From: telemann	Date: November 16th, 2009 10:17 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

Ooo please post this in liberal_talk ;)

	From: wakeuplovely	Date: November 16th, 2009 10:21 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

I hate him so much.

He is practically a god in the mormon community and it sickens me.

	From: serai1	Date: November 16th, 2009 10:21 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

Fucking chicken hawks.

The one thing I can't fucking ABIDE is a goddamn hypocrite. As you say, if this mealy-mouthed coward is so gung-ho on this stupid war, he should send his kids over there. Better yet, he should pick up a gun and go get killed HIMSELF. It's not like the ranks are so overflowing that they'll turn him down. At the very least, he'd set off an IED, which is about all he's good for.

	From: badlydrawnjeff	Date: November 16th, 2009 11:25 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

First, aren't kids off limits? We don't have a draft anymore, one assumes they signed up for selective service as they're forced to, and they're adults who are not in the public sphere and are not making statements one way or another.

Second, the man is a Mormon. By religious rules, they have to do two years of missionary work. Fault him for academic deferment if you must, even though he did get put into the lottery when those were through, but you'd never go after a Quaker for getting conscientious objector status, guaranteed.

Other than that, if the chickenhawk routine suits you, very well. But at least have some standards.

	From: jblaque	Date: November 17th, 2009 12:19 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

First, aren't kids off limits?

First, I wasn't attacking his kids; I was attacking his faux outrage about the troops' welfare when neither he nor his kids felt "patriotic" enough to serve their country in a time of war.

But now that you mention it, Jeff, are kids off limits? Ask your friends at Free Republic (a great many of whom call themselves "libertarians"). Better yet, ask your esteemed '08 POTUS candidate (who might have been your 2000 nominee had it not been for your last president - you know - smearing his daughter).

"Second, the man is a Mormon. By religious rules..."

My fuckin' ass. If he loved his country as much as he claims to, he could have done his missionary work after serving. There are no "religious rules" about what age you have to be in order to serve God. Like so many other right-wing "patriots" before him (see link above), Romney ducked the service. Period.

"...you'd never go after a Quaker for getting conscientious objector status, guaranteed."

I would if that Quaker were a two-bit, cardboard chickenhawk trying to score political points on a topic - namely, a war - he knows little if anything about. Guaranteed.

"But at least have some standards."

Pot/kettle, my friend. Start calling a spade a spade once in a while, then talk to me about standards. You're as partisan as I am, and you damned-well know it. The difference is I go after the Dems once in a while.

	From: badlydrawnjeff	Date: November 17th, 2009 01:01 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

First, I wasn't attacking his kids; I was attacking his faux outrage about the troops' welfare when neither he nor his kids felt "patriotic" enough to serve their country in a time of war.

Well, no, you were including his kids in the situation. Again - they are adults, they have not made any public statements that I am aware of, etc. It's not worth it.

But now that you mention it, Jeff, are kids off limits? Ask your friends at Free Republic (a great many of whom call themselves "libertarians"). Better yet, ask your esteemed '08 POTUS candidate (who might have been your 2000 nominee had it not been for your last president - you know - smearing his daughter).

When a Freeper shows their face around here, I'll gladly condemn them as well. Otherwise, that straw man can head elsewhere.

My fuckin' ass. If he loved his country as much as he claims to, he could have done his missionary work after serving.

So "love of country" now equals "join the draft regardless of one's personal beliefs." The standard is 19-24 years of age, it's entirely reasonable for an upper class Mormon to do so directly after college.

I would if that Quaker were a two-bit, cardboard chickenhawk trying to score political points on a topic - namely, a war - he knows little if anything about. Guaranteed.

I'm not buying it, sorry. Nor have you at all shown that Romney knows nothing about the topic. Are you of the school that you must experience something to have knowledge of it? If so, that's a shitload of history you're willing to abandon.

Pot/kettle, my friend. Start calling a spade a spade once in a while, then talk to me about standards. You're as partisan as I am, and you damned-well know it. The difference is I go after the Dems once in a while.

My standard is to not use people's kids, and to not go after people's religious beliefs. You may hold different ones, and I'll criticize you on that because I think those are very basic standards that we should all hold.

And you're right, I am partisan - I'll be sure to go after more independents like myself in the future. d;-)

Edited at 2009-11-17 01:04 am (UTC)

	From: anfalicious	Date: November 17th, 2009 02:17 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

And you're right, I am partisan - I'll be sure to go after more independents like myself in the future. d;-)

Value of the word "independent": RIP 2009.

	From: jblaque	Date: November 17th, 2009 02:47 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

Even if the word "independent" had any valid meaning anymore, my friend Jeff (and I do consider him a friend, regardless of our differences) is the furthest thing from it. I defy him to name one thing that Barack Obama has done thus far that, in his opinion, has benefited this country.

P.S. I used to call myself an "independent," too. I've even voted Republican on occasion (believe it or not).

	From: jblaque	Date: November 17th, 2009 02:21 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

"Well, no, you were including his kids in the situation."

Yes, as part & parcel of his phony patriotic minstrel show. Absolutely no apology in that regard. Guy's got five healthy, able sons, none of whom care enough about this country's "freedom" to actually defend it (despite being raised in such a "patriotic home" such as his). And he dodged the draft when he was called to duty. He's the last person to be critiquing military strategy, and he's only doing it because he's got POTUS aspirations (i.e., he's shamelessly pandering to the Palin Crowd). You're willfully jamming your head into the sand on this one, Jeff, and if you - a self-proclaimed "libertarian" - were go to the polls in '12 and pull the lever for this phony, you're a bona fide sucker.

"When a Freeper shows their face around here..."

Yeah, I gotcha. "Around here." Yet you never spoke out against 'em when they viciously attacked that young lady. And - glaringly - no comment whatsoever from you on Bush or McCain using their opponents' children as punching bags. Silence born of political convenience. Swell.

"So "love of country" now equals "join the draft regardless of one's personal beliefs."

Um, in this case, absolutely. If you claim to be a die-hard Patriot (as Romney portrays himself), you do whatever you can to serve your country - especially when you're called to duty. A draft-dodger is a draft-dodger, regardless of their "beliefs." Some are seen as lawbreakers. Others - like Romney - get off on technicalities, connections and privilege...

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Needless to say, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to even approach criticizing anyone on that list.

"Are you of the school that you must experience something to have knowledge of it? If so, that's a shitload of history you're willing to abandon."

Spare me. What do you honestly think Mitt Romney genuinely knows about military affairs of any kind? Maybe as much as you and I do, at best. And that ain't much.

"I'll be sure to go after more independents like myself in the future."

Like I said, I won't hold my breath. ;)

P.S. If you're an "independent," I'm the second coming of Genghis Khan.

Edited at 2009-11-17 03:10 am (UTC)

	From: badlydrawnjeff	Date: November 17th, 2009 03:26 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

You're willfully jamming your head into the sand on this one, Jeff, and if you - a self-proclaimed "libertarian" - were go to the polls in '12 and pull the lever for this phony, you're a bona fide sucker.

No, I'm just not willing to think that he has some sort of control over his kids. It's silly.

As for pulling the lever, he'll still be better than the guy who's there now.

Yet you never spoke out against 'em when they viciously attacked that young lady.

First I heard of it tonight.

And - glaringly - no comment whatsoever from you on Bush or McCain using their opponents' children as punching bags. Silence born of political convenience. Swell.

I don't know what part of "kids are off limits" I need to make clearer.

Needless to say, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to even approach criticizing anyone on that list.

Probably not, because the chickenhawk/draft dodging argument doesn't hold any water with me.

P.S. If you're an "independent," I'm the second coming of Genghis Khan.

Your reach is further than I had imagined!

	From: jblaque	Date: November 17th, 2009 04:23 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

"No, I'm just not willing to think that he has some sort of control over his kids."

Speaking as a parent, of course...

Oh, wait... you're not a parent, are you? it's just one of those "you don't have to've actually lived it to be an expert on it" things, right? Kinda like military strategy... right?

"As for pulling the lever, he'll still be better than the guy who's there now."

Mitt Romney... "still better" than Barack Obama. There's your balanced, "independent" streak coming out.

You should be embarrassed, Jeff. Almost anyone in your party's current stable of viable candidates would make a better, more qualified choice than Romney (Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich not included, as much as you may admire them). Do you even know the first thing about this cardboard cut-out?

"First I heard of it tonight."

~Really?~

No shit? If you're telling the truth. I stand corrected. And disappointed.

"I don't know what part of "kids are off limits" I need to make clearer."

Except when it comes to George W. Bush and John McCain, right? How much "clearer" do you need it? Unless, of course, this is also the "first you've heard of it." Funny, i've never seen you protest a Republican attacking an opponent's children. Why is that?

Let me guess: "First you've heard of it."

"Probably not, because the chickenhawk/draft dodging argument doesn't hold any water with me."

As expected. The real question is, why? Why does that fact that most pro-war politicians in your pro-war party never served in the military mean nothing to you?

"Libertarian," my butt. ;)

	From: kierthos	Date: November 17th, 2009 09:14 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

Is it still okay to think Romney is a better choice then Palin?

	From: badlydrawnjeff	Date: November 17th, 2009 12:25 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

Oh, wait... you're not a parent, are you? it's just one of those "you don't have to've actually lived it to be an expert on it" things, right? Kinda like military strategy... right?

Right.

Mitt Romney... "still better" than Barack Obama. There's your balanced, "independent" streak coming out.

Indeed. Seeing as Obama is trending to be miles worse than the guy he replaced?

You should be embarrassed, Jeff. Almost anyone in your party's current stable of viable candidates would make a better, more qualified choice than Romney (Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich not included, as much as you may admire them). Do you even know the first thing about this cardboard cut-out?

My party isn't fielding anyone yet. As of the Republican field, Romney's not even my fifth choice - he was my governor for 4 years, after all, I had to deal with him first-hand.

No shit? If you're telling the truth. I stand corrected. And disappointed.

I avoid the Free Republic as much as I avoid the crazies at Kos, Media Matters, and the like. It never hit my radar, and it's disgusting.

Funny, i've never seen you protest a Republican attacking an opponent's children. Why is that?

Because I've never seen it or I've not had an opportunity. I'm sure I've made commentary to that effect during my more political blogging days, I couldn't tell you when, but I can't comment on what I don't see or don't have a situation to do so.

Why does that fact that most pro-war politicians in your pro-war party never served in the military mean nothing to you?

Because I fail to see its relevance.

	From: jblaque	Date: November 18th, 2009 10:15 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

"Because I fail to see its relevance."

The relevancy goes to hypocrisy.

	From: badlydrawnjeff	Date: November 18th, 2009 10:25 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

And where's the hypocrisy?

	From: jblaque	Date: November 19th, 2009 01:18 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

You really don't see it, Jeff? You really don't recognize that a chickenhawk like Romney squawking about "appropriate" military strategy during wartime (solely for his own political gain, no less) is a shameless hypocrite?

"Do as I say, not as I do (then elect me!)." Ring a bell with you? Sure does with me.

P.S. As far as I can tell at this early stage of the game, our friend Mittens here is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination in '12 (although I'm sure he'll be facing a whole stable of *ahem* interesting contenders). That said, I'm encouraged by the fact that you're not a big fan. There's hardly a stiffer mannequin in the bunch.

	From: badlydrawnjeff	Date: November 19th, 2009 02:03 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

You really don't see it, Jeff? You really don't recognize that a chickenhawk like Romney squawking about "appropriate" military strategy during wartime (solely for his own political gain, no less) is a shameless hypocrite

No, I don't. I fail to see the hypocrisy in the matter - military service is not something that's required in this country, nor do you have to have working experience in an area to have an opinion.

That said, I'm encouraged by the fact that you're not a big fan. There's hardly a stiffer mannequin in the bunch.

I'm not a fan of any of the current names being bandied about, but they're still better than the amateur in office currently.

	From: jblaque	Date: November 19th, 2009 03:48 pm (UTC)		(Permalink)

"No, I don't. I fail to see the hypocrisy in the matter..."

We'll agree to disagree, then, different colored glasses n' all...

"I'm not a fan of any of the current names being bandied about, but they're still better than the amateur in office currently."

LOL. I'm hoping like hell that you guys nominate either Palin or Cheney. That'd be rich.

	From: darksumomo	Date: November 17th, 2009 06:47 am (UTC)		(Permalink)

Mitt Romney is the biggest stuffed shirt I've ever seen in Republican politics, which means he's the biggest stuffed shirt in U.S. politics, and I've been following Republican politics since 1972.