Competence and Accountability World Tour Has Started

[redskins26]

And in Nancys defense i think im about to puke the tuna stuff as far as i can tell is false

 

[Henry]

Alaskan,

Fox is as conservative as MSNBC is liberal, but if think all non-Fox media outlets are equally far left on the spectrum I think you are mistaken. That's a common justification used by those on the right for Fox' bias, but lumping everyone left of the network as screaming socialists doesn't really wash.

And yes, I think Fox has gone off the right deep end over the past few years. Five years ago they were a nice slightly-right counter to outlets like CNN. Since Obama's election they've really veered far right. Sure I'm a lefty, I've already admitted to being a communist in this thread . But I actually LIKE to read/watch right-of-center outlets. I already know what I think. Like you watching Williams on O'Reilly, I like to know what people on the other end think about things. But honestly, I find that Fox has become largely unwatchable these days. Take my opinion or leave it.

Al,

Sorry, but that rant is really nothing more than a lengthy justification for claiming your opinion is superior to people on the other side of the political spectrum. The demonization of 'the other side' is neither compelling nor original, and you are far too smart to practice it.

 

[Alaskan]

Al,

Sorry, but that rant is really nothing more than a lengthy justification for claiming your opinion is superior to people on the other side of the political spectrum. Sorry, the demonization of 'the other side' is neither compelling nor original, and you are far too smart to practice it.

Disagree. That was a Pulitzer Prize worthy rant.

Or have you not read one of Eugene Robinson's columns lately?

 

[Henry]

Disagree. That was a Pulitzer Prize worthy rant.

Or have you not read one of Eugene Robinson's columns lately?

You mean in that paper that includes regular columns by George Will and Bill Kristol?

 

[Alaskan]

You mean in that paper that includes regular columns by George Will and Bill Kristol?

Yes, that one. Can you with a straight face say that Robinson's columns match up with Will, Kristol, or Krauthammer?

 

[Henry]

Yes, that one. Can you with a straight face say that Robinson's columns match up with Will, Kristol, or Krauthammer?

Not Will. But the other two, absolutely.

But you know what? I don't think they are eeeeeeevil. I think they've got some strong opinions that I don't share. I got over thinking that anyone who doesn't think like me must be an ******* about thirty years ago.

(Well, except for Sarge. )

 

[fansince62]

Wow Al. Tell us how ya really feel.

I will grant you that most of what you say about corruptness in the Democratic party is absolutely correct. But you do realize the exact same things can be said about Republicans right? Is your contention because the Repubs are less hypocritical it makes their corruption more acceptable?

Kinda silly, imo.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

No....not at all. but they are much less threatening/dangerous AT THIS POINT IN TIME/HISTORY than what we have in front of us.

 

[fansince62]

Al...you know, from a political and world view vantage point, I am inclined to agree with a lot of what you say. I'll also say though that I think you largely cheapen your argument and fall short of what you're capable of intellectually when you use 35 or 40 instances of 'they' in an argument.

Who are 'they'?

Liberals? What is a liberal? Are the all unanimous in their opinions, motivations, core beliefs, sincerity (or lack thereof)?

You know the answer to that.

'They' is a dangerous word. I've used it plenty too. And yes - I understand it's tough to have a conversation without using it. But what I've found in life is that when we reach a point where we are mentally lumping folks into a homogenous group and applying an array of negatives to them, we've probably lost our way a little bit. That's not to say that we can't and shouldn't hold groups accountable for the consensus they reach, the initiatives they try to move forward, etc... but the generalities just fuel the whole problem with American politics today - which is that individuals have subverted their individual core beliefs in order to sustain long-term power (often at any cost). It's why I decided I am in favor of term limits across all major offices (something I previously wouldn't have supported).

We are a society of 'theys'. It's human nature to think that way. I think it goes all the way back to when we were in tribes, not states and nations. But we've got to start looking at people as individuals again and dealing with them that way.

My opinion.

at one level of abstraction you are right Boone. at another...I don't care.....whether intentional, an expression of naivete, or simple laziness....in my taxonomy I only see two categories when it comes to liberals: those wielding power or those who are their enablers. "he means well"....."he cares"....."he's righting social injustice so I'll live with the imperfections"...are all rationalizations that don't change one iota the DAMAGE that is being done. the system and our society does progress.....but not at the pace these people want...so they are fully willing to use the raw power of the State to force the issue. they are now ****ing with my life, the future of my family and the lives of millions of others in a very visceral way. it's not just the power wielders...it's everyone who puts them there. don't get me started on the list again (it far exceeds anything COnservatives/moderates can be charged with): Unions and Soros can dump millions into rerouting elections, but change the law to allow corporations to do the same and that is worthy of the supreme embarrassment of having a President of the United States chastise a Justice on National TV...in front of the entire world? what kind of hypocrisy is that?

I have my own special reasons.....during my entire 20+ year career in the military I can count on one hand the number of Liberals I ran into WHO ALSO SERVED. these holier than thou sorts demand sacrifice from all of us...except when it comes to shouldering the real burdens themselves. those ****ing Hollywood pukes could barely contain their contempt for the country when they were dragged onto that post-9/11 TV special. I was in Norfolk around the block when Clinton was yukking it up at the Cole memorial. ever catch one of Henry Rollins' anti-Bush rants when he had his weekly show on IFC? I didn't like Bush either, but this guy was beyond the pale...vicious, crude and violent while pretending to advocate for only the noblest of causes and the highest values. what was it Dylan said way back when "fearing not I'll become my enemy in the instant I preach?"?

we all want a better society. we all want everyone to prosper. but there are many paths toward those laudable goals......I'll be damned if I'm going to sacrifice my family's future when I see how unwilling those people are to do exactly the same in other National crises.

a tad angry are we? you bet your rear quarter! I, and others, have lived with this for half a century now. the excesses of the last two years have finally opened the sluice gates. it's not a time for compromise (and you can bet Liberals feel/think the exact same way). it's time to strike a decision one way or the other.

and then we can return to what truly, fundamentally matters: "transforming" the Redskins from a source of constant frustration to all conquering, Super Bowl kings.

 

[fansince62]

Not Will. But the other two, absolutely.

But you know what? I don't think they are eeeeeeevil. I think they've got some strong opinions that I don't share. I got over thinking that anyone who doesn't think like me must be an ******* about thirty years ago.

(Well, except for Sarge. )

Henry...it does matter when those people HOLD POWER. it matters a lot. you know it. I know it. so...while your sentiments are entirely understandable and appropriate for our day to day interactions in our immediate communities.....context does make a difference. I don't care about ascribing monikers like eeeeeeeeevil. I prefer dangerous.

btw....eeeeevil has precisely been the language the high minded Left has employed to tar and feather people like Wolf, Rove, Limbaugh, etc., etc.

 

[fansince62]

No one is denying that Fox is conservative just like MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post, NYT are liberal. But on Fox you at least get to hear both sides and the liberals are (usually) treated with respect.

As far as Fox being ultra-conservative? I guess that’s a matter of perspective. Like I said, to me Maine is a southern state. You calling Fox ultra conservative tells me more about your location on the political spectrum than it does about Fox.

yup. but you missed the boat Alaskan...ask Henry to define what ultra-Conservative means.

btw....perhaps a tangent....but I have never, ever heard Conservative pundits wishing for the death/demise of their political targets as I have Liberals over the years. you know..the same Libs who advocate for women's rights but call stewardesses who cross their will "bitch". be it blogs, newspaper articles, interviews with the likes of Mike Moore, you are much more likely to hear a Liberal wishing that eeeeevil be visited upon others than you will the same from Conservatives.

have you ever heard Conservative media types employing vulgarities like "tea baggers" as Olbermann, Garofalo and the rest of the noble Left have over the last year? nothing in recent memory compares to this sort of savagery and vulgarity.....and all for power.

 

[Henry]

Al,

It's really tough to keep up with you when you're on a roll. I still think you are applying every possible nefarious motive you can to anyone who doesn't hold your view, and I don't think that's constructive. "People on this side of the aisle just want what's best while people on that side of the aisle are completely selfish and corrupt" may make you and your compatriots feel better, but it's not good for the country. Not in my opinion. I could call conservatives hypocrites when prominent 'family values' Republicans get caught in extra-marital affairs, or taking wide stances in the mens room. I could say the GOP instigates dishonest culture warfare in the country on a religious level, claiming to be the Christian party while not actually doing anything to further pro-Christian policies and by suggesting that Christian Democrats aren't really men or women of faith. Or by claiming to be the party of the military, only to completely savage the military career of any Democrat veteran. This sort of crap can be used on anyone. It's the oldest tactic in politics. Attack the person, not the idea.

We as a country need to get over it. You guys are right. Supposed pundits like Olbermann and Robinson and Moore and Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity ... they are experts at fomenting this 'attack the other side' nonsense. But it will only continue if we act as if that's a legitimate form of discourse. They'll keep throwing that **** against the wall so long as it sticks.

Stop letting it stick to you. Vote your conscience and don't apologize for it. But don't attack my character for voting mine. That's weak. That's childish. And that's un-American.

In my opinion.

 

[Boone]

Amen H.
And I'll tell you something else - we could ban political discussion here forever and I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Amen H.
And I'll tell you something else - we could ban political discussion here forever and I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it

Me either. Or have it located over at that newly linked place.

 

[Goaldeje]

Henry, you Rock. Great post. GREAT post.

Al, I understand your frustration, I really do. My father has worked for the VA hospital in Hamptofor the past twenty five years as staff psychologist and has stories that you might be able to identify with. Dad fights for the vets, and gets just as angry as you do when there is a cut in funding or benefits or whatever that adversely affects his vets. I've had lunch with im after a particularly difficult round of cuts and it ain't pretty.

But the scope of your post seems to suggest that those who do not or have not served in the military have not sacrificed for America, and therefore either should not be trusted, or given a voice (can't tell, really). I don't think you believe that, I think you are worked up about something, probably justifiably so. My dad never served in the active military, but considering the hours he has put in, along with the sleepless nights after a particularly horrifying story, and just considering the nature of his job, I'd say he's served his country.

But even if he hasn't, he's still entitled to his opinion, just like I am.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[servumtuum]

Amen H.
And I'll tell you something else - we could ban political discussion here forever and I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it

+1!

I hope the Redskins never have another bye week that coincides with an election.

Whew!

 

[Sarge]

Look at the uproar. And I've barely uttered a peep

 

[fansince62]

Al,

It's really tough to keep up with you when you're on a roll. I still think you are applying every possible nefarious motive you can to anyone who doesn't hold your view, and I don't think that's constructive. "People on this side of the aisle just want what's best while people on that side of the aisle are completely selfish and corrupt" may make you and your compatriots feel better, but it's not good for the country. Not in my opinion. I could call conservatives hypocrites when prominent 'family values' Republicans get caught in extra-marital affairs, or taking wide stances in the mens room. I could say the GOP instigates dishonest culture warfare in the country on a religious level, claiming to be the Christian party while not actually doing anything to further pro-Christian policies and by suggesting that Christian Democrats aren't really men or women of faith. Or by claiming to be the party of the military, only to completely savage the military career of any Democrat veteran. This sort of crap can be used on anyone. It's the oldest tactic in politics. Attack the person, not the idea.

We as a country need to get over it. You guys are right. Supposed pundits like Olbermann and Robinson and Moore and Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity ... they are experts at fomenting this 'attack the other side' nonsense. But it will only continue if we act as if that's a legitimate form of discourse. They'll keep throwing that **** against the wall so long as it sticks.

Stop letting it stick to you. Vote your conscience and don't apologize for it. But don't attack my character for voting mine. That's weak. That's childish. And that's un-American.

In my opinion.

Henry...you are drawing the wrong inferences. never once have I intimated that folks "on this side of the aisle" are pure and competent. I have asserted that they are less dangerous than the group currently in power. it's pretty obvious by now where Pelosi, Reid, Obama et al want to take the country. I repeat...look at who they have staffed in power positions - this is not "mainstream" America. Many like me...now that the rabbit is out and running....aren't going to buy into it. not now. not ever. the fact that they maintain a "do as I say, not as I do" lifestyle simply fuels the emotions and rancor.

1) where have I attacked your character?

2) the tenor of the discourse is secondary as far as I am concerned. it is outcomes an process that matter. if you are not as appalled by what went down over the last two years as I imagine you are over the deliberative/political process that got us into Iraq.....then I would submit that perhaps you don't understand where folks like me are coming from.

My hand is forced presently. I see how the Republicans suffer a deficit of leadership at the top just like everyone else does. But I can deal with that later...the present threat....yes THREAT......has been wielding power for the last 4 years. and they have to go. Nov 2 was just the start.

 

[fansince62]

Alaskan,

Fox is as conservative as MSNBC is liberal, but if think all non-Fox media outlets are equally far left on the spectrum I think you are mistaken. That's a common justification used by those on the right for Fox' bias, but lumping everyone left of the network as screaming socialists doesn't really wash.

And yes, I think Fox has gone off the right deep end over the past few years. Five years ago they were a nice slightly-right counter to outlets like CNN. Since Obama's election they've really veered far right. Sure I'm a lefty, I've already admitted to being a communist in this thread . But I actually LIKE to read/watch right-of-center outlets. I already know what I think. Like you watching Williams on O'Reilly, I like to know what people on the other end think about things. But honestly, I find that Fox has become largely unwatchable these days. Take my opinion or leave it.

Al,

Sorry, but that rant is really nothing more than a lengthy justification for claiming your opinion is superior to people on the other side of the political spectrum. The demonization of 'the other side' is neither compelling nor original, and you are far too smart to practice it.

Pls Henry......I have presented all sorts of examples and your response is to wrap it up with a dismissive "it's a rant" and it's really all about ME staking out my personal superiority?!!! really? I don't think so.

in fact, I will counter that that sort of claim is beneath you.....and devoid of any explanations for the multiple examples presented. I understand what your likely position is: there are conservatives (estimated anywhere from 35 to 40% of the electorate) & there are liberals (estimated at around 27% of the electorate). these two groups are going to have to find some common ground. maybe so. but that's not my focus. the present agenda is to rid the political landscape of incompetents like Pelosi, Reid and Obama. it's not a negotiation: if the country has to fight this battle out to the bitter end....so be it. in my view...this is no different than ridding the country of scourges like Tom DeLay.

 

[fansince62]

Amen H.
And I'll tell you something else - we could ban political discussion here forever and I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it

ummmm.....political boards cover POLITICS!!!.......nature of the beast.

review the thread......no one in this thread has been personally attacked. no one has been called out and personally insulted/demeaned. no one has been threatened. in fact, I would submit that the personal attacks have happened more often in heated discussions in Sons of Washington than here! go back and review the Albert threads if you doubt me.

I no more hold Henry, for example, in disregard than I do the man on the moon. we go back a long ways. I state my position. he states his. he may dislike intensely my pov...and I may dislike his intensely. so what? we're back talking the Skins in a week.....until the next bonehead administration move....

no one is throwing personal spears far as I can tell. and, to throw some fuel onto the fire just for ***ts and grins...it wasn't me or Alaskan who waltzed in and blithely announced that they were witness to a "circle jerk".

 

[Boone]

ummmm.....political boards cover POLITICS!!!.......nature of the beast.

review the thread......no one in this thread has been personally attacked. no one has been called out and personally insulted/demeaned. no one has been threatened. in fact, I would submit that the personal attacks have happened more often in heated discussions in Sons of Washington than here! go back and review the Albert threads if you doubt me.

I no more hold Henry, for example, in disregard than I do the man on the moon. we go back a long ways. I state my position. he states his. he may dislike intensely my pov...and I may dislike his intensely. so what? we're back talking the Skins in a week.....until the next bonehead administration move....

no one is throwing personal spears far as I can tell.

Firstly - I don't need to make veiled threats to ban certain topics. I co-own this place. If limiting conversation on certain topics were our intention, Mark and I would just do it. I don't anticipate that would ever happen. Nor did I accuse anyone of going over the line (or didn't intend to anyway). Neophyte is charged with moderating this place, and if he felt anyone was going over the line, they'd know it. So I agree with you.

I was simply expressing my personal distaste for the general direction the political threads take. That doesn't mean you have to see/feel/experience the same thing when you read them. I suspect you love this ****, having known you for years - in fact, I'll go as far as to say I know you love this ****

Personally, I consider the conversations largely a waste of time. The instances of someone actually moderating their viewpoint even slightly, much less actually changing their mind on a given topic as the result of anything you, I, or any other internet community member says are so infinitesimal as to be hardly worth considering. It's mostly just folks venting and standing on their personal soapboxes. If I weren't concerned about them going over the line and our not knowing about it, it's probable I wouldn't even click on the political threads.

I believe if one is so engaged with politics and government, the best course of action is to get involved in them, not wax poetic on the internet. But that's just me, and if folks enjoy this kind of thing, I guess ultimately I'll say 'knock yourselves out'. As long as everyone plays nice, there's no issue.