Democrats confused??

[JimS]

Question (probably shouldn't ask - but here goes). The Democrats have back paddled several times recently (say within the last year) concerning our efforts to fight terror. Now they find some of their rhetoric mirrored back at them by the Iranian and Venezuelan Presidents (Chavez called Bush the Devil). Not that far off (if at all) from what the Democrat leadership has been saying for months now. Now they are (apparently) outraged by what Chavez said. In fact, Rangel has even suggested that it is ok for Democrats to attack the President but not Chavez (i.e., does not want to extend freedom of speech to foreigners while they are on our soil - a constitutional right - he said this clearly on the news tonight - I heard him).

Here is my question, why is it alright for Democrats like Rangel to suggest that Chavez has no right to attack our President (verbally) while on our soil (freedom of speech), but think we should provide full Constitutional protection to terrorists captured during our military operations? (Note that I do not have a specific example of Rangel wanting to extend full Constitutional protections to terrorists (who are not our citizens - qualified) - but other Democrats and the ACLU certainly have.
The part in Red has been withdrawn as it is erroneous on my part - I could not find Empirical data supporting my argument.

Again, probably should not have asked the question (but could not resist - :o ).

JimS

[cma g21]

Maybe it's kinda like brothers that are always fighting with each other, but stick together if one is attacked by an outsider?

[JimS]

Maybe it's kinda like brothers that are always fighting with each other, but stick together if one is attacked by an outsider?

That is certainly what the Democrats are saying (at least Rangel) - however, it is more likely that they just got a full dose of a mirror with an ugly image staring back - and are now trying to figure out how to convince Moderates - that they really did not mean the same thing as Chavez.

Before I get jumped, I do not think most of the Democrats truly think like Chavez. I do think a number of them are living in some realm of denial about these types of individuals we are dealing with (i.e., that people like the Iranian and Venzeulan Presidents are actually reasonable). Does Rangel really think Chavez was sincere with the oil offer (it will come) - he certainly acted as such this evening in an interview with Gibbs? Chavez is trying to do in our country what he did in his - buy the poor and/or dis-enfranchized endearment.

My suspicion is that Rangel did not want to call Chavez on this tactic for fear of losing votes - I will give him credit for calling Chavez on the Devil comment - although he and other Democrats have said much the same thing.

JimS

[freesw]

... In fact, Rangel has even suggested that it is ok for Democrats to attack the President but not Chavez (i.e., does not want to extend freedom of speech to foreigners while they are on our soil - a constitutional right - he said this clearly on the news tonight - I heard him).
...
(Note that I do not have a specific example of Rangel wanting to extend full Constitutional protections to terrorists (who are not our citizens - qualified) - but other Democrats and the ACLU certainly have.


When you say "other Democrats" have advocated extending full Constitutional protections to [foreign terrorists and terrorist suspects], are you sure about that? Which Democrats? I'm very skeptical of this. I'm even skeptical that the ACLU has advocated that.

Rules guaranteeing decent and fair treatment of foreigners in US custody are one thing, full constitutional protections that have always been intended to be limited to US citizens are another -- it's my guess that those Democrats and the ACLU have advocated the former, and not the latter.....but I'm eager to be corrected if wrong about this.

[Olds]

Sorry I did not see this thread and posted a link on this story on another thread...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html

BTW I agree about not coming to this country and trash talking our President.

[JimS]

When you say "other Democrats" have advocated extending full Constitutional protections to [foreign terrorists and terrorist suspects], are you sure about that? Which Democrats? I'm very skeptical of this. I'm even skeptical that the ACLU has advocated that.

Rules guaranteeing decent and fair treatment of foreigners in US custody are one thing, full constitutional protections that have always been intended to be limited to US citizens are another -- it's my guess that those Democrats and the ACLU have advocated the former, and not the latter.....but I'm eager to be corrected if wrong about this.

I stand corrected on the second part as I can not find empirical data to support my claim.

Consider the second part of my argument withdrawn.

However, it still leaves the Democrats the problem of having used much the same language (some identical at the local level in Rangel's district and neighboring districts). I personally do not buy this all in the family attitude currently being used as an excuse - and an excuse is all it seems to be - for primarily political purposes.

I personally see no reason to get to upset about the Chavez and Ahmadinejad comments - they were only echoing what Democrats have been saying about our President (which I disagree with). They also are clearly demonstrating the qualities of the individuals we are currently battling in our efforts against tyranny and terrorism. Chaves and Ahmadinejad are the same as Castro, Saddam, Jong II, Al-Assad, etc. - whether these dictators be from the left (communism) or the right (facism) they are pretty much one and the same. There is no true rationality to how they act - Which to me makes them much much more dangerous and practically impossible to have meaningful dialogue for negotiations.

[freesw]

I personally see no reason to get to upset about the Chavez and Ahmadinejad comments - they were only echoing what Democrats have been saying about our President

Oh?

I guess I missed it when "Democrats" referred to Bush as Beelzebub.<_<

This seems like more sweeping generalization and looseness with facts.

[JimS]

Oh?

I guess I missed it when "Democrats" referred to Bush as Beelzebub.<_<

This seems like more sweeping generalization and looseness with facts.

Doubt what you want. First of all I did not say they had called him the devil - I said this was not to far from their rhetoric. If you think otherwise - well that is your right. You obviously lean left with your preference for news and opinion - I lean the other way.

Some evidence that I highly doubt you will accept, but so be it.

Rangel himself does not deny his own harsh statements toward Bush, his primary problem with Chavez was that he made his statements in Harlem (Rangel's district - he falls short of strongly criticizing Chavez on his politics or approach) (USNews.com http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060921/21chavez.htm)


Asked specifically if she was calling Bush incompetent, Pelosi replied:

"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/pelosi.bush/

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001158.html Blog favorable to Bush - so you will ignore but that is fine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-20-pelosi-bush_x.htm - another from Pelosi.

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002741.html - see Rangel's picture the question and his comment.

http://www.nysun.com/article/20580 - good article comming very close to the demonization talk.

http://iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=71358 Harkin on Bush

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1786442,00.html Gore on Bush

http://www.chinadaily.cn/english/doc/2004-07/28/content_352406.htm Kennedy on Bush

Not really hard to find these - if one does simple Google search. There are more but I am out of time. The Democrats have a problem - they have slid so far to the left (actually Socialism) with their leader Howard Dean - that polls are beginning to show the President's numbers going up (abliet they are still low) and Republican candidates for the house making much stronger showings now that the Democrats picks have started coming in.

You called me thickheaded one time and I laughed it off - because being stubborn is not always a bad thing. However, your tone in you last reply was one of in your face. I will not debate where that attitude prevails - I corrected my mistake and a mistake it was - I not only corrected it but did so in public and highlighted it so it would not be missed.

It is a crying shame that someone that considers themselves open minded feels they have to attack personally in this matter - especially an attack on a person that at least has made concerted effort to find information (I will not call it data or unbiased - because you nor I have true access to that information - we get all of what we have second hand) to support a debate in an informed way.

Good day
JimS

[Boogyman]

There's a big difference between (A) critcizing the president's policies, decisions, motives, and competence, and (B) calling him the devil.

The Democrats and all Americans have the unalienable right to do the first.... it is called dissent, and it is our patriotic duty. The latter is just name-calling from a foriegn leader.

To compare Americans criticizing their own president to Chavez calling him the devil is a pretty low-down tactic, like something Karl Rove would come up with.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

[JimS]

There's a big difference between (A) critcizing the president's policies, decisions, motives, and competence, and (B) calling him the devil.

The Democrats and all Americans have the unalienable right to do the first.... it is called dissent, and it is our patriotic duty. The latter is just name-calling from a foriegn leader.

To compare Americans criticizing their own president to Chavez calling him the devil is a pretty low-down tactic, like something Karl Rove would come up with.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States


Actually not - I did not say they called him the devil - I said they had come close. Believe as you will - but Rangel himself did not dispute in interviews and there have been several that their talk has been similar to Chavez's - he simply said it was ok for Americans to do it not Chavez. Personally, if the Democrats were not worried about the elections they would not have spent this much time distancing themselves from the comments of Chavez.

The fact is the Democrats need to take a deep breath and look at why they are now the minority party. They are doing what they claim the Republicans are doing in presumabley pandering to the far right - they are pandering to the far left.

Also, dissent is one thing - name calling is another - did you read any of the articles. Pelosi "the emperor has no clothes"; Rangel "the myth of white supremacy"; Gore "renegade right wing extremist"; Kennedy "monarch named George who inherited the crown" - seems to me the rhetoric is similar.

Believe as you will - but as currently run and operated - the Democratic Party platform is a long way from what I believe - in fact, to vote for the platform would require a major change to my value system - which is much more important than politicians. (By the way, I checked myself - I typed the list of what I value.)

Good day
JimS

[freesw]

Jim, to say "echoing" is to suggest sameness, for what else is an echo but a copy, albeit fainter?

I know I'm not alone in this country of getting sick of the mud being slung - by members and adherents of both major political parties. That is why I spoke up, again. Pres. Bush is a polarizing figure, by his own choice. He will be criticized, sometimes harshly, because of the choices he has made. When discussing criticisms that approach the limits of civility, it is especially important to make distinctions, and I think you blurred them, in order to further defend an inaccurate claim.

Rangel's statement should be recognized for what it was - an expression of national solidarity in response to Chavez's crude, opportunistic rhetoric. I suspect Pres. Bush at least appreciated it for what it was.

This statement of yours:
"I personally see no reason to get to upset about the Chavez and Ahmadinejad comments - they were only echoing what Democrats have been saying about our President"
is unsupportable.

I stand by my posts, and will leave it at that.

[Boogyman]

Also, dissent is one thing - name calling is another - did you read any of the articles. Pelosi "the emperor has no clothes"; Rangel "the myth of white supremacy"; Gore "renegade right wing extremist"; Kennedy "monarch named George who inherited the crown" - seems to me the rhetoric is similar.

You gotta be kidding me. You regard that as "name-calling"?

Hell, that's extremely mild compared to what Bush deserves to be called.

What's with you, JimS? You can't tolerate the slightest criticism of your precious president, yet you have no problem calling Democrats "confused" or questioning their patriotism or even comparing them to Chavez just because they are finally getting up the courage to call Bush out on his B.S..

The big point you are completely missing here is we are all AMERICANS first, and Rep/Dem/Con/Lib second. We have freedom of speech, and the right to criticize or speak out against the president, congressmen, senators, or anybody else we damn well please to!

This whole dirty tactic of attempting to demonize dissent is getting real old, and personally I think you'd be better off thinking for yourself, instead of constantly following Karl Rove's lead.

Screw Chavez. What he says doesn't matter in the least. But what Americans say matters, and won't be condemned just because you don't like it.

[JimS]

You gotta be kidding me. You regard that as "name-calling"?

Hell, that's extremely mild compared to what Bush deserves to be called.

What's with you, JimS? You can't tolerate the slightest criticism of your precious president, yet you have no problem calling Democrats "confused" or questioning their patriotism or even comparing them to Chavez just because they are finally getting up the courage to call Bush out on his B.S..

The big point you are completely missing here is we are all AMERICANS first, and Rep/Dem/Con/Lib second. We have freedom of speech, and the right to criticize or speak out against the president, congressmen, senators, or anybody else we damn well please to!

This whole dirty tactic of attempting to demonize dissent is getting real old, and personally I think you'd be better off thinking for yourself, instead of constantly following Karl Rove's lead.

Screw Chavez. What he says doesn't matter in the least. But what Americans say matters, and won't be condemned just because you don't like it.

Boogyman

You need to breath and go back and read read read. I did not attack the Democrats - I did not protect Bush - I did not do anything more than report what the Democrats had said - they have the right - I support that - but they now have a problem - some in this country (including me) look at their rhetoric and then look at what Chavez and say - hey that is not that far from what the Democrats are saying - and yes it is name calling - in a better world the other types (i.e., fouler and more denigrating) of name calling would not even exist.

I said believe what you want - for that matter say what you want - also, I agree what Chavez says himself really is also is of little consequence. The other thing is - you need to realize your side of the point of view is at best 50% of the U.S. opinion (poll numbers actually indicate less if you take the war on terror as a whole) as such try to at least allow the other 50% a chance to voice our opinions and our beliefs without acting as though it is a personal affront - you are not the only one that loves this country.

It really really amazes me that I am being literally jumped on (attack may be too harsh) by the very liberals that consider themselves

Oh by the way, show me one quote from President Bush that looks anything like what Pelosi, Kennedy, Gore and crew have used - you know childish stuff like "emperor with no clothes" "white supremicist accusations" - I doubt you will find these types of less than adult responses from the President - heck I have not even found them from Clinton (who I did not like).

Now in closing, since you insist on the equivalent of yelling at me online and every response ends up with the same comment that I am a Bush lover and therefore I can not think straight - well maybe you should look at how much you hate Bush and see how much you are being blinded by hate (hate tends to be a much much stronger blinder than respect and lover ever were).

One other thing - go back and look at my post again - I did not say anything about patriotism. As you are fond of saying do not put words in my mouth. Also, I never said President Bush did not deserve criticism - again you put those in my mouth - shame on you. In fact, I dare say you will not find a single post of mine that says otherwise. Yes, I have defended him - are you going to deny me that right.

Oh well, I am sure I said way to much.
JimS

[JimS]

Jim, to say "echoing" is to suggest sameness, for what else is an echo but a copy, albeit fainter?

I know I'm not alone in this country of getting sick of the mud being slung - by members and adherents of both major political parties. That is why I spoke up, again. Pres. Bush is a polarizing figure, by his own choice. He will be criticized, sometimes harshly, because of the choices he has made. When discussing criticisms that approach the limits of civility, it is especially important to make distinctions, and I think you blurred them, in order to further defend an inaccurate claim.

Rangel's statement should be recognized for what it was - an expression of national solidarity in response to Chavez's crude, opportunistic rhetoric. I suspect Pres. Bush at least appreciated it for what it was.

This statement of yours:
"I personally see no reason to get to upset about the Chavez and Ahmadinejad comments - they were only echoing what Democrats have been saying about our President"
is unsupportable.

I stand by my posts, and will leave it at that.

So you play symantec's instead of admitting that you are possibly wrong. In fact, if you go back to the original post - the one I corrected you will see that my intent has never been to suggest they have used the exact same wording for there comments - rather the similarity.

So we disagree - nothing really new there.

One other note - one person can not polarize - it takes at least two to have this division. As such, the liberals are as much to blame as Bush - they disagree and made that decision themselves - thus, the polarization - I doubt anyone has truly "made" them disagree. In fact, I am really suprised how much of this polarization talk goes around - given our entire system is designed to put the three branches of Government at odds (polarized) in order to balance the power of the others - great concept. All political issues are automatically polarized - some stronger than others. Symantec's - oh what circles they can weave. Simpler to stick to the actual intent of the discussion most times.

Thanks
JimS

[Boogyman]

I did not attack the Democrats

look at what Chavez and say - hey that is not that far from what the Democrats are saying
Look how you contradict yourself in the same paragraph.

Look at your thread title.

You say things and then deny saying them.

Then when I call you on it, I am "yelling" at you. :wacko:

Look. It's pointless to argue with you. Your convoluted logic is tiresome and I know from past experience you are incapable of admitting to any mistakes or flawed logic.

Have a good one, JimS... :rolleyes:

[JimS]

Look how you contradict yourself in the same paragraph.

Look at your thread title.

You say things and then deny saying them.

Then when I call you on it, I am "yelling" at you. :wacko:

Look. It's pointless to argue with you. Your convoluted logic is tiresome and I know from past experience you are incapable of admitting to any mistakes or flawed logic.

Have a good one, JimS... :rolleyes:

On the contrary, I have admitted when I made erroneous comments and corrected them - in this thread for one (made it very clear in fact). However, I have never seen an admission from you that you have been wrong on anything.

Flawed logic - how so? How is it flawed? I have shown the quotes - have shown that even those speaking them themselves do not deny them and also, have shown that they themselves do not clearly state that their comments are similar to those made by Chavez. How is it flawed or an attack - it is a simple assessment of their own words - it should not be a suprise that others around the world would think that this type of name calling is ok - it goes on here everyday. Heck, I am not even concerned about the name calling other than it harms the one that uses it - i.e., decreases credibility.

I suppose my adding hypocritical to my title after the initial post might be construed as an attack on the Democrats - then again they are hypocritical as are most politicians at sometime during their campaigning or terms.

Good night and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
JimS