William F. Buckley

[Alaska Darin]

Who on the left do you not consider to be a party hack?

611836[/snapback]

KTFABD

[Mickey]

That's funny...there's plenty of other people here that can disagree without being labelled party hacks. 

 

But I'm sure the problem is everyone else, not you... 

611832[/snapback]

Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements? Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?

 

I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility. I do get that kind of response from you three along with wacka, RK and the like but I somehow I don't see that as an indicator of my partisanship.

 

Not that I don't enjoy indulging your need to discuss me but is there any chance you have an opinion on Buckley's column we can discuss?

[Scraps]

You have presented Buckley's comments as some sort of proof that conservatives now consider the "war in Iraq a failure".

 

First, that is statistically invalid.  One cannot make that kind of extrapolation.

 

Second, one must consider the source to evaluate what individual biases may be affecting the individual's opinion.  Buckley's brief CIA experience has most definitely tainted his opinion regarding this type of issue.

611841[/snapback]

 

So the backgrounds of GW Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc weren't tainted by their backgrounds?

 

Also, he has publicly stated he does not believe GWB is a conservative.

 

Its a stance taken by many conservatives. By what measure can a President who has overseen the biggest expansion in entitlement programs since LBJ, no fiscal responsibility and the biggest, most costly, unnecessary and backfiring nation building exercise since WW II be considered a conservative?

[Sirius99]

So the backgrounds of GW Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc weren't tainted by their backgrounds?

Yes, everyone's is and must be considered. That't the point. I made that pretty clear.

 

Its a stance taken by many conservatives.  By what measure can a President who has overseen the biggest expansion in entitlement programs since LBJ, no fiscal responsibility and the biggest, most costly, unnecessary and backfiring nation building exercise since WW II be considered a conservative?

611848[/snapback]

 

None. I don't believe he's a conservative either. Once again, these are not a surprise coming from Buckley. As I said in my first post, this is not new nor shocking.

[Mickey]

You have presented Buckley's comments as some sort of proof that conservatives now consider the "war in Iraq a failure".

 

First, that is statistically invalid.  One cannot make that kind of extrapolation.

 

Second, one must consider the source to evaluate what individual biases may be affecting the individual's opinion.  Buckley's brief CIA experience has most definitely tainted his opinion regarding this type of issue.

 

Also, he has publicly stated he does not believe GWB is a conservative.

 

That does not mean his opinion is without merit.  It just means this type of writing from him is absolutely not a surprise, so your posting of the article here as an indication that Bush's support base is turning on him is inaccurate.

 

Suprising would be an article from Buckely praising GWB in these areas.  It has been obvious for some time that you have no intention of discussing the merits of any of these issues, so your critcism in that regard is hypocritical.

611841[/snapback]

Ummm....I presented it as William F. Buckley thinking it is a failure and further, as a conservative, he can't be dismissed as a traitor, coward, looney etc. which is what I hear whenever someone on the left attempts the same. I have no idea what the majority of conservatives believe as far as Iraq is concerned. I posted that column with very little comment on it to see what people had to say, the response was, "mickey sucks", along with a couple of 's. Excuse me if I didn't see that as an invitation to discuss the issue.

 

I personally think that if we haven't "failed" in Iraq, we are going to if this keeps up. What better course should be pursued, I have no concrete, ready for prime-time suggestions. I do believe however that if the current bunch of ne'er do wells in the WH can't even admit there is a problem or recognize a civil war when they see it, there is zero chance of any substantive changes in how we are handling things in Iraq. No change means more of the same and the same suks.

[Sirius99]

Ummm....I presented it as William F. Buckley thinking it is a failure and further, as a conservative, he can't be dismissed as a traitor, coward, looney etc. which is what I hear whenever someone on the left attempts the same.  I have no idea what the majority of conservatives believe as far as Iraq is concerned.  I posted that column with very little comment on it to see what people had to say, the response was, "mickey sucks", along with a couple of  's.  Excuse me if I didn't see that as an invitation to discuss the issue. 

 

I personally think that if we haven't "failed" in Iraq, we are going to if this keeps up.  What better course should be pursued, I have no concrete, ready for prime-time suggestions.  I do believe however that if the current bunch of ne'er do wells in the WH can't even admit there is a problem or recognize a civil war when they see it, there is zero chance of any substantive changes in how we are handling things in Iraq.  No change means more of the same and the same suks.

611858[/snapback]

 

I thought you are a lawyer? Aren't you familiar with witness biases and credibility?

 

You use Buckley's background as a conservative as a central reason for selecting his article for the post. You admitted that serveral times. However, when I bring up other parts of his background that make his stance completely non-news worthy, you cry foul and say "woe is me the liberal being oppressed by the mean old conservatives".

 

His rather dramatic experience facilitating the overthrow of the Mexican government when employed by the CIA makes him less than credible in this area. He may be right, but you can't tout his background in one breath and dismiss it in another. Unless you don't mind being intellectually dishonest.

[RI Bills Fan]

... Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?

 

I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility...

611846[/snapback]

 

While I lurk on this board regularly, I rarely post anymore, precisely because of the reasons stated above. After all I’m just a “Limousine Liberal.” I guess having served over 20 years in the US Navy, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9), and going on to a career in building and testing the Navy’s newest and best submarines is not a counter-balance to the fact that I disagree with most of the current administration’s policies and decisions, which of course makes me a “Tree-Hugger” of the first rank.

 

To post a comment on this board which does not support the current administrations views on anything the poster must be willing to endure tirades of ridicule, personal attacks, and endless sarcastic comments in any number of unrelated threads on topics which have no connection what so ever to the original discussion and that’s before the “Piling on” starts.

 

And if said liberal scumbag poster dares to point out that something said by a certain know it all is factually incorrect… Ah, why am I bothering?

 

Lurking and laughing out loud at the nonsense which passes for intelligent discussion on this board is more fun anyway…

[Kelly the Dog]

While I lurk on this board regularly, I rarely post anymore, precisely because of the reasons stated above. After all I’m just a “Limousine Liberal.” I guess having served over 20 years in the US Navy, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9), and going on to a career in building and testing the Navy’s newest and best submarines is not a counter-balance to the fact that I disagree with most of the current administration’s policies and decisions, which of course makes me a “Tree-Hugger” of the first rank.

 

To post a comment on this board which does not support the current administrations views on anything the poster must be willing to endure tirades of ridicule, personal attacks, and endless sarcastic comments in any number of unrelated threads on topics which have no connection what so ever to the original discussion and that’s before the “Piling on” starts.

 

And if said liberal scumbag poster dares to point out that something said by a certain know it all is factually incorrect… Ah, why am I bothering?

 

Lurking and laughing out loud at the nonsense which passes for intelligent discussion on this board is more fun anyway…

611872[/snapback]

Well, not really. If you spent 20 years in the Navy I would expect you to be a pretty thick skinned person, and maybe even tough. Yes, posting here will often or likely get the response you mentioned, but so what? Suck it up. Defend your stance. Prove the retards wrong. Sway a mind or two once in awhile. Weed out the clueless bastards and engage with the few that will engage.

 

I think it's fun to goad the freaks.

[Berg]

Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements?  Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?

 

I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility.  I do get that kind of response from you three along with wacka, RK and the like but I somehow I don't see that as an indicator of my partisanship.

 

Not that I don't enjoy indulging your need to discuss me but is there any chance you have an opinion on Buckley's column we can discuss?

611846[/snapback]

 

No one has ever been banned for their stance on any issue or party affiliation. To claim otherwise is whining, plain and simple. One only needs to see a list of those banned to debunk your hypothesis.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements?  Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?

 

I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility.  I do get that kind of response from you three along with wacka, RK and the like but I somehow I don't see that as an indicator of my partisanship.

 

Does that also include the great number of people who are capable of discussing issues? You mean you've never noticed that people don't jump down KtfabD's throat for being liberal, but they DO jump down Wacka's for being partisan?

 

Could it be the problem isn't your liberalism, but your partisan stupidity? Nah...of course not. That would make sense.

 

Not that I don't enjoy indulging your need to discuss me but is there any chance you have an opinion on Buckley's column we can discuss?

611846[/snapback]

 

No. Buckley's been an idiot longer than I've been on the internet (literally. I was involved in demonstrations against him in college 20 years ago).

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I thought you are a lawyer?  Aren't you familiar with witness biases and credibility?

 

You use Buckley's background as a conservative as a central reason for selecting his article for the post.  You admitted that serveral times.  However, when I bring up other parts of his background that make his stance completely non-news worthy, you cry foul and say "woe is me the liberal being oppressed by the mean old conservatives".

 

His rather dramatic experience facilitating the overthrow of the Mexican government  when employed by the CIA makes him less than credible in this area.  He may be right, but you can't tout his background in one breath and dismiss it in another.  Unless you don't mind being intellectually dishonest.

611868[/snapback]

 

He's a lawyer. He's familiar with blowing smoke up people's asses.

[Alaska Darin]

Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements?  Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?

611846[/snapback]

Are you discussing moderating policy in the open forum?

 

The moderating staff at TBD is not on trial, councelor. Nor should they be. There are two sides to every story, but it's alot of fun to pretend that the big bad conservative moderators are using their all powerful position to stifle people like RiO, Boomer, Tenny, and Bravin.

 

You're my hero.

[X. Benedict]

 

And yet, I am a left wing hack for noticing it and *gasp*, posting it.

611791[/snapback]

 

An observation: most of your threads end up being about you recently. As someone who

used to enjoy your posts, I find that lamentable.

 

Maybe you have some score to settle, but for those of us that are not keeping score, what are the chances we'll see the old Mickey?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

An observation: most of your threads end up being about you recently. As someone who

used to enjoy your posts, I find that lamentable.

 

Maybe you have some score to settle, but for those of us that are not keeping score, what are the chances we'll see the old Mickey?

611945[/snapback]

 

Give him a little while. He has to have a hissy fit every so often, it seems...but they usually don't last more than a couple weeks.

[KRC]

Thanks, I think...

 

blah...blah...blah...KRC bad...blah...blah...blah...the big bad moderators are picking on me...blah...blah...what is personal responsibility...blah...blah...blah...

611833[/snapback]

 

 

Ironic that you complain about people not responding to the substance of a post and just attacking the poster with a post not addressing the substance of a post and just attacking the poster. Do you even realize your hypocrisy or have you been doing it for so long that you know nothing else?

[KRC]

Give him a little while.  He has to have a hissy fit every so often, it seems...but they usually don't last more than a couple weeks.

611949[/snapback]

 

They seem to happen more often now. Of course, it is everyone elses fault. He is not responsible for the content of his posts.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's my observation that the vast, vast majority of threads, Mickey will post something that answers a post directly, or he starts a thread that may attack conservatives or Bush but does not attack any poster. And he immediately is responded to personally. Especially lately. Then, surely he will fight back, and hurl insults, but if you look at the threads, in total, not in one or two isolated cases, he will usually be posting something organic to the topic and will be attacked first.

 

Whether or not his post is insane is a whole other topic.

[Terry Tate]

To post a comment on this board which does not support the current administrations views on anything the poster must be willing to endure tirades of ridicule, personal attacks, and endless sarcastic comments in any number of unrelated threads on topics which have no connection what so ever to the original discussion and that’s before the “Piling on” starts.

BS.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Ironic that you complain about people not responding to the substance of a post and just attacking the poster with a post not addressing the substance of a post and just attacking the poster. Do you even realize your hypocrisy or have you been doing it for so long that you know nothing else?

611954[/snapback]

 

He's not a hypocrite. He's a lawyer.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You have presented Buckley's comments as some sort of proof that conservatives now consider the "war in Iraq a failure".

 

First, that is statistically invalid.  One cannot make that kind of extrapolation.

 

Second, one must consider the source to evaluate what individual biases may be affecting the individual's opinion.  Buckley's brief CIA experience has most definitely tainted his opinion regarding this type of issue.

 

Also, he has publicly stated he does not believe GWB is a conservative.

 

That does not mean his opinion is without merit.  It just means this type of writing from him is absolutely not a surprise, so your posting of the article here as an indication that Bush's support base is turning on him is inaccurate.

 

Suprising would be an article from Buckely praising GWB in these areas.  It has been obvious for some time that you have no intention of discussing the merits of any of these issues, so your critcism in that regard is hypocritical.

611841[/snapback]

 

I am an acknowlegded party hack, not an ideologue, however.

 

I understand Buckely's point and under the projection scenario you described. Shouldn't the likelihood of a sectarian civil war issue have been better understood and calculated before we entered Iraq.

 

Now that the temple was blown up, I think whatever chance of success now way beyond the military's control, is doubtful and with a little forsight, could have been seen ahead of time.

 

What could have been done and what were the implications of dividing Iraq into 3 parts? Obviously a unified Iraq would have been better, but given its history and deep religious divisions, even under the best scenarious, this was chancey at best.

 

While early on the Bush Admin, could have handled the diplomatic stuff better, maybe with more troops or better trained ones, not sure that would have mattered.

 

Now maybe the time to cut our losses and get out and concentrate just on Afganistan.

 

On McGlaughlin group, Pat Buchanan and John McGlauglin were arguing the same thing. Tony Blankley another partisan hack was unsuccesfully trying to defend the current situation.

 

So dismissing Mickey's statement and pure partisanship misses the point. While from a partisan standpoint, I like to see this Admin stumble, but not so much on this issue.

 

Bush's success is/was too important to America and while I still think it was a mistake to invade and try and keep Iraq together, regardless of Iran's intentions for the Shiite population.

 

Iranians may have a lot of ties, but they are still not Arabs, they are Persians and like to be referred to as such. Iraqi's are Arab and despite Iranian influence, which is why I understood Bush to have chosen the unity route, in long run their differences will be exposed and that could have been exploited by this Administration if handled deftly, with success.

 

No nice work jumping on Mickey to avoid dealing with the actual issue at hand. Classic partisan hack responses.