. . . Not everybody is buying that John-McCain-is-a-war-hero stuff. Here’s a guy (a professor at Princeton, no less) who figures McCain is halfway to being a regular Hitler. (The commenters agree, and then some.)
Reader Comments:
“Although I do respect Bart and ilk for favoring (the habeus corpus approach for dealing with terrorists).”
I don’t. I’m guided by my principles; the moral values I hold dear are not commanded
by a document written by somebody else in the 1700s. I have no patience for those wanting to afford Luxuries & Freebies to terrorists.
Yeah, but the left is not some monolithic enterprise aimed at destroying everything you and yours hold dear (a few radical leftists notwithstanding).
There are individual opinions out there which you can either agree with or disagree with, without the need to demonize the values of the one you disagree with.
Your comments on Hitler, fascism, shredding the Constitution, war for oil, etc. may only be leftwing poetic license, just as a great many of your own comments could be construed by some as the very same thing from the rightwing. Hot air and attitude only.
Some of it no doubt truely is mob hate, but how much ? Not much I reckon. People have legitimate reasons for their incendiary opinions and they have illegitimate reasons, like mob hate. You have to parse the two out.
You start by examing the merits of the opinion itself rather than the political allegiance of the party voicing it.
When you say:
“Sincerety is no excuse. Some nuts believe that blowing up a school bus will get them a ticket to Paradise and 72 virgins. They really believe it. That doesn’t mean I have to take them seriously and it sure doesn’t mean I have to respect their opinions.”
First, you do take it serious, cause you want to stop them, and you do need to respect, but only to the extent called for. Does this “sincere” opinion make sense even coming from a nut ? Or not ?
Good example though. In that case, I would be most concerned with blowing his head off, not granting him props or habeus corpus, although I do respect Bart and ilk for favoring that approach. It may well be principled just as you suggest.
And you just reiterated what I said, only with about a zillion more words.
Disagreement is fine. Ridiculous references to fascism or Hitler or imperialist war machines and all the rest of the blithering stupidity that comes from the left is not. It’s obsessive mob hate.
There’s a difference between principled disagreement (Bart’s condemnation of waterboarding) and idiotic ranting about the “Bush Regime” and it’s neocon plots to “shred” the Constitution and wage “illegal war for oil” and kill black people blah blah blah.
Especially coming from the very people who have yet to find the Second Amendment in their little red copies of the above mentioned document.
Sincerety is no excuse. Some nuts believe that blowing up a school bus will get them a ticket to Paradise and 72 virgins. They really believe it. That doesn’t mean I have to take them seriously and it sure doesn’t mean I have to respect their opinions.
I warily but semi-respectfully disagree.
You seem to sincerely believe Bush bashing is some kind of aberrant behavior, or at least you push that line of reasoning from time to time, so let me respond seriously.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is “shallow”. Could an alternative explanation suffice ? Could there possibly be room enough in this big world for multiple opinions ? I ask.
Whereas you see Bush being portrayed as a one-dimensional villain others only see a man but a man marked by abject failure. Sure, there are some things he did right and some good aspects to his person.
The difference is you see slight failings, an otherwise inspirational Andrew Jackson or a Teddy Roosevelt. Others who disagree with any number of his policies see much worse than slight failings.
What I’m trying to say Roger is that not everyone who dislikes George Bush is stooping to character assassination. There are some who honestly and sincerely doubt his credentials and bona fides as leader of the free world. They, as you, believe what they say.
They could be wrong, but so could you.
Andrew Jackson, by the way, wasn’t he the subject of assassination attempts and even duels ? One drawback of strong character is that it invites others of equal but opposing strong character to lash back at you.
I realize Bush’s very low approval ratings are skewed heavily by the Iraq war. Too bad. For those so inclined, there are any number of domestic issues to find fault with. Only the general public, not too interested in current affairs, is obsessed with the war or with vagaries of the economy. There are more serious bones to pick and those who do so.
Some of them are very sincere, not rabid partisans, not comedians, not kneejerk Bush haters. It “should” concern you that those people do exist, but all too easy for you to dismiss them glibly, as I imagine you will continue to do.
Biscuithed brings up a good point. Andrew Jackson beat the British at New Orleans and is considered the first populist president. But..he was also the man responsible for relocating the eastern indian nations by force ala the “trail of tears”.
T. Roosevelt is considered the first environmental president yet he’s also reponsible for gouging out the Panama Canal. Something no environmentalist would support today.
This is why I get so aggitated when shallow people go off on their anti Bush screeds. The same applies to those who claimed Clinton “murdered” the Branch Davidians or had Vince Foster wacked. Sure, criticize the men and their policies but do so understanding that all leaders are human, not the one dimensional villians portrayed by political fanatics or late nite comedians.
No one has mentioned the Gen. Wesley Clark comments. Well enough. Relief from the constant pain and itching of politics.
The Civil War is vastly more important to any true Richmonder than any wussified forgettable dustup in some God forsaken cave in the Middle East or some typhoon struck lice infected peasant hut in Southeast Asia, I agree.
Um, maybe I don’t agree. Next time we win. (all that counts)
Andrew Jackson was a fascinating man. Teddy Roosevelt too, not that either had anything to do with the Civil War, which lessens their significance greatly.
Both possessed character, evident in civilian life as much as military.
Larry,
I have absolutely no respect for someone who’s quiding principles are so easily discarded. It’s that simple.
Take someone like Joe Liebermann. He disagree’s with his party on the war but, he still hold true to his liberal principles on other issues, even though the democrats drove him into exile for ideological impurity. You don’t have to worry about Liebermann suddenly flipping on abortion or gay marraige just because he’s mad about his party’s stand on the war. Jim Webb, on the other hand, has become nothing but a democrat toady.
Who supported Allen in 2000.
You can buy into the scrappy little hero image if you want. I look at the man behind the media facade. I look at what he does, not what he says. And I don’t trust him one bit. He’s a two faced little runt who’ll side with whoever offers him the most.
Roy,
What about my world view do you find so disagreeable?
“he’s supported the union backed card check law which would scrap the secret ballot ideal for the “we watch you vote ala Robert Mugabe” ideal...which is nothing more than legalized union intimidation.”
Durn it all, RSmith, would you PLEASE stop doing that?
I disagree with your worldview. Therefore, I want to disagree with whatever you post. When you post something with which I DO agree, this upsets the procedures. Please be more considerate in the future.
R. Smith, did you by chance have a bad personal encounter with Jim Webb or something? You sound like you really got a beef with him! Sure, he was once a conservative Republican & then switched to the Democratic party. But “sleazeball”...man that’s overly-harsh to describe someone who switches parties.
Look, you guys & gals on Barticles are basically nice, intelligent folks. But you really ought to expand your horizons beyond local radio stations & the Richmond Times-Dispatch. You need a good shortwave radio. Matter of fact…
...there’s an excellent model shortwave radio going for a phenomenally-low price on Ebay. If you all are really smart, you’d snatch-up on this in a hurry. Here it is:
Ironically....
Roy seems to think that Bush is no match for some of our greatest presidents. maybe not but…
Lincoln. Never served in anyhing other than a few weeks in the Illionos militia where he never saw action in the Blackfeet Wars. He was despised and hated during the Civil War to the point that he actually penned a concession speech because he was sure to he would lose against McClellan in the election of 1864. (democrats wanted to surrender then too)On a positive note, he didn’t feel the need to impress his contemporaries by letting the enemy slither freely under the protection of habeus corpus. He understood that, just as with the Second Amendment...laws only work with those who choose to abide by them.
Wilson was also despised for having entangled America in a “european” war.
Roosevelt? How many terms did he serve??? I’m talking about Teddy...not FDR.
Washington? Beloved yes, but considered a not so great military man. Refer to the battle of Long Island. Oh...and he had more than a few people hung for a variety of reasons although that was before the cult of habeus corpus was formed to shield those who hide behind women and execute civilians was born.
Hey...as long as it’s someone elses kid or wife...that leaves me plenty of room to prattle on about ethics and civility!
And BTW...if America had “stayed the course” after the Civil War...that is, reconstruction, then perhaps Jimmy Crow would have died a lot sooner, or never been born. Instead, America decided to ignore the southern awkwardness because they preferred going to see vaudvillian comics in blackface. John Stewart isn’t nearly as original as the desperately hip folk like to think. A distraction is a distraction.
Larry,
Webb endorsed Allen in 2000. Digest that slowly.
Who did Allen run against? Think hard.
Webbs excuse for flipping was the war. Fine. But that’s just one issue...an issue that arguably could be resolved intra party.
Since Webb switched sides, he’s supported the union backed card check law which would scrap the secret ballot ideal for the “we watch you vote ala Robert Mugabe” ideal...which is nothing more than legalized union intimidation.
No republican, much less conservative, would ever support such a filthy law. Webb did. So....
Was Webb acting out of conscious when he switched sides or was he responding to something less noble? Like, perhaps, a democrat party that was desperately looking for anyone with military experience to run against republicans because the dem party had a serious “butch” deficit? Was the republican party of 2000 that much different than the republican party of 2005? So much so that a man who ran on his meager six months as Reagans Sec o” Navy, his love of guns and his “Catch Lucky” Scotch Irish heritage would abandon his lifelong party to serve the likes of Jack Murtha and Maxine Waters?
Since winning in 2006, Webb has paid feeble tribute to republican ideals on the outside while voting lock step with the democrats.
And this from a man who endorsed Allen in 2000.
You turn your back to him if you like. Me? Uh uh. I cherish my neck to dearly to leave it’s safety in the hands of so....
independent” a man.
Oh. And he wore his sons combat boots as a campaign gimmick. Cheesy.
Does McCain have any sons? Look it up.
And he let one of his aides carry one of his handguns and, when the guy was stopped, Webb acted as if he was clueless. He’s either an idiot or a sleazeball.
he’s a power hungry prick. Nuf said.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.