On March 14, 2013, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) announced he had changed his stance on same-sex marriage. The change came as a result of his son Will coming out as gay to Portman and his wife in 2011. Before this, Sen. Portman's opposition to gay rights was reflected in his voting record. He co-sponsored the 1996 federal ban on same-sex marriage and in 1999 voted for a measure prohibiting same-sex couples in Washington, D.C. from adopting children. You can watch an exclusive interview with CNN in which Sen. Portman discusses changing his stance on same-sex marriage.
While I'm glad Sen. Portman has come over to my side on this issue, his change in stance seems hollow. Usually when it comes to social issues, it seems the only time conservatives can consider another perspective is when it affects them. One exception which comes to mind is when Rep. State Representative Maureen Walsh made a plea to fellow legislators about same-sex marriage in 2012. Even in that case, it's fair to question whether or not Rep. Walsh's feelings about same-sex marriage were changed by her daughter coming out as gay. However, whereas Walsh's speech was full of passion, humor and honesty, Portman came off as robotic and political.
Here is my question for conservatives: Why does it seem your side has to be personally affected by an issue in order to consider another perspective?
In the clip below, The Majority Report host Sam Seder (sitting on the right) and guest Cliff Schecter discuss Sen. Portman and other instances of conservative politicians changing their stance on positions only after they are affected personally by an issue.
34 comments:
Why does it seem your side has to be personally affected by an issue in order to consider another perspective?
Not sure you'll get a respectful answer from a "conservative" on that.
The ideology of the Right, as opposed to conservatism, is a manufactured and groomed belief system.
I would suggest it's the fear, or mistrust, of "the other" that runs through the Right. When an "other" turns out to be family, some will accept reality, rather than parrot the dogma. If they reject reality then hard feelings will ensue.
Malia on break in Mexico
After driving the U.S. more deeply into debt than any other President, this should make you shake your head.
If George Bush's daughters or Bill Clinton's daughter had done this, it would have been all over the news and the voter's would have been calling for heads to roll 24/7.
But with the chosen one, you hear nothing on the major media.
Want to know where Obama's 13 year-old daughter went with 12 friends? On "spring break" in Oaxaca Mexico , on your dime.
She took two jets, 12 friends and 25 secret service men.
A thirteen year-old?
Why haven't you heard about it? All English-speaking media were 'requested' to kill all stories/copy of this costly trip to Mexico.
It was a school-sponsored service project.
I bet the copy-and-paste troll was just as mad when the Bush twins went for a boozy spring break, on our dime, in Argentina, right? Did he "shake his head" at that?
LOL!
Dave Dubya is a shill for the waste of taxpayer money by the powerful and privileged. He will excuse any purely wasteful excess of ObamaCo by the lame "Bush did it".
I am sure that Dave Dubya will understand it, then, and not complain one bit if we get a Republican President in 2016 or 2020, and this President decides to also loot the treasury for millions of dollars on personal luxuries for himself and his family.
But I am willing to bet that this blindly partisan hypocrite will go after a Republican for doing what Obama did, screaming at the top of his lungs.
----------
Enough of the lame and trollish Dave Dubya. .. Malcolm, I have seen others bashing Portman for changing his views. All of it from the Left. Makes you wonder if he should have just stayed a homophobe, might have saved him this severe bashing for his decision.
Malcolm: And I forgot to add. Like with Question Man, this Anon is a mindless cut-and-paster. This spam was also found on Leticia's blog and many others.
I see we're still waiting for an answer from a "conservative".
Since my point is ignored and I'm personally attacked, I'd like to note that this is exactly how the "hate the other" mentality of the Right operates.
This person obviously doesn't know what "trollish" is if he thinks I'm the troll and not the cut-and-pasters.
And he just as obviously projects what a hypocrite is, by ignoring my point that tax payers paid for Bush family perks too.
Sheesh. Ya just can't reason with hotheads who'd rather attack a person than reasonably dispute his words.
There's a lot of anger over on the Right. They're indoctrinated into believing liberals are commies who "hate the rich" because we disagree that our government should represent only their interests.
There's a reason so many of them fall for the propaganda about the "Muslim Marxist socialist death panels" guy who had ACORN steal the election for him.
On the Right, ignorance is strength.
Fear, and anger towards the others is paramount on the Right. Gays, minorities, liberals, and anyone who disagrees with the Big Money elites and their supporters' medieval social agenda are targets of hate and scorn.
But we all know this, don't we?
Dave: I started to remove my question to conservatives. However, I left it in just to see which of them would actually answer. I think your theory about the right's ideology makes sense.
Had you not responded to the comments by "Midnight Marauder", I would have deleted them. These jokers kill me with their off-topic rantings.
dmarks: I'm not sure why you went on the attack against Dave. He's been anything but lame and trollish. He also isn't a "blindly partisan hypocrite" because I've seen him criticize President Obama.
As for Sen. Portman, we aren't criticizing his decision. It's the motive behind his decision that we are questioning.
By the way, there has been at least one liberal who's praised him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/sherrod-brown-rob-portman_n_2883828.html
Also, do you have an answer to the question I posed to conservatives in this post?
I've ready many of Dave's truth-free, lowbrow Limbaugh of the Left type commdents. His "fear and anger" paragraph with its nutty "big money elites" paranoid conspiracy theory line is a perfect example of this. Lowbrow, and very fragile when exposed to critical thought.
And the truth directly contradicts Dave Dubya most of the time. The vast majority of Republicans, as with Democrats, aren't rich at all. And these people vote in their own interest, and vote Republican so that the government will represent their interests, and not that of the "rich elites"
He also makes up straw men. While it is true that ACORN was caught red handed in election fraud, this was years ago and no one blames them for the Obama victory. Almost all the talk I see on conservative blogs in fact blames Romney for being a bad candidate. But such nuances as truth and what really happened are lost on people like Dave Dubya who are content to grunt lowbrow falsehoods and generalizations.
Some people are so wrapped in hate for someone they disagree with, or don’t understand, they refuse to see reality. Happens all the time to liberals. We’ve been demonized by the radical Right for decades. We’ve been called anti-family, commies, and anti-American for objecting to Bush’s war based on lies, etc.
This reader is no exception. He hypocritically projects the straw man at me while completely mis-stating and inventing what I say. When one cannot argue against another’s statements, name calling is all they have left.
The hate is clear. “Shill, Lame, trollish, blindly partisan hypocrite, truth-free, lowbrow, paranoid conspiracy theory, and people like Dave Dubya who are content to grunt lowbrow falsehoods and generalizations.”
Wow. Is that all? Not one of my points is refuted by fact or evidence, but I’m obviously pure evil in his narrow mind.
I bet I get called at least the devil for showing this delusional side of his fellow true believers.
PublicPolicy Polling reveals the madness:
“Republicans not handling election results well”
PPP's first post election national poll finds that Republicans are taking the results pretty hard...and also declining in numbers.
49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found:
that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.
Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.
How about that?
And is it true “ACORN was caught red handed in election fraud”?
No. In fact they were victims of registration fraud committed by certain employees. ACORN reported it to authorities. “Mickey Mouse” never did show up at the polls. Really.
FactCheck.org disagrees with his Right Wing propaganda as well.
Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes. What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes.
You can’t argue or reason with cult members, or those on the radical Right, as there’s little difference in their “true believer” mentalities.
dmarks: I guess you don't have an answer to my question huh?
"What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud."
Great example of one of many of DD's iies. Voter registration fraud, as committed by ACORN, is a subset of voter fraud.
"You can’t argue or reason with cult members, or those on the radical Right"
This is just one more lie, like your claim about a Bush war based on lies (which never occurred). I am a mainstream conservative. Me, like most others on this blog, are not radical anything. There are precious few radicals on the left or right around. They are shut out.
"as there’s little difference in their “true believer” mentalities."
Perfect description of you lying about Iraq.
----------
Malcolm: Now that the lying troll has been put in his place, what question did you mean?
Something else to address: "Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes."
There are many ways to commit voter fraud. Stuffing the ballots with fake voters is just one way. You are apparently defending this practice. There is no hope for you when you are lying about crimes which were done in order to corrupt the democratic process in order to defend them.
Malcolm, as we know, they can’t give honest and good faith answers to our questions. This is why they must lash out with name calling and hate.
Wow, when quoting factcheck.org. invites the accusation of “lying troll” you know you’re dealing with unhinged cult think. Especially when added to the notion of a “Bush war based on lies (which never occurred)”.
So where are those “nukular aluminum tubes”, Sport?
Again, they can’t give honest and good faith answers to our questions. They have their indoctrinated beliefs, so facts are only ‘liberal lies” to them.
I like it when they get a bug up their butt over the truths they just can’t handle. Just try explaining the difference between voter registration fraud and voter impersonation fraud. But be prepared to get called a nasty name or be accused of being un-American for it.
As I stated:
Some people are so wrapped in hate for someone they disagree with, or don’t understand, they refuse to see reality. Happens all the time to liberals. We’ve been demonized by the radial Right for decades. We’ve been called anti-family, commies, and anti-American for objecting to Bush’s war based on lies, etc.
This reader is no exception. He hypocritically projects the straw man at me while completely mis-stating and inventing what I say. When one cannot argue against another’s statements, name calling is all they have left.
I’m proven correct every time by their unhinged delusional rage.
The only lie so far about Bush is that he lied about Iraq. You are being an unhinged troll for many reasons, including:
(1) calling me a radical when I am mainstream and not radical at all. Calling me any kind of radical is the prime example here of name calling.
(2) going on and on about me calling you a commie and un-American, which I have never done and while not do (in this it appears that your "unhinged delusional rage" has caused you to be careless and sloppy). A typical troll acts like you do, typing during a spittle-flecked rage and confusing issues like this.
----
Difference between voter fraud overall and a subset of voter fraud? You should know how subset relationships work. You really painted yourself in a corner here by defending ACORN for engaging in merely one type of voter fraud. Thanks for providing proof of ACORN voter fraud in your factcheck quotes. The lying is when you keep saying stuff like that fraud involving voters is not voter fraud.
Why not stick to the facts this time?
(And by the way, learn how to spell "nuclear")
My goodness, there seem to be anger issues.
This is what I was personally accused of by you:
“Shill, Lame, trollish, blindly partisan hypocrite, truth-free, lowbrow, paranoid conspiracy theory, and people like Dave Dubya who are content to grunt lowbrow falsehoods and generalizations.”
And you added:
A typical troll acts like you do, typing during a spittle-flecked rage and confusing issues like this.
We feel your rage.
Now, this is what I never accused you personally of doing:
going on and on about me calling you a commie and un-American, which I have never done
I see your reading retention skills are either sorely lacking or you are paranoid. There is nothing conservative about those traits, by the way.
However, both fit the radical Rights's cult of conned-servatism, though.
So where are those “nukular aluminum tubes”, Sport?
Oh, dear, your memory is lacking too. And maybe you don't understand why I put the quotation marks on that phrase. That was how your fearless chickenhawk decider pronounced nuclear in just one of his many lies. Unless you can show us those 'nukular" aluminum tubes...
You cannot do so, of course, but you can react with more anger and name calling. We understand your options here better than you, I'm afraid.
Another little detail, Sport. I quoted factcheck.org. THEY defended ACORN. I also showed a poll reflecting the vast ignorance of your cult about ACORN stealing an election that was held after they were dismantled.
Why not stick to the facts this time?
Back at ya, Sport. Try to settle down and not let your rage and hate guide your words. I won't call you ugly names or be angry with you.
I'm really an honest person and a nice guy.
And I'm sure you were before you bought into all the radical lies of the Right. Limbaugh is not a prophet you know. Learn to question corporate media figures, (Including democrats) and right wing radio and TV personalities.
We understand the authoritarian personality cannot do so, so perhaps you may have no choice.
DD said -"My goodness, there seem to be anger issues."
Yes, it results in carelessness on your part.
This is what I was personally accused of by you:
“Shill, Lame, trollish, blindly partisan hypocrite, truth-free, lowbrow, paranoid conspiracy theory, and people like Dave Dubya who are content to grunt lowbrow falsehoods and generalizations.”
Which started when you lied about Republican policies concerning the rich, and called anyone who did not follow your narrow ideology "radical" no matter how baseless that insult is. I hope from now you use this term only for actual radicals and radical ideas.
Now, this is what I never accused you personally of doing:
"going on and on about me calling you a commie and un-American, which I have never done"
Correction: you made this false accusation against all conservatives, and later repeated it in a charge directly at me.
"I see your reading retention skills are either sorely lacking or you are paranoid."
Excuse me for daring to read what you actually type.
"...However, both fit the radical Rights's cult of conned-servatism, though."
There. Yet another reference to "radical" where it does not apply.
"[question about aliminum tubes rendered meaningless by juvenile insult]"
Try again, in a mature fashion.
So where are those “nukular aluminum tubes”, Sport?
"And maybe you don't understand why I put the quotation marks on that phrase."
I don't understand because this inclusion made no sense.
"That was how your fearless chickenhawk decider..."
I have no idea who you mean. GWB served when called and was honorably discharged. So your insult does not apply to him. Anyone's guess as to whom you mean, since it does not mean Bush and you are typing in a muddled fashion.
"...pronounced nuclear in just one of his many lies."
1) There aren't "many lies" from Bush.
2) Find for me a quotation from Bush about nukular aluminum tubes and get back with me". Do you have a link?
3) You prove my case of your ignorant party-over-principle hypocrisy as I am sure you are unaware that Jimmy Carter, the President who knew more about nuclear issues than anything, pronounced it "nucular" also.
"Unless you can show us those 'nukular" aluminum tubes..."
I will start digging when you find me the Bush quote containing this term.
"You cannot do so, of course..."
Probably true. I googled all over for an instance of Bush mentioning nukular tubes, but came up empty. Since you say "of course", it implies you know this, and you are making up quotes for the fun of it, in order to deceive.
Another little detail [DD continues with a repeated juvenile insult...]"
Try again, but in a mature fashion.
Regardless, the factcheck.org source and your mention of it even confirms that ACORM operatives were arrested for committing voter fraud. It has nothing to do with a "cult", which apparently is DDspeak for those who do not share his own narrow ideology.
"[DD...gibber gibber gibber]",
Try again, without the reference to baseball or football or whatever sport it is that you seem obsessed with.
[continued...]
and the rest...
"I'm really an honest person and a nice guy."
Yet, you smear those who have mainstream view as "radical" and those who are more informed on matters and don't share your ideology as part of a "cult". Like a perfect troll. You would do well to follow the example of Malcolm here, who doesn't obsess on baseball basketball or whatever and never acts like a troll. That makes him a nice guy, and not you.
"And I'm sure you were before you bought into all the radical lies of the Right."
So far you have yet to refer to any such lies, or even radical ones.
"Limbaugh is not a prophet you know."
More senseless gibbering. Limbaugh has nothing to do with this. By accusing me of being a follower of his, you are doing exactly what some on the Right supposedly do by calling you a commie.
"Learn to question corporate media figures, (Including democrats) and right wing radio and TV personalities."
All media figures are corporate (due to situations that encourage any business or organization to incorporate due to liability reasons). This includes Democracy Now and Media Matters, of course. Corporate media all. But I did learn to question ALL of them ages ago. Thanks for actually wording a paragraph/question/demand without distracting lingo or insults. For once. You read a lot better that way.
"We understand the authoritarian personality cannot do so, so perhaps you may have no choice."
My opposition to authoritarianism is what makes me lean conservative/libertarian. I have a choice, and I choose to "question authority". Again, you made your point without bizarre athletic lingo or insults or false accusations about Limbaugh and Beck or cults. You read a lot better that way. See? Not so hard, is it?
Now for Malcolm. I scrolled up and saw your question. Sorry, I am not the person to ask. Unlike most conservatives, I do not have the anti-gay agenda as part of my "platform". So I do not defend this mindset, and perhaps would ask the same question you would on it. I certainly don't have the view.
In fact, on this issue, I am to the left of Pres. Obama, who campaigned in 2008 on his opposition to gay marriage, and has supported DOMA and DADT on and off and on much of the time ever since. I have had the other view for years.
dmarks:
Now there you go again. Since you cannot refrain from personal accusations, I’m afraid this will be my last word with you.
You seem as unable to grasp the fact Bush lied as a Moonie would be unable to grasp the fact his Rev Sun Myung Moon (R) is not Christ. As we know Moon was the founder of the Right wing Washington Times as well as cult leader.
We’re losing count of the number of your personal accusations against me. We have no count of your informed responses to questions.
I appreciate your list of 3 items above and shall address that.
Here’s the list of your brand new personal accusations:
“you lied about Republican policies”
“called anyone who did not follow your narrow ideology "radical"”
“you made this false accusation against all conservatives”
“you made your point without bizarre athletic lingo or insults or false accusations about Limbaugh and Beck or cults”
"[question about aliminum tubes rendered meaningless by juvenile insult] Try again, in a mature fashion.”
And some Dubya Da Decider side show:
“So your insult does not apply to him(GWB).”
Yes, it did.
“There aren't "many lies" from Bush.”
Nope, not to his true believers.
And you tossed out one more accusation, attached to sinister motives.
“you are making up quotes for the fun of it, in order to deceive”
The real deception was covering the fact that the aluminum tubes were not intended for nuclear purposes.
Now for your 3 items:
1. There aren't "many lies" from Bush. -
2. Find for me a quotation from Bush about nukular aluminum tubes and get back with me". Do you have a link? Yes.
3. You prove my case of your ignorant party-over-principle hypocrisy as I am sure you are unaware that Jimmy Carter, the President who knew more about nuclear issues than anything, pronounced it "nucular" also.
1.) Not to a loyal true believer. 2.) Yes. 3.) What “case of your ignorant party-over-principle hypocrisy”?
”I googled all over for an instance of Bush mentioning nukular tubes, but came up empty”
This is odd. I did and I bet if anyone else does too, something may pop up to lead you to this aluminum tubes lie.
Good idea, though. Just use “the Google”.
Note I use quotation marks to quote your Chickenhawk Decider, who’s lucky to have you still as a very loyal true believer. This is how I portrayed his descriptive word of those tubes.
I have a choice, and I choose to "question authority".
Then you obviously choose NOT to question Bush authority. Good authoritarian followers are like that.
Here, maybe your Google isn’t working. Check the 2003 State of the Union speech featuring:
”The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Remember this part that was not true? The Wilsons paid the price for questioning it.
This was immediately followed by another famous deception:
”Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
I wouldn’t lie to you pal.
Here’s his string puller making the same dishonest case:
"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons.
"Unless you can show us those 'nukular" aluminum tubes..."
I will start digging when you find me the Bush quote containing this term.
Would you like to borrow my shovel?
Still waiting for the Bush quote on "nucular" tubes. I caught this troll in a big lie, so he crawled back into the manure pile. Just one of many lies, such as slandering a man who served in the military and was honorably discharged as a "chickenhawk".
Bush didn't lie. The secret trade mission by terrorists in Iraq was surely to get uranium, not anything else. There is simply no other export from Nigeria that Iraq would seek to get in this fashion. The Wilsons "paid the price" for when they later lied and backtracked on this. As for the tubes you (repeatedly) fabricated a quote on, as of March 2003, Saddam was STILL blocking inspections of the WMD programs, which left us to make guesses as to his intent and what he was doing with his clandestine and illegal weapons programs. Sometimes these guesses were wrong, but they were no more "lies" than were President Obama's predictions of all those new jobs and a much lower deficit, that never panned out either. In any case, these tubes turned out to be for powerful conventional aggressive weaponry which Saddam's terrorist regime had no business having.
For all your sensitivity about name-calling, you sure love to slander the former Vice President and President. Most of the insults don't even have a basis in truth, such as Chickenhawk and string-puller. In marked contrast, since I do not place mean-spirited petty partisanship ahead of truth, I have no problem calling President Obama "President Obama.".
Which raises the point. If one were to use the insult "chickenhawk" consistently, they might use it on President Obama, a man who never served at all, and who has sent tens of thousands of American troops into combat in the Middle and Near East. But I never use that insult, and certainly not in a blindly partisan fashion. I have too much integrity for that. Unlike you, I won't lie about the Commander-in-Chief.
Malcolm,
So there he goes again, calling me a liar among other things. Such wild-eyed delusional hate.
Still waiting for the Bush quote on "nucular" tubes. I caught this troll in a big lie, so he crawled back into the manure pile. Just one of many lies, such as slandering a man who served in the military and was honorably discharged as a "chickenhawk".
The single minded, reality denying, stubbornness of a certain very Right Wing nasty name caller won’t do away. I will not address him because as I said, “Now there you go again. Since you cannot refrain from personal accusations, I’m afraid this will be my last word with you.”
We can all see the list of his mean-spirited accusations above.
This is why I address this to you, a sane person, not one filled with hate for those who question his beloved Bush and Cheney’s dishonesty.
He said, “I have a choice, and I choose to "question authority".
So I pointed out, he “obviously choose NOT to question Bush authority. Good authoritarian followers are like that.”
Bush didn't lie.
As for the tubes you (repeatedly) fabricated a quote on, as of March 2003, Saddam was STILL blocking inspections of the WMD programs, which left us to make guesses as to his intent and what he was doing with his clandestine and illegal weapons programs.
So I quoted the State of the Union Speech and Cheney’s support of the lie about the tubes.
And the response was more hate and accusations that I am the liar. This is what I mean about cult-think.
He obviously does not know the common understanding of “chickenhawk” is one who supported a war but failed to volunteer to serve in that war when he had the opportunity,
Instead, as we know, Bush had the connections to get in the “Champaign Unit” of the guard and still didn’t fulfill his entire enlistment. He served in Republican campaigns and asked for early discharge to go to school.
He was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. Perhaps whiskey and cocaine were factors.
Some war hero.
This indicates the close bond our angry person feels with the Bush Cartel:
left us to make guesses as to his intent and what he was doing
So “us” making guesses is a good reason to go to war? Wow, I’d hate to live under that kind of leadership.
And did Bush and Cheney say they were guessing?
No. Bush said,”Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
In fact, before the war, senior analysts and nuclear experts said they were not suitable for nuclear weapons production.
The tubes real purpose was " known before the invasion.
The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.
Cheney August 2002:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
“It’s been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April,” Cheney said on Meet the Press on Dec. 9, 2001.
In what world do “no doubt” and “pretty well confirmed” indicate guesses?
But as we know, we can state all the facts in the world and authoritarian true believers will not listen. They listen only to authoritarian leaders like Bush and Cheney.
Just like a cult member listens only to his authoritarian leaders.
Now watch me be called a liar and troll or something else nasty.....again. Their well of hatred is deep indeed.
dmarks: Thanks for explaining why you aren't in a position to answer the question.
dmarks and Dave Dubya: I'm enjoying your lively back and forth. All I ask is that you clean up any blood that gets spilled.
Time to put this to bed, one by one. Dave Dubya gave a direct quote about President George W. Bush saying "nukular aluminum tubes”. I asked him for a source, and he waffled (lied), evaded (lied), presented more lies involving chickenhawks and cocaine (lied). Finally, he found a source in which Bush did not utter this exact quotation, thus completely proving that DD was making it up. Not only that, but the transcription provided spelled it "nuclear".
I would venture a guess that the contempt for Bush which makes DD lie about him so much caused him to attempt an insult against Bush with the "nukular" pronunciation.
Never mind the FACT that our most experienced nuclear president, Jimmy Carter, pronounced it this way, as did Eisenhower and Clinton. But DD, king of partisanship, lies, cheap shots, and inconsistency, can't deal with this.
Regardless, the Bush Administration had reason to believe that these aluminum tubes (which an aggressive terrorist leader like Saddam had no business having for any reason) would be for nuclear purposes. Others disagreed. The predictions of the nay-sayers turned out correct.
This does not mean that Bush was a liar. They just did the best with available information, considering that Saddam Hussein was blocking inspections. Just as it does not mean that Obama was a liar when he claimed there would be much lower deficits and unemployment in his Presidency. The nay-sayers who said Obama's policies would have the opposite effect ended up correct.
I would like to thank DD for pointing out this quotation from Dick Cheney about WMD: "“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
Cheney's description and prediction was spot-on accurate, considering the WMD stockpiles documented in Wikileaks elsewhere.
Malcolm said: "Thanks for explaining why you aren't in a position to answer the question."
Correct. These are not my views (the gay marriage issue), and I find it hard to defend them.
I have a question for DD before I address his false claims about "Chickenhawk" and cocaine:
DD, did the Bush administration lie when it said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of WMD technology, and that his regime was a grave threat to America?
Malcolm,
Wow. As I said:
“The single minded, reality denying, stubbornness of a certain very Right Wing nasty name caller won’t do away.”
You said: "I'm not sure why you went on the attack against Dave. He's been anything but lame and trollish. He also isn't a "blindly partisan hypocrite" because I've seen him criticize President Obama."
My question is this: By agreeing with me, wouldn’t that also make you a liar? Why is he afraid to call you a liar, but not me? Curious.
This guy is blind with rage. I guess I'm honored to provide the burr he so adamantly stuck up his butt.
He said “no one blames” ACORN.
He also makes up straw men. While it is true that ACORN was caught red handed in election fraud, this was years ago and no one blames them for the Obama victory.
Funny, he never had an answer for this pertinent poll info:
PublicPolicy Polling reveals the madness:
“Republicans not handling election results well”
PPP's first post election national poll finds that Republicans are taking the results pretty hard...and also declining in numbers.
49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found:
that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.
Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.
How about that?
Typical denial of reality, A cult member must always dismiss any information not given him by his cult leaders. “Bush never lied,” is exactly how they operate.
So we have:
”Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” - GWB
And
"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons.
And:
The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.
And:
The tubes real purpose was " known before the invasion.
The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.
Cheney August 2002:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
“It’s been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April,” Cheney said on Meet the Press on Dec. 9, 2001.
No wonder I asked:
In what world do “no doubt” and “pretty well confirmed” indicate guesses?
And no wonder I stated:
But as we know, we can state all the facts in the world and authoritarian true believers will not listen. They listen only to authoritarian leaders like Bush and Cheney.
Just like a cult member listens only to his authoritarian leaders.
Now watch me be called a liar and troll or something else nasty.....again. Their well of hatred is deep indeed.
Looks like I was right again.
I see you gave a predictable one-sided incomplete (cough... lie...) version of the account on the nuclear tubes, leaving out the evidence and testimony that they were intended for nuclear purposes. There were two sides to this story.
Thanks again for stating Cheney's very correct statement: "“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” Of course, your quoting Cheney telling the truth shows you are slamming this stuff into the comment without even thinking about it.
Your use of "authoritarian" for leaders who are actually less authoritarian than their political opponents shows you use the word without meaning. For effect, and a complete lie. Why lie unless you are trolling?
Also, did the Bush administration lie when it said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of WMD technology, and that his regime was a grave threat to America?
He really went out on a limb, with the Bush cocaine thing, and quoting a forged document about Bush going AWOL, which directly contradicts the real, non-forged documents which show he served well enough for an honorable discharge.
Bush supposedly was in favor of the Vietnam War as a young man, and he served honorably (no AWOL) in the US military at this time. The first I am only guessing... .but it might be a Dave Dubya assumption. The second is historic fact. By serving, he doesn't meet the definition of a chickenhawk.
It is rather brain-damaged to call either any sort of chickenhawk. Qualifications for decisions on such matters have nothing to do with whether or not anyone actually was a grunt on the ground in some jungle in a past decade.
Pres. Obama is even more of a "chickenhawk", using the term the way it is used by those who use it as a lame insult. He has sent LARGE numbers of troops to the US, and he has never served, and he even opposed at one time the US going to one of the countries he later sent troops for.
But as I said, it doesn't matter. Being a soldier or not has no bearing on anyone's qualifications to make decisions on these matters. Obama is fully qualified, despite not having served and despite him having opposed some of this.
Post a Comment