4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 03:33 pm
nimh was most certainly NOT criticizing those conservatives. He was giving them credit where credit is clearly due. All you really needed to say was "thanks for noticing".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 03:38 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
nimh was most certainly NOT criticizing those conservatives. He was giving them credit where credit is clearly due. All you really needed to say was "thanks for noticing".


Okay I probably overreacted. But are you denying that Nimh took a shot at the Conservatives with his post---and that made it sort of a backhanded compliment; i.e. Conservatives were right to criticize Coulter and without bringing in Clinton (or whatever) as they usually do.....or.....

But Nimh, thank you for noticing. Even if you couldn't do it without it being a backhanded compliment. Smile
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 03:43 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
nimh was most certainly NOT criticizing those conservatives. He was giving them credit where credit is clearly due. All you really needed to say was "thanks for noticing".


Okay I probably overreacted. But are you denying that Nimh took a shot at the Conservatives with his post


I guess that all depends on who "the Conservatives" are.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 03:49 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
nimh was most certainly NOT criticizing those conservatives. He was giving them credit where credit is clearly due. All you really needed to say was "thanks for noticing".


Okay I probably overreacted. But are you denying that Nimh took a shot at the Conservatives with his post


I guess that all depends on who "the Conservatives" are.


Well I don't know--he can speak for himself--but I think Nimh would consider anybody who votes Republican to be conservative. And if they appreciate Ann Coulter, that makes them mean conservatives even if they disapprove of her more outrageous remarks. Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 05:41 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
When is the last time you saw a liberal denounce something stupid/unkind/hateful/racist/inappropriate etc. that another liberal said without including a reference to a GOPer or conservative or whatever, Nimh? Do you recall a time that you have done this?

Umm, yes. Plenty.

I'm the guy who started and kept up a long-running anti-Kerry thread, remember?

Or for a more recent example, consider the post in which I struck "Democratic Ohio Governor Strickland from the list of politicians I respect".

Foxfyre wrote:
Even now you are criticizing those conservatives who are criticizing Coulter

Huh?

Don't tell me - in your interpretation, "credit where credit is due" means something negative, when said by a liberal.

I was grateful and glad to see conservative bloggers finally standing up to Coulter's hateful stupid ****. And I thought it only fair for me to come here to point it out, since it was in the Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread that, last time round, I had railed against conservatives NOT speaking up against her.

At the time, Tico already provided one counterexample, and I thanked him for it - now that I found a bunch more myself, the least I could do was bring them here.

I've also posted the list of conservatives-who-spoke-up-against-Coulter-now on the most recent anti-Coulter thread, to show the liberals there that not all conservatives are appeasing her.

Foxfyre wrote:
But are you denying that Nimh took a shot at the Conservatives with his post---and that made it sort of a backhanded compliment; i.e. Conservatives were right to criticize Coulter and without bringing in Clinton (or whatever) as they usually do.....or.....

Umm, the whole point of my post was to compliment these conservative bloggers and posters for denouncing Coulter WITHOUT including the "but liberals are worse and bla bla etc etc" thing. I think that definitely speaks well for them.

It was all the more praiseworthy since they were not prodded into it by liberal questioners, but did so wholly spontaneously.

There is a potshot in there, obviously, but it is quite explicitly not targeted at "the Conservatives"; it was targeted at conservative discussion here on A2K:

nimh wrote:
What I'm impressed by, going on the standards I'm used to here, is that the above denouncements came without accompanying bit about how it should nevertheless also be remembered that - well, you know the drill - liberal talking heads are just as bad, the MSM is blowing things out of proportions [etc]

Consider me hopeful that A2K conservatives will this time be as boldly decent as these bloggers I quoted.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 07:22 pm
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
When is the last time you saw a liberal denounce something stupid/unkind/hateful/racist/inappropriate etc. that another liberal said without including a reference to a GOPer or conservative or whatever, Nimh? Do you recall a time that you have done this?

Umm, yes. Plenty.

I'm the guy who started and kept up a long-running anti-Kerry thread, remember?

Or for a more recent example, consider the post in which I struck "Democratic Ohio Governor Strickland from the list of politicians I respect".

Foxfyre wrote:
Even now you are criticizing those conservatives who are criticizing Coulter

Huh?

Don't tell me - in your interpretation, "credit where credit is due" means something negative, when said by a liberal.

I was grateful and glad to see conservative bloggers finally standing up to Coulter's hateful stupid ****. And I thought it only fair for me to come here to point it out, since it was in the Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread that, last time round, I had railed against conservatives NOT speaking up against her.

At the time, Tico already provided one counterexample, and I thanked him for it - now that I found a bunch more myself, the least I could do was bring them here.

I've also posted the list of conservatives-who-spoke-up-against-Coulter-now on the most recent anti-Coulter thread, to show the liberals there that not all conservatives are appeasing her.

Foxfyre wrote:
But are you denying that Nimh took a shot at the Conservatives with his post---and that made it sort of a backhanded compliment; i.e. Conservatives were right to criticize Coulter and without bringing in Clinton (or whatever) as they usually do.....or.....

Umm, the whole point of my post was to compliment these conservative bloggers and posters for denouncing Coulter WITHOUT including the "but liberals are worse and bla bla etc etc" thing. I think that definitely speaks well for them.

It was all the more praiseworthy since they were not prodded into it by liberal questioners, but did so wholly spontaneously.

There is a potshot in there, obviously, but it is quite explicitly not targeted at "the Conservatives"; it was targeted at conservative discussion here on A2K:

nimh wrote:
What I'm impressed by, going on the standards I'm used to here, is that the above denouncements came without accompanying bit about how it should nevertheless also be remembered that - well, you know the drill - liberal talking heads are just as bad, the MSM is blowing things out of proportions [etc]

Consider me hopeful that A2K conservatives will this time be as boldly decent as these bloggers I quoted.


I apologize if I misjudged you. I do however think you don't understand what I meant by backhanded compliment, but it isn't important either. I appreciate your efforts in doing a decent thing amidst all the trolls and spammers that visit here just to muddy things up.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 07:38 pm
Jesus. No good deed, eh, nimh?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 07:41 pm
Says the guy who won the sensitivity award today.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 07:45 pm
You're reading selectively (and incorrectly). What was said was that I did not win the sensitivity sweepstakes. But I know you won't let being wrong stop you.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 07:48 pm
Ah you are so right and I am terribly sorry for calling you sensitive. You did indeed come up the loser on that. Smile

My bad.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 09:00 pm
From the BBC:

Report warns against Iran attack
Military strikes against Iran could speed Tehran's development of nuclear weapons, according to a UK think tank.
A report by the Oxford Research Group says military action could lead Iran to change the nature of its programme and quickly build a few nuclear arms.

Iran denies Western claims it is trying to build weapons, saying its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

The study comes as the UN nuclear watchdog is set to discuss the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea.

In February, Iran ignored a deadline set by the UN Security Council to stop enriching uranium.

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was instead expanding the programme.


Far from setting back Iran's nuclear programme , a military attack might create the political conditions in which Iran could accelerate its nuclear weapons programme
Oxford Research Group report


Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs.

Western powers have threatened to expand sanctions on Iraq. These could include travel bans on Iranian officials associated with nuclear and missile programmes.

The US has not ruled out using force but says it wants to give diplomacy a chance.

'Fast-track programme'

The Oxford Research Group report is written by nuclear scientist and arms expert Frank Barnaby.

"If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity it is doing so relatively slowly, most estimates put it at least five years away," he says.


POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS
New UN resolution on tougher economic sanctions, tabled by US or European allies
US pressure on Europeans to step up bilateral sanctions
New initiative to get Iran back to talks


Mr Barnaby adds that an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities "would almost certainly lead to a fast-track programme to develop a small number of nuclear devices as quickly as possible".

He says it "would be a bit like deciding to build a car from spare parts instead of building the entire car factory".

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says that with two US navy aircraft carrier strike groups in the Gulf region and US spokesmen refusing to rule out force, this study is timely and highlights what most air power experts have been saying for some time.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 01:04 pm
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070301/tab.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 01:12 pm
Anyone following the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, besides Foxfyre?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 02:46 pm
Quote:


"Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."[/size]

Chuck Hagel's historic moment, and what it means for a declining presidency.

By Charles P. Pierce

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

http://www.esquire.com/features/chuckhagel0407

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 03:02 pm
JTT, As much as I would like to see the impeachment of Bush, I doubt very much it'll happen with the current congress.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 05:24 pm
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca0226ad.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 07:35 pm
So typical of him; the attention span of a gnat. That, combined with limited intelligence, has made this a deadly combination.

Hey Foxy, how do you like the Scooter convictions? Ya think he'll squawk on the rest of them?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 08:00 pm
JTT wrote:
So typical of him; the attention span of a gnat.


Perhaps his long-term memory is sound.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WAT911OmmissionReport.htm


The current US federal govt has about as much international credibility as faux nooz. Meaning none at all.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2007 11:57 pm
JTT wrote:
Hey Foxy, how do you like the Scooter convictions?


I could imagine that she's more troubled about happens to her lawmaker.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 07:10 am
Naw. Domenici and Wilson will get thumped by the media for a few days and then this will blow over. The Dems will make whatever political points out of it they can, but they aren't going to push it far enough to force the GOP to expose all the instances when they did that kind of thing too. They all pull strings for their constituencies. That's how they maintain their power base and keep the funding coming in so they can be re-elected. Even the U.S. attorney involved says they didn't break any laws.

You'll notice the Dems are making political hay when they can but they're not going to push a lot of matters lest they have to air too much of their own dirty linen. Consequently, the Bush administration will likely finish out with the fewest scandals, indictments, and convictions that we have seen in a long long time. In fact I think history will show that they HAD the fewest scandals, indictments, and convictions compared to most previous administrations at least in the last half of the 20th century to present.

I will be amazed if the Libby thing is not overturned on appeal. It should never have gone to trial in the first place and to convict him based on claimed memory lapses is absolutely outrageous considering the hundreds, probably thousands of cases of faulty memory on far more serious matters that were accepted in lieu of testimony going back many years.

However. . . . .

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0306cd.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2024 at 03:22:13