left but the end result is the same.

I'm just amazed at this angry reaction to a low-key celebration of elections in Iraq. You guys ought to be happy about this too. Instead, you view it as an attack on liberalism.

This vehement anti-Bush style of reactionary thinking is one of the main reasons the Democrat Party is in such disarray. The Left has taken the stance that anything that benefits the Bush Administration is bad even if it is good for the country.
When I see a politician making a premature "celebration" out of something like this I can't help but think he's grandstanding for partisan reasons.

Pardon my cynicism, but I remember "Mission Accomplished."

I guess it's somehow me who's the real anti-American liberty-hating ******** though, because the mission wasn't accomplished?

Your theory is insulting.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Durandal7 said:
I don't think this is the motivation of the left but the end result is the same.
If 'you guys' had listened to 'us' in the first place it wouldn't have come to this result.

I'm just amazed at this angry reaction to a low-key celebration of elections in Iraq. You guys ought to be happy about this too. Instead, you view it as an attack on liberalism.
No, I view it as another lilly-livered manuver by people too chicken to step foot into dangerous territory pretending they share some kind of connection to those who risked their lives to vote, yet wanting to bask in some of the glow.

Do you not know how this is used on talk radio? How it's used to whip the faithful into a frenzy? It's pure political posturing by the right.

This vehement anti-Bush style of reactionary thinking is one of the main reasons the Democrat Party is in such disarray. The Left has taken the stance that anything that benefits the Bush Administration is bad even if it is good for the country.
No, it just looks that way to 'you guys' because 'the left' has been bitching about this f***ed up war for so long now that you think we automatically oppose anything Bush does. While you conviently ignore the pre-9/11 Bush administration's policy of 'do whatever the opposite of what Clinton did' even if it overturns decades of policy.

And the issue of whether the Iraq war has been good for this country is very much up for debate. And then to top it off you go and call those who oppose the war unpatriotic. You say we wish ill on this country if it hurts Bush, which is a total slander. I want what's best for this country, but I think a different course would be better for it. Is that unpatriotic these days?

It's really a shame, I always thought that a healthy opposition was helpful in maintaining some government gridlock and keeping wasteful spending in check. Maybe the Liberterians can become a viable second party....
You are only now seeing a healthy opposition to the GOP juggernaut and look at the displeasure it has brought out of you. You don't seem to want a healthy opposition, you seem to want liberals and 'the left' to roll over and let 'you guys' do whatever you want.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Durandal7 said:
I don't think this is the motivation of the left but the end result is the same.

I'm just amazed at this angry reaction to a low-key celebration of elections in Iraq. You guys ought to be happy about this too. Instead, you view it as an attack on liberalism.

This vehement anti-Bush style of reactionary thinking is one of the main reasons the Democrat Party is in such disarray. The Left has taken the stance that anything that benefits the Bush Administration is bad even if it is good for the country.

It's really a shame, I always thought that a healthy opposition was helpful in maintaining some government gridlock and keeping wasteful spending in check. Maybe the Liberterians can become a viable second party....
Do liberals have a media that is a 24 hour a day propaganda outlet slandering conservatives?

Why does the liberal media give Ann Coulter so much air time? Among others.

I'm not even going to list the endless amounts of time devoted to accusing liberals of being anti patriotic communists, through a multitude of media outlets.

You make that statement as though the GOP have been saying nothing but nice things about Democrats for the last 25 years. Unbelievable.

If you ask most Democrat supporters, they have not done enough in opposition to Bush. The only time I hear the opinion you are espousing is when I tune into right wong channels. It's just a subversive way of trying to cow opposition.

The Democrats just need better organisation and to consolidate some distribution channels. This isn't over by any means.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Durandal7 said:
(Snip)

I'm just amazed at this angry reaction to a low-key celebration of elections in Iraq. You guys ought to be happy about this too. Instead, you view it as an attack on liberalism.

(snip)

Maybe the Liberterians can become a viable second party....
The anger, I'm sure has something to do with the fact that Republicans are better at acting in concert for the purposes of propoganda than are the Democrats.

I can't stand Libertarians. They're the most irresponsible group of selfish miscreants I've ever had the displeasure of debating. Their selective view of the Constitution and the role of government shows them to be incredibly self centered, uncompassionate and paranoid. If they ever became a viable party (assuming the inevitable demise of the Democrats) I'd have to not only move (back) to Canada but see if I couldn't start some sort of popular uprising down here.

Libertarians. Ick.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
mischief said:
Their selective view of the Constitution and the role of government shows them to be incredibly self centered, uncompassionate and paranoid.
Yeah, but they're really proud of being self-centered, uncompassionate and paranoid.

We've discussed this before, but I see a real difference between the crypto-libertarian market force mystic and philosophical anarchist types, both of which tend to enclose their ideas under the libertarian rubric. I find the former to be a complete waste of time and the latter often quite interesting. I don't know how these people get along with each other. Probably, being libertarians, they don't even try.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
IJ Reilly said:
Yeah, but they're really proud of being self-centered, uncompassionate and paranoid.

We've discussed this before, but I see a real difference between the crypto-libertarian market force mystic and philosophical anarchist types, both of which tend to enclose their ideas under the libertarian rubric. I find the former to be a complete waste of time and the latter often quite interesting. I don't know how these people get along with each other. Probably, being libertarians, they don't even try.
Precisely. I've had the interesting yet infuriating experience of being cloistered with two young Libertarians recently and their attitudes seemed quite typical of other Libs I've talked to. Being able to explore and retort their views was quite interesting.

It seems that they've mentally edited the entire bill of rights in such a manner that their interpretation is essentially that they owe their country and fellow citizens nothing, that government shouldn't exist and that market forces should determine everything.

Essentially it's a party designed for and run by gun toting, moneyed sociopaths.
 

Daveway

macrumors 68040
Jul 10, 2004
3,375
0
New Orleans / Lafayette, La
Damn, MR is sooo liberal. Sometimes I question if I'm the only Bush supporter around here. The gesture made at the STUA was very appropiete and showed that Iraq is now free from oppression. If I was voting for the first time in my life I would point that finger as high as I could and you would to.

On another note. Bobby Jindal was robbed in the past governor election in Louisiana. Everybody said he would win, but in typical Louisiana push voter practice we gave it to a looney woman who hasn't done anything. :mad:
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
My favorite kinds are the ones who say we can deregulate everything because you can trust people to do the right thing, but that they also need unfettered access to weaponry because you just can't trust people to do the right thing. :p
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
daveway00 said:
Damn, MR is sooo liberal. Sometimes I question if I'm the only Bush supporter around here.
Trust me, you're not.

The gesture made at the STUA was very appropiete and showed that Iraq is now free from oppression.
Iraq is free of what now?

If I was voting for the first time in my life I would point that finger as high as I could and you would to.
If they were Iraqi voters I wouldn't have complained. They wern't. They were American polititians waving their finger that they hadn't risked anything for. Iraqis risked their lives for that ink.

On another note. Bobby Jindal was robbed in the past governor election in Louisiana. Everybody said he would win, but in typical Louisiana push voter practice we gave it to a looney woman who hasn't done anything. :mad:
Hey in 2000 we gave the presidency to a looney man who hadn't done anything! :D
 

Daveway

macrumors 68040
Jul 10, 2004
3,375
0
New Orleans / Lafayette, La
mactastic said:
Hey in 2000 we gave the presidency to a looney man who hadn't done anything! :D
Oh contrare. Not true. Bush is one of the best, he has possibly been through tougher times than any president of the past 4-5 decades and still won over the swift boat traitor. Votes and exit poles don't lie.

i agree about the point you made about the blue fingers, but only to an extent. Bobby Jindal is in-fact not an Iraqi, but a true indian.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
daveway00 said:
Oh contrare. Not true. Bush is one of the best, he has possibly been through tougher times than any president of the past 4-5 decades and still won over the swift boat traitor. Votes and exit poles don't lie.

i agree about the point you made about the blue fingers, but only to an extent. Bobby Jindal is in-fact not an Iraqi, but a true indian.
I said in 2000 in case you didn't notice. The Champagne Unit Chickenhawk had virtually no credentials at that time.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
daveway00 said:
Oh contrare. Not true. Bush is one of the best, he has possibly been through tougher times than any president of the past 4-5 decades and still won over the swift boat traitor. Votes and exit poles don't lie.

i agree about the point you made about the blue fingers, but only to an extent. Bobby Jindal is in-fact not an Iraqi, but a true indian.
Erm... What the hell are you talking about?

The reference was not to W as of 2004 but as of 2000. In 2000 The republicans ran an underexperienced candidate backed by christian neocon rhetoric against an unlikeably volatile Al Gore.

If you insist on using language like "The Swift Boat Traitor" I can only assume other slurs are not far beneath the surface. Shame on you sir.

Who is Bobby Jindal and why does his status as (presumably) Hindu matter?