Will Rove Resign?

[sirio11]

I don't know if he'll resign, most probably not. But for sure when he die, he has a place assured in hell, no way he's going to heaven.

[andyfox]

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.... "

This is exacatly correct. They prepared for war against the country that didn't perpetrate the atrocity. They called for war against Iraq no matter who was responsible for 9/11.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't have to come from anywhere. If you demonize your opponents and say it over and over and over again, and the less discriminating members of the party all buy it and repeat it over and over again... its there. It doesn't have to be based on anything. The people who say just have to want to believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it your contention that liberals, in general, have acted very strongly and decisively with regards to any recent war? I think some of this attitude comes from an attitude among some (possibly many) liberals that the military should be reduced in size and capability. Also consider that most of our troops are Republican/conservative. This would also help perpetrate the stereotype that libs are weak on defense. But to deny that there's any basis for this stereotype is both incredibly naive and uninformed.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it your contention that liberals, in general, have acted very strongly and decisively with regards to any recent war?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. They supported action in Afghanistan and actually thought this was where we should have continued to focus after 9/11.

They correctly were hesitant about Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of this attitude comes from an attitude among some (possibly many) liberals that the military should be reduced in size and capability.

[/ QUOTE ] During the 90s, even the Pentagon was saying that we were spending in areas that were not needed. Calling for a reduction in military expenditures when it is appropriate is smart. (one can debate what the appropriate level of build up is, but to disagree is not to say that one side is weak.)

[ QUOTE ]
Also consider that most of our troops are Republican/conservative. This would also help perpetrate the stereotype that libs are weak on defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is meaningless. That's like saying if most academia are Democrats/liberal, then Republicans are uneducated and dumb.

[ QUOTE ]
But to deny that there's any basis for this stereotype is both incredibly naive and uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

To deny that baseless political propaganda has no basis for stereotypes is incredibly naive and uninformed.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. They supported action in Afghanistan and actually thought this was where we should have continued to focus after 9/11.
They correctly were hesitant about Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hesitant? Ignore who voted for what and when. Ted Kennedy (as well as others) has been "announcing" that Iraq is a quagmire. Hardly an inspiring message for our boys. How bout Mr. Durbin who, whether he meant to or not, likened troops to Nazis, Soviets, and Khmer Rouge murderers. Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the military.

[ QUOTE ]
During the 90s, even the Pentagon was saying that we were spending in areas that were not needed. Calling for a reduction in military expenditures when it is appropriate is smart. (one can debate what the appropriate level of build up is, but to disagree is not to say that one side is weak.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not the 90's anymore, and I don't think the notion that libs/dems are weak on defense was spawned in the 90's. I think it goes back farther. A possibility could be fallout from Vietnam protestors who humiliated returning troops. Those people were more likely-than-not left-wing.

[ QUOTE ]
This is meaningless. That's like saying if most academia are Democrats/liberal, then Republicans are uneducated and dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking stereotypes. Is it not a stereotype held by many Dems/Libs in acadamia that Reps are uneducated and dumb?

[ QUOTE ]
To deny that baseless political propaganda has no basis for stereotypes is incredibly naive and uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently nothing's going to change your mind. The Dems/Libs have been perfectly strong regarding the military and the stereotype that they're not is based on pure fiction... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Hesitant? Ignore who voted for what and when.

[/ QUOTE ] What am I ignoring. We had no business going to Iraq. I actually think the democrats (in office) were weak for going along with it. The people contesting the drive to war in Iraq were the brave and the level headed.

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Kennedy (as well as others) has been "announcing" that Iraq is a quagmire. Hardly an inspiring message for our boys.

[/ QUOTE ] This is NOT weak if it is correct. Supporting any and all military action in all cases is not strong... its foolish. If you haven't noticed, the majority of the country is now thinking going in their was a mistake. Its not WEAK to make a principled stand.

[ QUOTE ]
How bout Mr. Durbin who, whether he meant to or not, likened troops to Nazis, Soviets, and Khmer Rouge murderers.

[/ QUOTE ] He didn't liken all the troops to Nazis. He was talking about what was going on in the prisons. Talking about a specific incident is not a generalization about our troops. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. Questioning whether or not we are abiding by the law and questioning the virtue of torture does not make one weak on defense.

This is an extension of the tactic of saying that someone who disagrees with Bush are terrorist sympathizers. Its just ugly propaganda. (On that note, I don't think Durbin had to use the language he did... he was correct in drawing attention to possibly wrongdoing in the prisons, but the language by both sides is out of control. As was Rove's speech yesterday. Frankly, it makes me disgusted with all of them. Right or Left.)

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking stereotypes. Is it not a stereotype held by many Dems/Libs in acadamia that Reps are uneducated and dumb?

[/ QUOTE ]

But my point is most stereotypes are dumb. stereotyping by nature is almost always inaccurate. And for the record, there is a stereotype that the Republicans are less educated and misinformed.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently nothing's going to change your mind.

[/ QUOTE ] I see. So you believe in stereotypes, but you don't believe that negative baseless propaganda works. OK.

I've never heard anyone deny that a lie repeated enough has no effect. You're the first.

I guess if stereotypes are true, then Republicans are racists, ruled by the rich who solicit to a voter base too dumb to know that they're supporting people who are working against their own interests. They don't care about the working man and would sell out their family if the price was right. And they've never met a situation that can't be fixed with a few bombs. Since stereotypes are all real, you'd have to agree that this statement is probably true. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't see why you think this is so difficult. Both parties portray their opposition in a negative light. There were times that the opposition was painted as communist sympathizers... people were afraid of communism and labeling people such was effective. It didn't mean it was true.

Its popular to label democrats as hating Christians... the reality of it is that many, if not most, Democrats are Christians. Its just nasty propaganda. Both parties do it to demonize their opponents. Is that so hard to accept?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't liken all the troops to Nazis. He was talking about what was going on in the prisons

[/ QUOTE ]

He may have been talking about Gitmo, but I'd have to say he attacked the troops by extension.


The quote
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess if stereotypes are true, then Republicans are racists, ruled by the rich who solicit to a voter base too dumb to know that they're supporting people who are working against their own interests. They don't care about the working man and would sell out their family if the price was right. And they've never met a situation that can't be fixed with a few bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Dean express the same sentimats in public and unlike you he was serious (I assume by your [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] that you were toung in cheek. yes?)

There should be a line - Busch '41 went over it with Willie Horton, The NAACP went over it with the "Chain" Commercial, Durbin was way over it about gitmo. Dean lives over it, and Rove kinda teatered on it. We should bitch slap all of them! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think the democrats (in office) were weak for going along with it. The people contesting the drive to war in Iraq were the brave and the level headed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another possible explanation for the stereotype that Dems are weak on defense could be the perceived wishy-washiness. "I voted for the $ 87 billion...etc". Do you believe that the Democratic Party has been 100% consistent on most issues w/ regards to the military? I don't, and I think that's just more fuel for the stereotype.

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't liken all the troops to Nazis. He was talking about what was going on in the prisons. Talking about a specific incident is not a generalization about our troops. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. Questioning whether or not we are abiding by the law and questioning the virtue of torture does not make one weak on defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to think you do this on purpose. Read what I wrote again. I didn't add the qualifier "all", did I? Whether he meant to or not, he did liken them to the most horrible thugs the 20th cen. knew. And from the military friends (and stories of others) that I've heard, many of the soldiers have this "insult one of us, insult all of us" mentality. So, to some military men, Durbin might has well have said "all".

[ QUOTE ]
But my point is most stereotypes are dumb. stereotyping by nature is almost always inaccurate. And for the record, there is a stereotype that the Republicans are less educated and misinformed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stereotypes are not in and of themselves dumb. Stereotypes don't tell us much about individuals, but they are useful when talking about large groups of something. Regardless of your feelings towards stereotypes, the stereotype that Dems are weak on defense does exist (I've seen polls to this effect, but I'm too lazy to look any up, so take it FWIW), and to argue that that stereotype is based on pure fiction is just silly.

[ QUOTE ]
I see. So you believe in stereotypes, but you don't believe that negative baseless propaganda works. OK.

I've never heard anyone deny that a lie repeated enough has no effect. You're the first.

I guess if stereotypes are true, then Republicans are racists, ruled by the rich who solicit to a voter base too dumb to know that they're supporting people who are working against their own interests. They don't care about the working man and would sell out their family if the price was right. And they've never met a situation that can't be fixed with a few bombs. Since stereotypes are all real, you'd have to agree that this statement is probably true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're going off the deep end. You're twisting my words and purposefully, I believe. My point isn't that stereotypes are always correct. My point is that stereotypes often have some root of truth when applied to a large group, but don't tell you much, if anything about an individual. There is a stereotype that Republicans are just rich fat cats. And there is an element of truth to this stereotype, no? But acknowledging that the stereotype exists and accepting it as applying to all of those within the group being stereotyped are two different things. I hope you realize this.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you think this is so difficult. Both parties portray their opposition in a negative light. There were times that the opposition was painted as communist sympathizers... people were afraid of communism and labeling people such was effective. It didn't mean it was true.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're making this much harder than it has to be. I agree that both sides will portray the other negatively. It's not been my intention to prove otherwise. My point all along has been that there's an element of truth to a stereotype, but when we begin applying (or misapplying) traits from the stereotype to individuals, we run into problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Its popular to label democrats as hating Christians... the reality of it is that many, if not most, Democrats are Christians. Its just nasty propaganda. Both parties do it to demonize their opponents. Is that so hard to accept

[/ QUOTE ]
One last time, I'm not arguing with you on this. But even propaganda (which I think often relies on stereotypes) have an element (even if it's very tiny) of truth to them, otherwise people would see it's all bs. The fact that people can see a couple cases where the stereotype fits and then begin painting the whole group with the same brush is why propaganda sometimes works.

Do we understand each other now?

[trippin bily]

Liberal wasn't my word it was the word Rove used.
My point is why all the Dems spazzed.
He dodn't say Dems he said liberal.
Are all Dems libs?
I hope not.