PDA

View Full Version : Another clueless Liberal



Leader
10 May 04,, 16:50
Stark Raving Mad
By Joel Mowbray
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 10, 2004

When Daniel Dow returned home Thursday evening, he noticed he had a voice mail message. To his great surprise, it was left by his Congressman, Pete Stark (D-CA), in response to a fax he had sent in an hour earlier.

But to Dow’s even greater surprise, the message was a smarmy smear, one in which Congressman Stark essentially called him stupid and implied that the enlisted man, who had just returned from Kosovo, did not care about enlisted men and women.

And now compounding the Congressman’s callousness, he has released an “apology” distinctly lacking anything resembling an apology.

Here’s a brief recap of the events:

- Thursday evening, the House voted on one of its typical resolutions supporting the troops in Iraq, but also condemning the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and calling for a full investigation.

- 16-term San Francisco liberal Pete “Fortney” Stark was one of 50 Congressmen to oppose the non-controversial resolution.

- Daniel Dow wrote an intelligent, though strongly worded letter expressing his outrage and faxed it to Rep. Stark’s office at 4:30pm PST.

- Dow stepped out for some errands, and upon returning home, he listened to his voice mail.

Thankfully, Dow thought on his feet and provided the recording to San Francisco-based talk radio station KSFO. The story caught fire, and by midday Friday, even Rush Limbaugh was talking about it.

Listening to the choice language Stark used, it’s easy to see why. He started out his 53-second message telling Dow, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” Stark then informs the enlisted man, “So if you care about enlisted people, you wouldn’t have voted for that thing, either.”

Perhaps such “stark” language might be acceptable responding to a blowhard or an ad hominem attack, but then again, no Congressman would ever waste his time calling such a constituent. (As a practical matter, calls from Congressmen are extremely rare, and Stark is Exhibit A as to why.)

But Dow’s letter, though unequivocal in its criticism, was eloquent, passionate, and intelligent. It might have savaged Stark’s nutty “no” vote on the resolution, but there was not a single personal attack.

If only the Congressman could say the same.

Stark stooped to name-calling, chastising his constituent as an idiot: “Probably somebody put you up to this, and I’m not sure who it was, but I doubt if you could spell half the words in the letter and somebody wrote it for you. So I don’t pay too much attention to it.”

Near the middle of his rambling message, the Congressman promised Dow, “But I’ll call you back later.” Why? Stark explained, “[To] let you tell me why you think you’re such a great, god-damned hero.” (Stark did not call back.)

Maybe a case could be made that Dow, like any American who commits to serving his or her country, is a hero. But Dow didn’t. The letter was as free of self-aggrandizement as it was personal invective against the Congressman.

Dow’s letter, in other words, was also the exact opposite of Stark’s “apology” issued Friday.

When this columnist talked to Stark’s press secretary, there was no chance to get background information or talk off-the-record, never mind a chance to interview the Congressman. No, the only thing available to the media was a carefully-drafted prepared statement.

Stark’s remarks were a collection of digs at both President Bush and Dow, a hearty pat on the back for himself, and a lamenting of the “obscenity” of the response to the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Proving that class is beyond his reach even with the benefit of a cooling-off period and staffers who presumably possess common sense, Stark started his statement with a subtle poke at Dow, referring to the original letter as a “personal letter.”

The implication, of course, is that Dow was somehow wrong to release to the media “personal” correspondence. The two men, however, have never met, and there was nothing “personal” about Dow’s note. It was a letter from constituent to Congressman, period.

And what would a statement from a rabidly partisan Democrat be without a slap at Bush? Stark accomplishes that obligatory goal and touts himself at the same time by announcing in the “apology” that he is “a veteran who honorably served in our military – with no unexplained absences from duty.”

His only regret? “I wish I’d used less heated language in my message.” Heated language, though, wasn’t the problem. His condescending insults of a man who had just returned from serving his country in Kosovo were. Rhetorically spitting in the face of a constituent cannot be dismissed as “heated language.”

Even that worthless stab at an “apology” was robbed of any meaning, though, as it was immediately followed with a cheap diversionary tactic: “the real obscenity is this Administration’s continued failure to respond to these acts of torture and abuse.”

This is not the first time that Rep. Stark’s big mouth and short temper and gotten him in trouble. Last summer, even the famously liberal San Francisco Chronicle all but called on Stark to leave public life for his well-documented “legend of buffoonery.”

Stark should spare his constituents further embarrassment and simply apologize—for real. His “legend” doesn’t need yet another chapter.

Joel Mowbray (mail@joelmowbray.com) is author of “Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13320

Confed999
11 May 04,, 01:20
Dear God we need term limits.

Leader
11 May 04,, 01:24
Dear God we need term limits.

I could not possibly agree more. Public service should not a career.

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 08:47
He's back, and crazier than ever. Okay, all you proud Democrats: defend THIS.

YouTube - Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM&eurl=http://powerlineblog.com/)

This guy is as mad as a rat in a coffee can.

gunnut
19 Oct 07,, 09:49
He's back, and crazier than ever. Okay, all you proud Democrats: defend THIS.

YouTube - Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM&eurl=http://powerlineblog.com/)

This guy is as mad as a rat in a coffee can.

Oh oh oh...allow me:

George W. Bush invaded a sovereign nation based on a false pretense to steal oil and enrich his business buddies. 9-11 was an inside job. Bush hates black people. This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. He stole the election of 2000 from the inventer of the internet and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Albert Gore. Bush is as evil as he is stupid.

Did I miss anything? :))

Shamus
19 Oct 07,, 14:44
Oh oh oh...allow me:

George W. Bush invaded a sovereign nation based on a false pretense to steal oil and enrich his business buddies. 9-11 was an inside job. Bush hates black people. This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. He stole the election of 2000 from the inventer of the internet and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Albert Gore. Bush is as evil as he is stupid.

Did I miss anything? :))Uhhh....he smells funny;) .

Julie
19 Oct 07,, 17:39
The rat in the coffee can obviously has rabies. Wow, he's still in office after all that? Geez. :eek:

Dreadnought
19 Oct 07,, 17:43
Stark should take the needle his state wants to give to the junkies and push it straight into his head and inject. Hes an ******* for making that remark and the other concerning getting their heads blow off for Bush's amusement and I certainy wouldnt blame anybody for giving him a smack down.:mad:

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 17:43
The rat in the coffee can obviously has rabies. Wow, he's still in office after all that? Geez. :eek:

Well, why would the Democrats get rid of HIM? He's a perfect fit, as far as your party is concerned.

bonehead
19 Oct 07,, 18:41
.....And Sen Craig is a perfect fit for the republicans. Nice try bud, but the facts are that there are good and bad people in all political parties. Untill the people regain control of the goverment, the bad apples are not going anywhere.

dalem
19 Oct 07,, 18:58
.....And Sen Craig is a perfect fit for the republicans. Nice try bud, but the facts are that there are good and bad people in all political parties. Untill the people regain control of the goverment, the bad apples are not going anywhere.

Mmm, Sen. Craig is a buffoon.

Stark is a seditious a-hole.

Just a leeetle bit different.

-dale

Julie
19 Oct 07,, 19:29
Well, why would the Democrats get rid of HIM? He's a perfect fit, as far as your party is concerned.I resent that remark. You know I am a Georgia resident, NOT California. I think that crosses the line accusing me of being any part responsible for such an insane person. :mad:

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 20:28
I resent that remark. You know I am a Georgia resident, NOT California. I think that crosses the line accusing me of being any part responsible for such an insane person. :mad:

I gives a good goddam' WHAT you resent. You've aligned yourself with that pack of baying dogs, and I'll continue to point out that you have fleas.

You may have noticed I'm a bit edgy, as far as Democratic behavior lately. Well, I'm at war with all Democrats, and those are the same people that want members of my family - my REAL, ACTUAL FAMILY - to be KILLED if they go to Iraq. You think I won't resent THAT?

As you self-identify as a Democrat, you own 'em ALL.

Listen, you've earned every ounce of my disdain, so whatever respect you think you're entitled to because HEY!, YOU would never vote for THIS whacko, is more than used up by attempting to defend the indefensible. You love to quote crap from Daily Kos, and even after it's pointed out to you that it's FALSE, you won't acknowledge it.

I am absolutely standing by this: NObody can simultaneously be 1) well-informed AND 2) a loyal American AND 3) a Democrat. Your party is too disgusting for words, and if you're still with 'em, GUESS WHAT?

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 20:30
.....And Sen Craig is a perfect fit for the republicans. Nice try bud, but the facts are that there are good and bad people in all political parties. Untill the people regain control of the goverment, the bad apples are not going anywhere.

And here comes the most aptly-named poster on the WAB, right on time.

I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian, that VOTES Republican. Nice try, bud.

Wait, no it really wasn't.

astralis
19 Oct 07,, 20:54
bluesman,

wow, you either woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or received pretty good training in the art of the sardonic! :eek: glad i'm not really in your line of fire today. :biggrin:

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 21:08
bluesman,

wow, you either woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or received pretty good training in the art of the sardonic! :eek: glad i'm not really in your line of fire today. :biggrin:

I have quite simply had enough, man. My reserves of tolerance - never all that high, anyway - have been exhausted by what I have been witness to. And it fits a pattern that I've seen before, and it's happeneing all over again. But we can't hope for the same outcome. In fact, I think this time we're going to squander our entire birthright and never be able to regain what we seem determined to lose.

I am surrounded by not just the self-interested, grasping, avaricious types that prove to be so devastating to ANY society. These are DIFFERENT, and seem to not only work against the interests of the rest of us, but actually in league with the ENEMY.

It's not just the war, either.

But if I ty to write at this time, it's going to come out garbled. I don't even know if I'm erudite enough to properly express the mass of thoughts that would thoroughly explain what I mean. I'll defer it, maybe forever.

But you're right: I'm FURIOUS, about too many things to even catalog.

gunnut
19 Oct 07,, 21:49
.....And Sen Craig is a perfect fit for the republicans. Nice try bud, but the facts are that there are good and bad people in all political parties. Untill the people regain control of the goverment, the bad apples are not going anywhere.

OK, we agree. Craig is a creep.

What does the republican leadership want Craid to do? That's right. They want him gone.

What does the democrat leadership want Stark to do? They applaud him for his service to this country.

See the difference?

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 22:11
OK, we agree. Craig is a creep.

What does the republican leadership want Craid to do? That's right. They want him gone.

What does the democrat leadership want Stark to do? They applaud him for his service to this country.

See the difference?

And look at the responses to each from their respective camps. NObody stood by Craig; EVERYbody let him know he was a caucus of one.

But check out what's being said in the ideological home of the Democratic Party, re: Pete Stark:

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 22:14
I read all the conservative blogs, and when the story broke, sentiment against Craig was running about 100 to one against him.

Stark, however, has just made himself a hero to his peeps, and if they had room in their belief system for a pantheon of heroes with anybody other than Che Guevara and Ward Churchill in it, he'd make it easy.

So, bonehead, your analysis is about as valuable as it has ever been.

dalem
19 Oct 07,, 22:38
Bluesman-

I have tried to sum it up for years myself with the simple phrase: "There is a difference between not actively supporting us and actively thwarting us."

But even that falls short of what is going on in this country. It's really really odd. I mean, how can anything be more important than winning a war?

And the vitriol coming from the Left, moonbats and congresscritters alike, smacks of desperation. During the height of the Clinton follies, no one stood in the floor of the House and accused the President of killing Afghans with Tomahawk missiles because he enjoyed getting people killed.

I share your disgust and vehemance. The Dems need to shake themselves out and divest themselves of the crazies.

-dale

jame$thegreat
19 Oct 07,, 23:04
It's absolutly disgusting that people like this are gaining support. These lefty, pinko, commie loonies are somehow reverred as genius and they "speak the truth." It sickens me how shiek it's become to slander the president and to consider him the root of any problem in anyone's life in this country/time or any other. There is no cure for the stupidity that has a stranglehold on this country. If Hilary becomes president I thinks its time to bail this ship, I'll be in New Zealand with Pari watching Europe and America go to hell.

Julie
19 Oct 07,, 23:42
I gives a good goddam' WHAT you resent. You've aligned yourself with that pack of baying dogs, and I'll continue to point out that you have fleas.

You may have noticed I'm a bit edgy, as far as Democratic behavior lately. Well, I'm at war with all Democrats, and those are the same people that want members of my family - my REAL, ACTUAL FAMILY - to be KILLED if they go to Iraq. You think I won't resent THAT?

As you self-identify as a Democrat, you own 'em ALL.

Listen, you've earned every ounce of my disdain, so whatever respect you think you're entitled to because HEY!, YOU would never vote for THIS whacko, is more than used up by attempting to defend the indefensible. You love to quote crap from Daily Kos, and even after it's pointed out to you that it's FALSE, you won't acknowledge it.

I am absolutely standing by this: NObody can simultaneously be 1) well-informed AND 2) a loyal American AND 3) a Democrat. Your party is too disgusting for words, and if you're still with 'em, GUESS WHAT?You are talking like your Republican family are all walking around with an aura of halos over their head. I'm not buying it, and if you are, I still say you're can is full of silly string.

As to Democrats wanting you killed, they want you home and safe. If you want to continue rooting for that ninny in office everytime one of your own gets killed because that joke of an Iraq Government can't agree on anything, you go right ahead. It's your right. But, it's also my right to defend my opinion about it, and I will, just as you.

P.S. You really shouldn't use that GD word as much as you do. An intelligent man as yourself can find many more ways to positively express himself much better. ;)

Bluesman
19 Oct 07,, 23:52
Bluesman-

I have tried to sum it up for years myself with the simple phrase: "There is a difference between not actively supporting us and actively thwarting us."

But even that falls short of what is going on in this country. It's really really odd. I mean, how can anything be more important than winning a war?

And the vitriol coming from the Left, moonbats and congresscritters alike, smacks of desperation. During the height of the Clinton follies, no one stood in the floor of the House and accused the President of killing Afghans with Tomahawk missiles because he enjoyed getting people killed.

I share your disgust and vehemance. The Dems need to shake themselves out and divest themselves of the crazies.

-dale

You 'get' it. Too many don't even know what the hell I'm talking about. And they don't even WANT to throw off their nuttier types; they applaud them.

A majority of the country seems to prefer what Democrats represent, and it's deadly-dangerous. It's also so dam' OBVIOUS, and that's the part that frustrates me to near-violence. What they advocate is so very obviously WRONG, and not only can't they see it, they act like it's ME that doesn't 'get' it.

I'm very introspective, almost to the point of being neurotic. I constantly question whether what I know is actually TRUE, whether it may possibly be MY perspective that is wrong, and maybe my worldview isn't as perceptive as it needs to be to have the best understanding of The Whole Thang.

But if my core convictions ARE wrong, if I've managed to utterly mis-understand EVERY SINGLE THING, and the people I rail against really do have the bubble, then I simply can't exist here. Because everything I am tells me that I'm NOT wrong.

Bluesman
20 Oct 07,, 00:02
You are talking like your Republican family are all walking around with an aura of halos over their head.
I'm not a Republican. And if that's what you're reduced to - arguing that the Other Guy is just as bad - then I win this argument by default.


As to Democrats wanting you killed, they want you home and safe.
BS. Tell me how cutting off the flow of supplies to troops fighting in the field is going to get 'em home safely. It'll get 'em all KILLED.

This is not theoretical to me; my wife and only son are going to Iraq next year, my son in a combat assignment. If I can manage it, I'll be there, too. This is REAL, and what the Democrats are doing is REALLY DISGRACEFUL.


If you want to continue rooting for that ninny in office everytime one of your own gets killed because that joke of an Iraq Government can't agree on anything, you go right ahead. It's your right. But, it's also my right to defend my opinion about it, and I will, just as you.

That's not what I do; that's not something ANYbody does. And I never said anything even close to that, EVER.

But if you want to continue to mischaracterize everything I say, go right ahead; that's your right. And that is what YOU do.

And it's my right to point it out, each time you do it, and I'll continue to do so.


P.S. You really shouldn't use that GD word as much as you do. An intelligent man as yourself can find many more ways to positively express himself much better. ;)

I believe that here, for once, you're right. But my frustration level is boiling over, and while that's not a good excuse for losing control, that's my explanation.

bonehead
20 Oct 07,, 01:06
Mmm, Sen. Craig is a buffoon.

Stark is a seditious a-hole.

Just a leeetle bit different.

-dale

My point is that neither one should be in office, and there are countless others who should be in jail instead of running our country. A point that Bluesman, in his angery little world completely missed. We the people have sat by for far too long while these creeps are calling the shots and our country is suffering because of it.

bonehead
20 Oct 07,, 01:16
OK, we agree. Craig is a creep.

What does the republican leadership want Craid to do? That's right. They want him gone.

What does the democrat leadership want Stark to do? They applaud him for his service to this country.

See the difference?

Stark is from Pelosi's home turf( the republic ofCalifornia) so he can do no wrong in their eyes. Idaho, on the other hand is not the base for the republican party. Craig is nothing but a piss ant senater from a state that has what 3 electorial votes? secondly, Craig is not the only republican who has befouled the reputation of congress as of late. I am not defending the democrats actions, infact I am sickened and appalled by it, but to lay the blame of every wrong at the feet of the democrats is short sighted and wrong.

dalem
20 Oct 07,, 03:42
My point is that neither one should be in office, and there are countless others who should be in jail instead of running our country. A point that Bluesman, in his angery little world completely missed. We the people have sat by for far too long while these creeps are calling the shots and our country is suffering because of it.

I agree that we get the government we deserve (I think that is part of your larger point) but I'm not focused that high for this topic.

Right now, at the micro level, the Dems are far worse Americans than the Repubs.

-dale

Bluesman
20 Oct 07,, 03:54
Right now, at the micro level, the Dems are far worse Americans than the Repubs.

-dale

And they have been for the past 60 years.

dalem
20 Oct 07,, 04:25
And they have been for the past 60 years.

Mmmm, I don't know. At times, certain ones, even certain large groups, yeah, maybe. Sometimes. But I don't think it's been this bad since the Civil War and the Copperheads.

-dale

Bluesman
20 Oct 07,, 04:30
Mmmm, I don't know. At times, certain ones, even certain large groups, yeah, maybe. Sometimes. But I don't think it's been this bad since the Civil War and the Copperheads.

-dale

Oh, yeah, agreed that they've been sliding down the hill since then. But 13 years ago, they drove the jalopy right over the cliff, and it's approaching terminal velocity. I swear this is true: the only thing left is actual, open treason. They're flirting with it now, but once they start handing the codes to the ayatollahs and the operational plans to the mullahs, well, I suppose that's as far as they can go.

And review the last three years, and you realize: they've come close to that already.

dalem
20 Oct 07,, 04:32
Oh, yeah, agreed that they've been sliding down the hill since then. But 13 years ago, they drove the jalopy right over the cliff, and it's approaching terminal velocity. I swear this is true: the only thing left is actual, open treason. They're flirting with it now, but once they start handing the codes to the ayatollahs and the operational plans to the mullahs, well, I suppose that's as far as they can go.

And review the last three years, and you realize: they've come close to that already.

Oh sure, I'll give you that. I just wasn't willing to give you the whole 60 years. In that time the Dems have produced some pretty Good Guys and the Repubs some Pretty Bad ones.

But yeah, since 1992 it's been pretty downhill. And I helped do it. :(

-dale

Julie
20 Oct 07,, 05:56
A majority of the country seems to prefer what Democrats represent, and it's deadly-dangerous. It's also so dam' OBVIOUS, and that's the part that frustrates me to near-violence. What they advocate is so very obviously WRONG, and not only can't they see it, they act like it's ME that doesn't 'get' it.I want to discuss my view of "deadly-dangerous." Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US just a couple of months ago? There were six nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise Missiles mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War. Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. That scares me Blues....very much in fact, and it infuriates me. The same way you feel about you and your family going to Iraq. See?

Blues, you're convictions aren't wrong, they are just located in a different place than mine. You want you and your family to be more safe while in Iraq, and I want me and my family to be more safe here at home. I feel the current administration is making it less safe for both of us, while you are attempting to make it safe for all of us.

Can a Democrat make it better? I dunno. It's election time, and they are riding the train that most Americans are on.

But I do firmly believe this as to Democrats and Republicans. When one is in office too long, they become very corrupt. The Democrats did it, now the Republicans are doing it. Both of them have done it at mine and your expense, no doubt. History does repeat itself.

I had you spared once in my prayers, but I don't think I can pull it off a second time. Time is not on our side now.

Bluesman
20 Oct 07,, 06:54
I can't spare the time to answer you anymore; it's absolutely futile. It's like I'm speaking to a parrot. The bird may learn to say some words, but it's total output is gibberish and it doesn't understand what I'm telling it.

Communication can't take place like this, and it frustrates me so badly that I simply won't voluntarily go through this intellectual root canal that you represent.

Goodbye.

Julie
20 Oct 07,, 07:14
I can't spare the time to answer you anymore; it's absolutely futile. It's like I'm speaking to a parrot. The bird may learn to say some words, but it's total output is gibberish and it doesn't understand what I'm telling it.

Communication can't take place like this, and it frustrates me so badly that I simply won't voluntarily go through this intellectual root canal that you represent.

Goodbye.Goodbye.

Shek
20 Oct 07,, 07:56
I want to discuss my view of "deadly-dangerous." Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US just a couple of months ago? There were six nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise Missiles mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War. Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. That scares me Blues....very much in fact, and it infuriates me.

Planes flew over the United States with nuclear bombs all the time during the early portions of the Cold War. It was business as usual for SAC. I don't see what all the fuss was about in terms of the implied "danger" we were all in.

dalem
20 Oct 07,, 10:08
I want to discuss my view of "deadly-dangerous." Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US just a couple of months ago?

WTF has that to do with

A
N
Y
T
H
I
N
G

relevant to the topic?

You're insane. Or criminally stupid. Or putting on an act to generate forum traffic.

-dale

dave lukins
20 Oct 07,, 12:10
I want to discuss my view of "deadly-dangerous." Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US just a couple of months ago? There were six nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise Missiles mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War. Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. That scares me Blues....very much in fact

It has just been reported on the BBC that 4 Commanders have been "released" from Duty over that incident

glyn
20 Oct 07,, 13:10
Bluesman and Dalem have been attacking Julie quite mercilessly. Now Blues and Julie have said that they will not continue posting to each other. This pleases me as the interaction between the three of them was frankly increasingly unpleasant. I happen to respect all 3 and WAB can do without friends falling out. We are here to learn from each other, and I think of WAB as a civilised electronic fellowship. Let us draw a line under this incident.

Julie
20 Oct 07,, 14:34
I don't see what all the fuss was about in terms of the implied "danger" we were all in.LOL....I would like to think our nuclear warheads are just a little more secure than that, and the supposed whereabouts of them at all times, by the ones who should know, whomever that might be.

Julie
20 Oct 07,, 14:35
Bluesman and Dalem have been attacking Julie quite mercilessly. Now Blues and Julie have said that they will not continue posting to each other. This pleases me as the interaction between the three of them was frankly increasingly unpleasant. I happen to respect all 3 and WAB can do without friends falling out. We are here to learn from each other, and I think of WAB as a civilised electronic fellowship. Let us draw a line under this incident.Thank you for that post Glyn. My position is that I dig deep within myself to respect others views and opinions, and I would hope others would do the same. :)

dalem
20 Oct 07,, 19:41
Thank you for that post Glyn. My position is that I dig deep within myself to respect others views and opinions, and I would hope others would do the same. :)

I do when they're worth respect Julie. Your last statement about the bombers had about as much to do with the hot point of the discussion as paprika or radial tires.

-dale

dave lukins
20 Oct 07,, 21:24
No matter the view and opinion, if it ends up in the "wrong" thread, it still deserves respect from WAB members, then a slight nudge towards the correct thread. SHOUTING and being rude when someone does not agree with your opinions or beliefs should be a no-no. Sadly WAB is beginning to loose its fun and Camaraderie

gunnut
20 Oct 07,, 22:50
I want to discuss my view of "deadly-dangerous." Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US just a couple of months ago? There were six nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise Missiles mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War. Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. That scares me Blues....very much in fact, and it infuriates me. The same way you feel about you and your family going to Iraq. See?

That's not fair. Is that Bush's fault? Bush has nothing to do with this incident. I bet some mid level commander thought that he could just ship these warheads to decommission on a routine bomber flight. Instead of dealing with red tape and bureaucracy. He did not follow procedure and had been dealt with. We don't disregard rules and regulations just because it suits us.


I feel the current administration is making it less safe for both of us, while you are attempting to make it safe for all of us.

You feel, but is it really? How many attacks, foreign or domestic, has there been since 9-11, on our home soil? ZERO. How many attacks were there between the end of the Cold War and the start of the War on Terror? I can think of 3: first WTC bombing, Oklahoma bombing, and the Atlanta bombing during the Olympics.

Look at the facts instead of "feel" them. It's hard. We are bombarded by biased information everyday, from both left and right. But the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


But I do firmly believe this as to Democrats and Republicans. When one is in office too long, they become very corrupt. The Democrats did it, now the Republicans are doing it. Both of them have done it at mine and your expense, no doubt. History does repeat itself.

That's for sure. We have some congressman in office since the last ice age...

Shek
21 Oct 07,, 02:03
LOL....I would like to think our nuclear warheads are just a little more secure than that, and the supposed whereabouts of them at all times, by the ones who should know, whomever that might be.

They were always under the control of the Air Force, so there wasn't danger. I'm not stating that it isn't a big deal that they weren't properly accounted for and am glad to see commanders getting relieved over this, but there wasn't any danger. The fact that they flew over the US is not an issue at all (the fact that they were unaccounted for is the sole issue).

They became part of a batch of ordnance that was being moved as part of a drill, and were misidentified by the ordnance handlers as well as by the crew of the aircraft. Thus, it wasn't some evil plot by someone beyond those involved in the drill.

dalem
21 Oct 07,, 08:37
No matter the view and opinion, if it ends up in the "wrong" thread, it still deserves respect from WAB members, then a slight nudge towards the correct thread. SHOUTING and being rude when someone does not agree with your opinions or beliefs should be a no-no. Sadly WAB is beginning to loose its fun and Camaraderie

There is a difference between disagreement and illogical trolling.

-dale

dave lukins
21 Oct 07,, 09:29
There is a difference between disagreement and illogical trolling.

-dale

Dale we are talking about a Mod with plenty of experience here not some Chew-toy:) OK it might have been miles off topic but that is no excuse for being rude, and especially to a lady.

dalem
21 Oct 07,, 10:30
Dale we are talking about a Mod with plenty of experience here not some Chew-toy:) OK it might have been miles off topic but that is no excuse for being rude, and especially to a lady.

I disagree.

Mod or not, female or not, Julie continually demonstrates ignorance of the basic workings of her own government, flawed logic, and outrageous claims.

She may be the nicest and kindest person on the planet, and the fairest BBS moderator around, but that does not excuse her lack of intellectual rigor.

-dale

Julie
21 Oct 07,, 18:17
I disagree.

Mod or not, female or not, Julie continually demonstrates ignorance of the basic workings of her own government, flawed logic, and outrageous claims.

She may be the nicest and kindest person on the planet, and the fairest BBS moderator around, but that does not excuse her lack of intellectual rigor.

-daleIntellectual rigor? Wtf??? Everything I post is about a current event for pete's sake. Are you insinuating that I make it up. And if I happen to mention my feelings/opinion on the subject, I am unintelligent?

No, YOU are wrong here, because the real truth is that if my opinion does not match the majority, I am unintelligent and trolling?

Hey, I do the job I was asked to come here to do 5 years ago, and that is to be a mover and a shaker so the board doesn't become so one-sided. Do I shake too much? Maybe, but only when it gets too one-sided here.

And, I will go further to say that I will continue to do some until I am requested not to do so by the ones above me. :rolleyes:

Julie
21 Oct 07,, 18:57
For the record, I am NOT off topic. This concerns the "clueless Liberals," that someone keeps corraling in with ALL proud Democrats:
From page 1:


You may have noticed I'm a bit edgy, as far as Democratic behavior lately. Well, I'm at war with all Democrats, and those are the same people that want members of my family - my REAL, ACTUAL FAMILY - to be KILLED if they go to Iraq. You think I won't resent THAT?Democrats are not killing our troops, they are fighting endlessly for their life, not death.

"Clueless liberals" see Republicans more focused on dangers in Iraq, than in catastrophes and dangers at home, and at a huge price, not only monetarily, but lives as well.

Our illegal immigration is out of control, our Social Security is at risk with the baby boomers, and our economy is up in the air. Those are REAL LIFE issues that need tending to.

You damn right Democrats aren't too proud right now, and are they really....I mean really, that clueless? Or, are our priorities just placed differently?

jame$thegreat
21 Oct 07,, 21:59
Our illegal immigration is out of control

The solution I've seen manufactured by Democrats for the past few years concerning this obvious problem is amnesty. I heard on the news the other day that they now want to give driver's licenses to illegals "to make the roads safer." I would like one logical explanation how giving state identification to those who neither deserve nor are entitled to recieve it is a good idea in any respect. Not only is this supporting the influx of illegal immigrants but additionally annuling the credibility of a driver's license as state ID! I can see where you would say that democrat's priorities are in a different place, but the distinction you don't make is that it is in the wrong place.