Bush incompetent?

June 26, 2006 10:22 AM

Bush Incompetent?Think again. I know this is a one link post, I'm afraid that I still haven't mastered the art of adding extra links, and I apologise because it is also from a partisan source. However it raises some points that I think are worth discussing, such as, is calling Bush incompetent not playing right into the hands of all those who kind of like his folksy, laidback ways, and who kind of identify with his fumbling style? Anyway, read this and see the results of this incompetence you might want to think again.
posted by donfactor (112 comments total)

Boy, Lakoff is really coasting with his "framing" argument, isn't he?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:25 AM on June 26, 2006

Oh, God, I've been playing right into their hands this entire time. *sob*
posted by Plutor at 10:27 AM on June 26, 2006

What I like about this post is that it doesn't editorialize. It presents facts and allows us to think for ourselves.
posted by papercake at 10:28 AM on June 26, 2006

"I'm afraid that I still haven't mastered the art of adding extra links"

Master the art of single links first. Then branch out.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:28 AM on June 26, 2006

Metafilter: It presents facts and allows us to think for ourselves.
posted by three blind mice at 10:30 AM on June 26, 2006

So it's not that the administration is incompetent, it's that the administration is competently executing an incompetent strategy?

U LINKIN' : POOR
posted by boo_radley at 10:31 AM on June 26, 2006

Decent article, not really worth a FPP, though. And it's the top recommended diary on Kos right now.

What I'd really be interested is for someone to round up the whole TNR/Kos spat. I made an attempt this morning, but I couldn't get it concise enough to FPP it. I'm going to wait until this evening when I have more time.
posted by empath at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2006

Competence at passing an incompetent agenda is the height of incompetence. And the only reason he was able to pass that agenda is because of the huge surge of public support he got after incompetently allowing Al-Qaeda to strike on US soil.

WORST
PRESIDENT
EVAH.

Future generations will look back at his presidency as being the end of American dominance in the world. It was fun while it lasted.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2006

Can we declare this an open thread now? Cause I have some way funny gifs from the Something Awful forums that I am dying to post. There is one of an elephant shitting--LOL!
posted by LarryC at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2006

donfactor I want to express my condolences for what's about to happen to you.
posted by Ryvar at 10:34 AM on June 26, 2006

Bush is not incompetent. Bush is malcompetent.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006

posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006

You know, when my future self looks back on this period of Bush in Power, I fully expect that I will continue to think exactly as I do right now, that this man is wholly unfit to lead a Boy Scout Troop (though he does have the hatin' gays thing down) much less the USA.

I expect this thread to be nothing but decency and spirited discussion with respect for all viewpoints. Except anyone who disgrees with me, then you're totally fucking batshitinsane.
posted by fenriq at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006

posted by killdevil at 10:37 AM on June 26, 2006

My eyes! They bleed!
posted by mischief at 10:38 AM on June 26, 2006

I'll see YOU on the GABBLER.
posted by Mr. Six at 10:39 AM on June 26, 2006

That article pretty much perfectly sums up my feelings, but this is still a lousy post.
posted by interrobang at 10:39 AM on June 26, 2006

MeTa.

I've never posted a MeTa callout before. But this one seemed inevitable.
posted by GuyZero at 10:41 AM on June 26, 2006

Donfactor...thanks, interesting article.

It isn't going to hurt any of us to be reminded that the real danger in this country isn't Bush any longer...he's on his way out. Who we need to continue to be afraid of are his supporters and compatriots. And, there is nothing they would like better than to demonize Bush and make us feel good about a "smarter" conservative coming into office.
posted by HuronBob at 10:41 AM on June 26, 2006

Let's be clear!
posted by beerbajay at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2006

Uh, this entire article is editorial in nature.
posted by tadellin at 10:44 AM on June 26, 2006

He's incontinent? We shouldn't mock him for that.
posted by Artw at 10:45 AM on June 26, 2006

The reason I posted this is because what it claims is that Bush's alleged incompetence is just another bit of very competent spin designed to distract us from what is actually going on. I don't think his policies are at all incompetent. So far, depending on our point of view, they have been very successful. One of them is to distact us with bread and circuses. Bush the clown is doing his job well. What we are not hearing about are the dangerous, even treasonous, and certainly unAmerican activities. Remember the old House Unamerican Activities Committee? I can just imagine such a group investigating this war, the fake WMC claims, the spying on Americans, torture, etc. along with all those other similarly subversive activities promoted by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfield, Perles, and probably a whole gang of others who we haven't yet identified, some of whom may even now be sitting on the benches of the Supreme Court.
posted by donfactor at 10:46 AM on June 26, 2006

"Uh, this entire article is editorial in nature."

therefore????

Did we disallow editorials?

More damn rules... we need a better list of rules...where's the list of rules...I wanna see the rules and I WANT TO SEE THEM NOW!
posted by HuronBob at 10:50 AM on June 26, 2006

donfactor: your post should have read something like this, instead:

Bush Incompetent? Think again. I know this is a one link post, I'm afraid that I still haven't mastered the art of adding extra links, and I apologise because it is also from a partisan source. However it raises some points that I think are worth discussing, such as, is calling Bush incompetent not playing right into the hands of all those who kind of like his folksy, laidback ways, and who kind of identify with his fumbling style? Anyway, read this and see the results of this incompetence you might want to think again.
posted by beerbajay at 10:54 AM on June 26, 2006

I didn't read the article. I only read the post.

I somehow knew the comments wouldn't be pretty.
posted by Alex404 at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2006

Oh, so it's not Bush, it's conservatism that's the problem? The only problem is Bush is not a conservative. He may claim to be one, but that's not meaningful in itself. He certainly doesn't represent most core conservative values in any demonstrable way (government has done nothing but get bigger and more expensive for the last six years).

This article also ignores the fact that he and his regime are a bunch self interested, duplicitous fuckheads who are more than willing to run the country into the ground to further their own agenda (or power/profit base). It isn't particularly insightful, nor is it particularly clever. Providing ideology as a straw man for personal failure isn't satisfying in that it says the President isn't ultimately responsible for his actions. Competent people know when they're failing and take steps to correct. If that correction requires a shift in ideology, than so be it.

The President is an ass, he may be a conservative one. He is also a failure as a president, again, he may be a conservative one, but he's definitely a failure.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2006

We thought he was imitating the ever-smiling, every-thing-is-ok Ronald Reagan while he was perfecting his Jimmy Stewart twisting-his-toe-in-the-dust-wholesome-Amercian-boy act.

Perhaps it should be noted that book-learning is not necessarily an asset for governing. The Windsors don't do well in school, but they have England under control for the foreseeable future.
posted by Cranberry at 10:56 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Those of us outside the US will look back on the Shrub years as a time of rising currency valuation. Yet others will remember it as the time the Euro supplanted the US dollar as the world currency.
posted by clevershark at 10:57 AM on June 26, 2006

It does seem that the author is having a hard time differentiating between the Grover Norquist "f*ck the poor and everyone else 'cause I want my tax money back" attitude and actual conservatism.

Then again that's a common syndrome, I'm given to understand.
posted by clevershark at 10:58 AM on June 26, 2006

The only problem is Bush is not a conservative.

Right, and the Soviet Union wasn't Communism, either.
posted by empath at 10:58 AM on June 26, 2006

Option A: Fill a weak FPP with apologies for it's missing/deviant elements.

Option B: Take time to bolster a weak FPP by adding/repairing elements.

Both approaches indicate an obvious understanding of the spirit of the environment, but one of them indiactae a lack of respect for it.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:00 AM on June 26, 2006

As a sitting President, Bush is incompetent.
posted by disgruntled at 11:01 AM on June 26, 2006

Metafilter: apologies for our deviant elements.
posted by scrump at 11:02 AM on June 26, 2006

Come on people, why are we wasting time on this argument when the Rapture is coming?
posted by gallois at 11:02 AM on June 26, 2006

donfactor incompetent?

Is calling donfactor's one-link post incompetent not playing right into the hands of all those who kind of like the folksy, laidback ways, and who kind of identify with this fumbling style? Anyway, read the thread comments and see the results of this incompetence you might want to think again.
posted by mazola at 11:05 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Right, and the Soviet Union wasn't Communism, either.

It wasn't, outside of a few years following the October Revolution, really Marxist. Which I think is what a lot of people who spew the above line with sincerity are actually trying to say.
posted by Ryvar at 11:07 AM on June 26, 2006

Rock Ridge, Rock Ridge... splendid!
posted by COBRA! at 11:08 AM on June 26, 2006

If only this post contained a youtube link.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:17 AM on June 26, 2006

Generic post critique.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:20 AM on June 26, 2006

Ryvar: Both 'true' Communism and 'true' Conservatism are unworkable philosophies of government, and so any government which professes to be one or the other will either fail utterly and swiftly, or they will change radically while still keeping the name. And thus the constant excuses that both 'true' Communism and 'true' Conservatism have never been tried.
posted by empath at 11:25 AM on June 26, 2006

One day metafilter will perfect and synthesize sarcastic, sardonic, and ironic wit.

With it, it will rule the world.
posted by Alex404 at 11:25 AM on June 26, 2006

An incompetent post about incompetence. Awesomely meta!
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:26 AM on June 26, 2006

Here ya go, Crash, Bush Incompetent.
posted by fenriq at 11:27 AM on June 26, 2006

Too late for a related, good article (on Bush's apparent stupidity and posture of anti-intellectualism)?
posted by grobstein at 11:47 AM on June 26, 2006

“Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment — “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” — to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies”

Yeah, I remember when all those conservatives were shouting to put more pollution in the skies back when the conservation movement started. Teddy Rooseveldt charged through Yellowstone with John Muir shouting “put more smoke in the air boys!”
And Edward Abbey was a huge liberal - he loved sensitive politically correct lefties and the whole counterculture scene on campuses where he could be flavor of the month (weird how his arguments often mirrored the righty anti-land developer naturalists.) And that whole reverence for nature is evil right wing theocratic nonsense of course.


“As noted above, Conservatives believe that government’s role is limited to security and maintaining a free market.”

Totally. All conservatives believe that. It’s even noted. Above.


I heard one guy who was supposedly a conservative say something like: “One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” I think it was William F. Buckley jr.
Bizarrely, Buckley also said the war in Iraq was anything but conservative. His position speaking from that point is not that the war was wrong or right, but “it is absolutely to say that conservatism implies a certain submission to reality; and this war has an unrealistic frank and is being conscripted by events.”

But he’s probably not at real conservative like Bush. ‘Cause it’s noted. Above.


“Implicit in these ideas is that the United States military can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Our military might and power can be a force for good.”

Well, ‘can be’? Yes. Is always? No.
But intervention worked against Japan and Germany in WWII. One could make a case for Korea and Vietnam in fighting communism. I would argue that it wasn’t worth it, but it has been our policy in Latin America for some time. It’s (again arguably) worked there - particularly if one argues from a position of what is (materially) best for U.S. citizens.

And resistance does not always win - again, for good or for ill - we’ve had many engagements in the Caribbean, in the Philippines - hell, Hawaii, where violent resistance has not prevailed.

So - given that in many cases it has worked - again for good or for ill depending on one’s position as a strategy - what then does one say when that strategy, which has worked in the past - fails?

Do we then argue that the strategy is completely outdated and will never work again? That if a dictator arises in a major nation and starts conquest and genocide we throw up our hands having learned the lesson in Iraq that intervention never works because they might violently resist us?

Or do we look at the architects and executioners of the plan in question?

It is a serious error to attack conservativism through Bush - because he isn’t a conservative. A NeoCon, sure.
It’s further stupid to attack conservativism on the philosophical and strategic grounds that intervention is always doomed to failure or is always harmful or some such nonsense.
In terms of the moral high ground there is little doubt of the merit of the argument - the war is and was a mistake (by the American people in supporting it) and quite possibly a criminal act by this administration.

But turning that into an indictment of an entire political philosophical system and it’s adherants is a silly and facile as Coulter’s diatribes against ‘liberals.’

E.G.: “Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation.”

Allow me to throw that back: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

The Joe Biden quote is a nifty piece of specious reasoning the author goes on to reiterate ‘Had Bush been incompetant’ such as - “Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.”
But see, Joe Biden is one of the people who has continued to support appropriations for the war.
I’m not knocking Biden - but Bush is somehow such a beguiling influence he can get more money out of people who think his prosecution of the war is wrong.
But no, it’s about the conseratives being evil - yet Biden is a democrat. Lots of other errors of omission and other kinds throughout.

Fundimentally I disagree with the premise: Bush is worse than incompetant - he’s a polarizing force that removes otherwise reasonable thought from arguments.


*resists posting admiral ackbar “it’s a trap!”*
posted by Smedleyman at 11:54 AM on June 26, 2006

Holy crap, Smedleyman.
posted by malthas at 12:07 PM on June 26, 2006

(Malthas) That's right old chum...er...left...er...


“...And thus the constant excuses that both 'true' Communism and 'true' Conservatism have never been tried.” - posted by empath

Huh?
Conservativsm is a political/social philosophy within a form of government sort of like liberalism, green politics, libertariansim. Communism is a form of government like fascism, like a republic, like oligarchy.

I grant forms of government have philosophical or ideological foundations, but conservativism is based on societal tradition.
In America alone this translates into a wide spectrum of beliefs.

Plenty of information on wiki.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2006

“Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.”

Bush personally did that without the help and approval of others? Bush is where he is today because other people have put him there. This is a man who is incapable of achieving any success without the help of others.
posted by disgruntled at 12:17 PM on June 26, 2006

Isn't the problem mainly that right wing people are neurotic dorks with weird hair?
posted by snoktruix at 12:21 PM on June 26, 2006

George W. Bush surrounded himself with the same cabel of cynical white men that Nixon, Reagan, and his father used. George is an idiot, but the people in power are not.
posted by Jatayu das at 12:35 PM on June 26, 2006

Handlers, speechwriters, coaches, Cheney, aides.

They all pull the strings.

It's not a question of competence. He's just a warm body in the Oval Office.

"Wave and say this".... "Shake the prime minister's hand and say this"... "Tell the press corps this... and remember to keep using this word/phrase throughout."

There is nothing new going on here. It has all been done before (Ronald Reagan).
posted by wfc123 at 12:36 PM on June 26, 2006

You forgot Diebold machines.
posted by disgruntled at 12:42 PM on June 26, 2006

What's that old saying? Distract them with stupidity and kill them with brutality?

No, wait, I just made that up.
posted by smallerdemon at 12:43 PM on June 26, 2006

For the last time, if you find yourself apologizing in your FPP, you should abandon it until you have sobered up.
posted by uni verse at 12:57 PM on June 26, 2006

"Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation....undermining American values through legislation almost every day," is perhaps the the heart of the article.

I think we need to make Republicans wear the dead albatross of the Dubya Bush administration around their necks for the next 100 years. After all, the harmful effects on our experiment in American Fascism will be with us at least a century.

We hear on this thread and elsewhere conservatives claiming Bush isn't conservative. Hog wash! Read that as, "Bush isn't what conservatives have claimed to be over the years."

Given total power we have indeed seen, how conservatism is a villain that destroys our environment, weakens the nation, undermines American values and is harmful to all people, even conservatives.

Wait a minute, ignore all that about remembering how awful life is with conservatives in power. I'm forgetting about the birth recently of Saint Ronald Reagan. Is he on Mt. Rushmore or the dime yet?
posted by BillyElmore at 1:05 PM on June 26, 2006

"Competent"?

Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but when he was (sorta not) fulfilling his ANG responsibilities, he was qualified to drive the F-102, which I assume includes IFR, nav, weps, the whole schmeer. To stay on flight status, you have to prove you're keeping basic proficiency, too, so it's not like he just got lucky one time.

I haven't investigated any fitreps of him as a pilot, and he was pretty young then, but I'm assuming that as a 1LT he wasn't a complete blockhead if they let him have the keys to the bird once in a while. How that translates into competence in other areas of life, like running a baseball team, a business, a Presidential Administration, or a war, is another question, but...despite sounding like a complete buffoon at times, the man's gotta have some level of smarts, yes no? Any USAF/USAFR/ANG types care to comment?
posted by pax digita at 1:06 PM on June 26, 2006

Bush supporters are incompetent at self-governance. They mostly voted against their economic and health interests, but they expect the corporate wealthy to govern by passing laws to protect their own interests. Then there is the fear aspect--those people who vote for the most powerful person because they want to please them, even remotely--nothing rational about it. Most, however, simply don't dare ideologically oppose the luck-dream they so desperately wish for themselves, or they might wake up and jinx it. So, we have someone striving to please the incompetent, which is probably an act of competence.
posted by Brian B. at 1:07 PM on June 26, 2006

"What's that old saying? Distract them with stupidity and kill them with brutality?" So far this thread gives proves that point.

So, what about these?

Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree

Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed

Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more

Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event

Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts

Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections

Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies
Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives

Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment — “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” — to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies

Winning re-election and solidifying his party’s grip on Congress

That's a hell of a track record, that seems to be totally ignored here. I hope I'm wrong but if this represents anything more than just Metafilter snarkery, then I don't hold out a lot of hope for any kind of more enlightened future for this country.
posted by donfactor at 1:17 PM on June 26, 2006

Brian B: Like, we know that already, OMG!!!
posted by Pacheco at 1:17 PM on June 26, 2006

Winning re-election and solidifying his party’s grip on Congress

That was the best one.
posted by Pacheco at 1:19 PM on June 26, 2006

That's a hell of a track record, that seems to be totally ignored here. I hope I'm wrong but if this represents anything more than just Metafilter snarkery, then I don't hold out a lot of hope for any kind of more enlightened future for this country.

Yep--and what about the fact that the news network that seems to throw the most support behind the Bush agenda actually uses as its mascot an animal generally associated with cunning deception? How many convergent coincidences does it take to make a pattern?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:25 PM on June 26, 2006

posted by dios at 10:24 AM PST on June 26 [+fave] [!]

posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:25 AM PST on June 26 [+fave] [!]

Wonder Twin powers, activate!
posted by homunculus at 1:39 PM on June 26, 2006

Wonder Twin powers, activate!


posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:56 PM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Wonder Twin powers, activate!

Somehow, I just can't see dios posting a picture of W as Maxwell Smart.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:01 PM on June 26, 2006

For the last time, if you find yourself apologizing in your FPP, you should abandon it until you have sobered up.

or attached a secondary brain pack...
posted by runkelfinker at 2:09 PM on June 26, 2006

Wow. My lone comment of "Best Post Evar" was deleted in this thread. But the litany of other off-topic and derailing comments remain. As does this shitty post. Awesome.
posted by dios at 2:10 PM on June 26, 2006

“Given total power we have indeed seen, how conservatism is a villain that destroys our environment...” - posted by BillyElmore

Because Liberals are incorruptable and immune to the truths pronounced by Lord Acton.

Yeah, I can’t believe Bush and those filthy conservatives wanted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
(Except, y’know, Clinton wanted to do it first in 1999: “If Prudhoe Bay, Alaska were developed today using horizontal drilling, only 11 drill sites would be needed, compared to the 42 required in the 1970s. The area's first multilateral well was drilled less than two years ago; today there are 10 multilateral wells (yes, drilled during the Clinton administration) in the area.” - from the DOE’s Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technology. Oct. 1999.
Remember the fuel economy Clinton got on cars? ‘Cause I don’t. Or his caps on greenhouse gasses? Must’ve missed those too.

This is not to say Clinton wasn’t a better leader on environmental (and other ) issues than Bush, particularly with Gore as his Veep.
This is merely to illustrate that shouting “conservatives” at a problem is a stupid as shouting “liberals” at it.

Edward Abbey remained steadfast against being pigeonholed politically (er...do you even know who the hell that is? Without google, et.al.) and I think he was right in doing that. For a number of reasons.
One of which is that environmental damage in particular isn’t a problem that can be solved through political expediancy or candy ass sloganeering.
It does get into issues of ‘the commons’ as well as industry and government relations and on that level Dems are just as dirty as Republicans (unless your memory/attention span only goes back 5 years). An argument can be made that the dems lately have a better track record - but as to whether liberals or conservatives are more environmentally friendly I’d argue that it’s been the conservatives since Teddy Rooseveldt, particularly since it’s the conservatives who tend to be out in nature (hunting, fishing or living in rural areas). Lately though I’d concede liberals have been a big help attacking industry and preventing environmental damage. Whether the college kids or monkeywrenchers (or other hangers on) have done more harm than good is debatable however. Particularly since the waters have been muddied with lousy information fitted not to clarity or even truth but a politcal agenda (on whatever side).

I’m not addressing your other comments that conservativism “weakens the nation, undermines American values and is harmful to all people” - because they’re subjective ideas.

I like Led Zepplin. But Liberals weaken Led Zepplin music. Liberalism undermines ZoSo values and are harmful to all people and pets.

(People were saying Bush wasn’t conservative since before he was governor of Texas. But hey, let’s ignore the fact many of the people around him call themselves Neocons and focus on the subjective reality we like.)

“That's a hell of a track record, that seems to be totally ignored here.”
- posted by donfactor

I’d call it a concession. I haven’t seen anyone here defending BushCo or hangers on or any of those policies.
But calling yourself or someone else something doesn’t make it so. And the ignorance on political science here is deep indeed. F’rinstance neocon /= conservative.
(Unless say we’re calling Tipper Gore a liberal. I mean she’s married to Al Gore. He’s a liberal - ergo liberals favor music censorship.)

Bush incompetant? That’s unpossible! It must be the stuff I believe in makes me betterer than all the other people who don’t.

(see above Buckley quote on liberals being shocked and offended to discover that there are other views)

There’s a great deal of useful liberal thought and many liberals and liberal positions I respect.
Why, when Ann Coulter shouts “Teh liberals suck!” and shortchanges a whole piece of thought she’s an idiot, but when it’s done here, that’s perfectly fine?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:12 PM on June 26, 2006

The Windsors don't do well in school, but they have England under control for the foreseeable future.

Yes. the Iron Fist of Elizabeth II will smash you!
posted by papakwanz at 2:43 PM on June 26, 2006

i'm with smedleyman; the problem isn't conservatism. it's paranoia.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:47 PM on June 26, 2006

Why, when Ann Coulter shouts “Teh liberals suck!” and shortchanges a whole piece of thought she’s an idiot, but when it’s done here, that’s perfectly fine?

Because she is an idiot. And GWB is an incompetent President. Can't you see that? True liberals want progress that makes the world a better place for everyone. The necons just want to make it better for their elitist friends and to make as much money as possible. They don't care about democracy in Iraq. The neocons are recycled from the Regan and Bush Senior years; did they care about democracy in Iraq then? No Sir, they built up and fucked over Sadam and Bin Laden. And you know what? They're all draft dodgers. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowits were all draft dodgers. This is Haliburton's war. And what's good for the military industrial complex is good for business, and that's good for America. Human life has never fallen into the equation, even with a Christian President.
posted by disgruntled at 2:48 PM on June 26, 2006

I'm with smedleyman, too. Maybe. If I can figure out what the hell he's talking about.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:49 PM on June 26, 2006

Bush incompetant? That’s unpossible! It must be the stuff I believe in makes me betterer than all the other people who don’t.

THIS IS NOT A SNARK, SERIOUSLY (I'm trying to understand the mindset of those on the other side of the aisle--honestly), but Smedleyman, can you list some tenets of REAL conservatism, not the pernicious neoconservative kind, that have actually benefited REAL middle- and lower-class Americans, not the putative 1% who own this country?

SERIOUSLY. THIS IS NOT A SNARK!!!

Thanking you in advance!
posted by John of Michigan at 2:55 PM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Real conservatives don't care about other people, John, except when they can be used (or exploited--either way) as workers or cannon fodder--they primarily care about maintaining their wealth and status, and ensuring an advantage for their kids over other kids.
posted by amberglow at 3:46 PM on June 26, 2006

George W Bush: The Torture President.
posted by Neiltupper at 4:05 PM on June 26, 2006

Oh my god, lets all bow down and

The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one.
Is it really? When you have people like uncle Dick, Karl Rove, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Richard Pearl and others taking the lead when it comes to policy issues, and Bush taking a back seat, what do you expect?

Loyal conservative Congress?
Loyal yes to an extent, but think of them as more of a rubberstamp.

Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree
Result of a rubberstamp congress.

Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed
Result of a rubberstamp congress + playing on public's fears, outright lying and exaggerating the facts.

Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more
Result of a rubberstamp congress. It a well known fact that a good majority of judges at the federal level and Supreme Court have been appointed by Republican presidents.

Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event
Result of a rubberstamp congress. What do you expect? This may be be unprecedented, but wise? On the one hand, you're running up billions of dollars in deficits, and cutting taxes at the same time. Something just doesn't add up.

Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts
Result of a rubberstamp congress, and playing on the public’s fears of more terrorist attacks. Has the No Child Left Behind Act been a success? No.

Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections
Again, result of a rubberstamp congress which allowed him to appoint people to these positions who would follow through with going back on established policies in place from previous administrations.

Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies
Result of rubberstamp congress.

Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives
Result of growing strength of right wing religious conservatives (with cheerleaders like Dobson, Pat Robertson, Fallwell, Rush Limbaugh etc.)

Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment — “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” — to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies
Result of a rubberstamp congress.

Winning re-election and solidifying his party’s grip on Congress
Result of playing on the public’s fear of “the other guy can’t get the job done” “I started it, and you should let me finish it” and outright lying and exaggerating the facts.

Whatever happened to all of the terror alerts we were so accustomed to seeing near the election, or when some bad news came out of Iraq or somewhere else? Have they finally realized that its just as not as effective? Anytime Bush appears on TV, you see FOX NEWS ALERT.
posted by ArunK at 4:07 PM on June 26, 2006

Smedleyman, the Repulican party put 'Real' Conservativsm on the chopping block when Barry asked, "Can they shoot straight?"
posted by taosbat at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2006

“Because she is an idiot. And GWB is an incompetent President. Can't you see that?” - posted by disgruntled
*deeply envies trolls*

Your logic is astounding. Also your reading skills. I defended GWB where? I defended NeoCons where? I failed to illustrate that I was noting the difference between NeoCons and conservatives where?

“And you know what? They're all draft dodgers. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowits were all draft dodgers.” - posted by disgruntled

Well, since you’re addressing me directly - when’d you serve? Say, wasn’t Bill Clinton a....nah, you probably haven’t read this far. Don’t want to tax you. Eat a sammich and come back in a bit.
(Don’t much like chickenhawks myself. But I did have issues with some military operations under Clinton)

“If I can figure out what the hell he's talking about.” - posted by monju_bosatsu

I’ve probably been reading too much Buckley. He like the $10 buck words and convoluted sentences.

“can you list some tenets of REAL conservatism, not the pernicious neoconservative kind, that have actually benefited REAL middle- and lower-class Americans, not the putative 1% who own this country?”

Say, is this a snark?

You can use the Wiki article
for shorthand/background if you like.
Or the U of V dictionary of the history of ideas.

But part of the problem is that conservativism is by it’s nature more of a concern with the means than the ends. An understanding that change in and of itself isn’t an inherent good and that social traditions shouldn’t be changed lightly - most particularly because one perspective, no matter how ingenious, is all encompassing or good for everyone.
(I suppose one of the things I like about conservativism is the variety, which leads to friction, which leads to (hopefully) communication and exploration of an issue and slower application before review - so more stability).

Traditional conservatives oppose the war in Iraq f’rinstance. I happen to agree that our foreign policy should be for the protection of the U.S. and only as a last resort. E.g. about 80 percent of House Republicans, voted against the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo under Clinton. This jibed with conservative thinking. (The difference is - they are Republicans first, conservativism, or apparently any principle, comes after serving that - since they voted to go to war in Iraq - would they have done that under Clinton? Doubtful.)

Conservatives also traditionally oppose deficit spending, not really something Bush followed in cutting taxes while spending money on a war.
I think the public skepticism about big government and pro-privacy is very much an impact of conservative thinking. This was going on under Clinton after the shooting at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
The ‘liberals’ who are screaming Big Brother now had nothing to say back then.
(Yes, I put liberals in quotes - ‘cause the same label problems exist there as well.)
This goes back to Jefferson and his dislike of the use of public power for private ends.
In the 30’s conservatives protested high property taxes and demanded cuts in government spending, the civil rights movement had a great deal of support from conservatives albeit there was a split between those who argued integration even if what the Fed was doing was unconstitutional and those who wanted to stick to the constitution.

Nowdays the Republican party might well be identified with conservativism, but that doesn’t mean they’re synonymous.

Indeed, I’d argue that Clinton had a great many conservative policies and that had he run when Goldwater did he’d be called a conservative.
Hell, Goldwater told Bob Dole before he died that they were the new liberals of the Republican party.

But lower government spending, more money in your pocket, strong but not agressive national defense, less government intervention into the private lives of citizens - these things to me are self-evident goods. Middle and lower class Americans have benefitted by them in the past.

What I don’t accept is the false dichotomy that (perhaps you did not intentionally imply, but is pervasive elsewhere) conservatives/Republicans automatically support the richest 1% of the country.
When in fact both republicans and dems are guilty of this and I would argue that both liberals and conservatives have strong principled arguments against this state of affairs going back a long way in America.
I would further argue that the co-option of labels and the exploitation of the division over those false dichotomies are being fully prosecuted by the richest 1% of people in the country.

Just look at who was pushing for the elimination of the Estate Tax.
And yet people who had absolutely no connection to that issue got into arguments over it. (Again proving - whether you win or lose in the special olympics....)

My assertion is that the posted piece is the worst kind of that rubbish. It is irrelevant whether it’s pro-gestapo or anti-lollipops or neutral on jabberwocky, you cannot paint something red and call it communist and say it’s evil as McCarthy did in the 50’s.

Things have their own reality. Political acts pushed by a group of people who are a group tangentially related to a political ethos I ascribe to does not associate me or that ethos in it’s totality with them even if they incorporate some elements of that philosophy into what they’re doing and use the same labels.

I was raised in the Christian religion - does this mean I’m associated with Fred Phelps?

It’s worse because in the piece the terms “neocon” and “conservative” and “republican” seem interchangable. The majority of people at least don’t see that happening with “Phelps” and “Christian” (some do of course).

So it’s not to me to defend conservativism here (although I did try to illustrate within those parameters the differences) it’s up to anyone capable of critical thought to avoid paranoia and fanaticism whether from the left, right, political thought, religeous (& theist or atheistic) thought, or whatever.
Because it leads to myopia, prejudice and sloppy, emotion charged argument. And quite possibly worse.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:41 PM on June 26, 2006

“Real conservatives don't care about other people, John, except when they can be used (or exploited--either way) as workers or cannon fodder--they primarily care about maintaining their wealth and status, and ensuring an advantage for their kids over other kids.” - posted by amberglow

You’re right amberglow. That’s totally me. I really am not involved in charity work (because you know, fuck ‘em) or political activism, or indeed anything in any way socially constructive. I sit in a big office smoking my cigar letting my Hummer idle in the parking lot while my workers (whom I oppress) burn the teeth of third world children to pour as much pollution into the atmosphere as possible.
Also, because I’m from the midwest, I am fat and ignorant and hate jews and gays. Oh! and I exploit the blacks (almost forgot). Now I’m off to wipe my ass with the constitution.


“Smedleyman, the Repulican party put 'Real' Conservativsm on the chopping block when Barry asked, "Can they shoot straight?” posted by taosbat

Yes, because the Republicans can invalidate everything Burke, Locke, Hobbes, et.al had to say. They have that power.
I can no longer argue in favor of continuity and predictability in government. All conservative political thought has been neutralized by the Republicans.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:42 PM on June 26, 2006

/I would argue my condemnation of the Republican party and BushCo is all the stronger because I’m more intimate with the principles they are espousing, but not necessarily following. It is, in essence, my beliefs, not those of a liberal or other political theory adherant, that are being violated and propped up as something they are not, as cover for or distract from the actual acts going on. Do you people forget the abuse heaped on right wing militiamen in the 90s as paranoid psychos and potential revolutionaries by the left? Did you forget the arguments against government intrusion into private lives back then? Do you even remember the intrusions? Oh, but NOW things are totally different. Just like it will all be better once Democrat ‘X’ gets into office and all the “conservatives” who aren’t saying dick about warrentless wiretaps now will be back on “my” side.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:54 PM on June 26, 2006

Yo, Sman, I respect your tenacity and it's sweetly obvious that you're passionate about your cause and your truth, but for your own health, relax, man! Oh, and.
posted by DenOfSizer at 6:28 PM on June 26, 2006

Incontinent? Let's please leave the poor guy's personal problems out of this. God knows there's enough else to talk about.
posted by yhbc at 6:30 PM on June 26, 2006

DenOfSizer:

Irony: being told to ‘relax’ in opposition to fanaticism.

(also irony - not pointing out other folks spelling/grammar errors, but being called on your own)

But, will do.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:36 PM on June 26, 2006

Is this a joke?
(Don't have time to read through the thread.)
posted by parm=serial at 7:02 PM on June 26, 2006

Yes, because the Republicans can invalidate everything Burke, Locke, Hobbes, et.al had to say. They have that power.
I can no longer argue in favor of continuity and predictability in government. All conservative political thought has been neutralized by the Republicans.
posted by Smedleyman

.
posted by taosbat at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2006

Bush is an idiot, however the people in the background pulling the strings are not. This administration and the current political environment were born out of the shocking (in their view) loss of Bush 41 to Clinton.

Between that time and this one, Republican control of the government is a reality, TV evangelists have abandoned 'the world is going to end' for 'Christians must have political power', Fox News appeared and talking heads like Rush are given a forum to spew, home schooling has grown and something like Patrick Henry College exists.

The Democrats became road kill as the Republicans mounted a movement that made Clinton's 1992 team look like pussycats.
posted by UseyurBrain at 7:21 PM on June 26, 2006

Your logic is astounding. Also your reading skills. - posted by Smedleyman

What can I say, I am astounding.

Well, since you’re addressing me directly - when’d you serve? Say, wasn’t Bill Clinton a....nah, you probably haven’t read this far. Don’t want to tax you. Eat a sammich and come back in a bit. (Don’t much like chickenhawks myself. But I did have issues with some military operations under Clinton)
posted by Smedleyman

I have never served and would never serve in a war that's based on lies. Sorry, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz must be extremely indifferent to the lower-middle class to have them die in a war that they've concocted through fabricated intelligence, propoganda and lies.

Your posts are a bit too long-winded and scatterbrained for me to figure out whether or not you think Bush is, or is not incompetent.
posted by disgruntled at 7:30 PM on June 26, 2006

Pre-War Intelligence: Three Words: The Vice President
posted by homunculus at 7:33 PM on June 26, 2006

I think it's far more important to discuss the American people's incompetency in electing a good president, and demanding better results from a sitting president.
posted by ruwan at 7:37 PM on June 26, 2006

At least he admits his mistakes.
posted by homunculus at 7:42 PM on June 26, 2006

concocted through fabricated intelligence, propoganda and lies.

haha, you people.
posted by tomplus2 at 8:11 PM on June 26, 2006

so why is this thread still up?
posted by shmegegge at 8:41 PM on June 26, 2006

Your posts are a bit too long-winded and scatterbrained for me to figure out whether or not you think Bush is, or is not incompetent.

long-winded they may be, but smedleyman's posts are not scatterbrained

part of my problem with today's politics is that the real principled liberals and conservatives have been left out of the discussion ... there was actually a time in this country when they had worthwhile things to say to each other and listened to each other, even if they disagreed philisophically

i think we're fortunate in having a real conservative express his views here

as a collarary to smedleyman's statement that conservatives believe change isn't an inherent good, i might say that the idea that government can always effect social changes is a dubious one ... i used to think that myself, but 40 years past the 60s, what strikes me is how little we've changed socially in some ways ... in spite of all the political insistence that we have to

to argue that bush is pushing a conservative agenda belongs in the same catagory as arguing clinton was pushing a liberal agenda ... smedleyman does well when he points out that clinton was all for nation building and fixing in the balkans

the idea that it's our responsibility to play policeman of the world and to convert countries forcibly to democracy and human rights is a liberal one ... and what i think pissed off john kerry and his fellow dnc powerbrokers wasn't that bush was a bad conservative ... but a bad liberal
posted by pyramid termite at 9:20 PM on June 26, 2006

amen to that.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:53 PM on June 26, 2006

Your posts are a bit too long-winded and scatterbrained for me to figure out whether or not you think Bush is, or is not incompetent.

"ARGH BUSH BAD U DONT AGREE WITH ME RAH YOUR SCATTERBRAINED RAH"

::disgruntledstien say's as he breaks through a brick wall that is thick as his skull::
posted by Dreamghost at 10:05 PM on June 26, 2006

pyramid termite, do you not believe in using periods, or are you saving your supply for Metafilter memorial threads?
posted by fandango_matt at 10:09 PM on June 26, 2006

i used to post on little green footballs and got a hystericalectomy from them ... i don't have periods anymore
posted by pyramid termite at 11:05 PM on June 26, 2006

Here's a few extra links that should've gone in the original post:

Why Conservatives Can't Govern
The Road From K Street to Yusufiya
Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush Administration
posted by scalefree at 12:05 AM on June 27, 2006

Bush Incompetent?

How can people still *ask* a question like that after 5 years of direct evidence?

At least Ford only stumbled on stairs.
posted by Twang at 2:58 AM on June 27, 2006

Thanks for the links scalefree.
posted by adamvasco at 3:24 AM on June 27, 2006

Final thought: Bush as I used the term was meant as what is called an imperial metaphor, Perhaps I might have called it the Bush administration. Anyway, he may well be incompetent. But his track record in creating what until very recently has been a rubber stamp congress amongst all those other things is a warning that this may not be necessarily so. Is it wise to underestimate your enemies?

Why not, if you are in a competition - read:election battle - treat your opponent as being smarter and more dangerous than he might actually be. Then you won't be as likely to fall into the kind of trap that Lakeoff was warning us against.
posted by donfactor at 3:47 AM on June 27, 2006

Cranberry: "The Windsors don't do well in school, but they have England under control for the foreseeable future."

Haha.
posted by Drexen at 6:06 AM on June 27, 2006

Bush incompetent?

Is the Pope Catholic? As for whether it's a carefully scripted pose, it's an intersting premise but fruitless. It's that Rovian Voodoo horseshit that leads to giving the Bush Admin. too much credit, the frightening thing is that they are, in fact, and I mean the whole Bush/Cheney/Rummy etc junta ....absolutely THAT f*cking incompetent. Blah..blah...Bush...etc....Someone shoot me now, I can't write about this crap anymore...I just want it to end......please puh-leeeeze make it stop....do we really have to wait 2 more years.....WAAAA!!
posted by Skygazer at 9:11 AM on June 27, 2006

“Your posts are a bit too long-winded and scatterbrained for me to figure out whether or not you think Bush is, or is not incompetent.” - posted by disgruntled

*deletes snarky, but otherwise brilliant retort*

“I would argue my condemnation of the Republican party and BushCo is all the stronger because...” - Smed

“Bush is worse than incompetant - he’s a polarizing force that removes otherwise reasonable thought from arguments.” - Smed

- Yeah, it’s totally unclear there whether I think Bush is incompetant or not.


Here, let me translate an earlier post for you:
Conservative plan - non-intervention
Bush plan - intervention.
Conservative plan - when intervention necessary - last resort only.
Bush plan - pre-emptive strike.
Conservative plan - measured response, defined victory conditions.
Bush plan - no exit strategy.

And my general gist:
Neocons /= conservative.
Rant/propaganda/fanaticism by either side /= reasonable discourse.
Ann Coulter = any argument that uses the same form of rhetoric, left wing, right wing, whatever.

Any liberal thought is not automatically immune from the fallacious vices Coulter (and, I argue, the piece in question) engages in by virtue of its being correct if it’s expressed in the same way.


Perhaps if you spent more time reading you’d notice our arguments overlap in certain places - including Bush and the Neocons and Iraq.

I can’t address a statement like: “True liberals want progress that makes the world a better place for everyone” because what the hell does that mean?
Not even getting into the ‘no true scotsman’ thing - who doesn’t want progress that makes the world a better place? Or think they’re doing that? Or at least pay lip service to that? (Other than nihilists of course.)
And the hypocracy of this administration is something we already agree on.
And you’ve already argued halfway into my corner against this article saying Bush is indeed incompetant and his cabal is a pack of hypocrites and greedy psychopaths.

But go on - tell me why my assertion that the arguments presented in this article are not shallow, deceptive and acrimonious in the same ways that many of the right wing pundits (such as Coulter) are.

“I have never served and would never serve in a war that's based on lies.” - posted by disgruntled

So to you then the engagements under Clinton, or any President, are all based on lies?
Or were you too young/old to fight during the Clinton administration?
(I did, saved many, many lives, doing something contrary to what we were told - you’re welcome)
Either way, by your argument, - Clinton then is also a chickenhawk, because he dodged the draft (and has admitted to it) and pushed a war.

See, I understand your meaning, but I’m refusing to address it, instead engaging in rhetoric. This, to me, is dishonest (when not done for illustrative purposes).

I don’t think Clinton was a chickenhawk. I agree that the Iraq war was based on lies and “Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowits (sic) were all draft dodgers.”

I do not however think it’s fair to level that argument at someone who has served in the military (me). Nor do I think it’s fair to use that argument to refute points I haven’t made. Nor do I think it’s fair to attempt to tag all conservatives with that brush - particularly one who has spoken strongly against this particular administration.

Which, conincidentally, is the same kind of criticism I have for the posted article in question.

Any of that get through?

/To be fair my “...pro-gestapo or anti-lollipops or neutral on jabberwocky...” was a little scatterbrained. But y’know, sometimes I dispair, there are only so many metaphors.

“.” -posted by taosbat

? Sorry brother, I’m missing it.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:45 AM on June 27, 2006

/also any acrimony I have for statements making use of the term ‘conservative’ as a catch-all for any right minded thinking individual from the religious right to neocons, whatever, is limited to this thread. My concern is, in the post, that the term is used too loosely. And I have the same concerns with the term ‘liberal’ used as a pejorative by (our share of) idiots on the right. Since it was one of the concerns here, I thought I’d address it directly. Elsewhere I’ll continue to overlook calling Bush or Rummy, et.al. a conservative or it being used as “all conservatives” (e.g. as amberglow’s statement here) the same way I overlook “liberal” used the same way.
That is, I’ll take people at their meaning, not exact wording.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:53 AM on June 27, 2006

“.” -posted by taosbat

? Sorry brother, I’m missing it.
posted by Smedleyman

Sister, if you please, bro'. I was simply agreeing with your reply to my comment:

Yes, because the Republicans can invalidate everything Burke, Locke, Hobbes, et.al had to say. They have that power.
I can no longer argue in favor of continuity and predictability in government. All conservative political thought has been neutralized by the Republicans.
posted by Smedleyman
posted by taosbat at 11:08 AM on June 27, 2006

My apologies, taosbat. I remember you mentioning your son, but not your gender.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on June 27, 2006

No offense taken, Smedleyman. It's just one of those minor web corrections. I hadn't said anything about my gender in my profile. I filled that field today. I hope Old battle-ax helps prevent future confusions.
posted by taosbat at 5:18 PM on June 27, 2006

long-winded they may be, but smedleyman's posts are not scatterbrained.

Thank you meta-authority for setting the record straight.

"ARGH BUSH BAD U DONT AGREE WITH ME RAH YOUR SCATTERBRAINED RAH"
::disgruntledstien say's as he breaks through a brick wall that is thick as his skull::

Wow. Trivialize things much? The problem with fucked up people is they don't know that they're fucked up.

Why, when Ann Coulter shouts “Teh liberals suck!” and shortchanges a whole piece of thought she’s an idiot, but when it’s done here, that’s perfectly fine?

Apparently, it's okay for her to say whatever she wants in some circles, and it's not okay for me to call someone scatterbrained here. Even though making such a statement on this thread is scatterbrained, since it's supposed to be about Bush's incompetence, which apparently we agree on. As you said, he's beyond incompetent. Any misunderstanding is purely my fault, due to the fact that I'm rarely able to read through such a long post without being interrupted by one of the dolphins.
posted by disgruntled at 6:41 PM on June 27, 2006

“Apparently, it's okay for her to say whatever she wants in some circles, and it's not okay for me to call someone scatterbrained here” - posted by disgruntled


Yeah, you were really victimized there. Like those 9/11 families. That must’ve really been a tremendous blow to your fragile psyche.

“since it's supposed to be about Bush's incompetence” - posted by disgruntled

Hopefully I can make this clear before the dolphins get you: this post - the editorial, posted here on the front page from The Rockridge Institute titled: Bush Is Not Incompetent - is about Bush’s incompetence.
My criticism - the criticism to which you were responding - was, at least in part, directed at the methodology used in making the case that Bush Is Not Incompetent.

The analogy I used to criticize the methodology, the arguments used to support the case in the editorial titled: Bush Is Not Incompetent, was that is was similar to the methods and arguments used by Ann Coulter.

The response, by you, to that position was to attack Coulter’s intellect and assert the complete opposite of what the piece in question: Bush Is Not Incompetent - was saying.

I then pointed out (snarkily) that you had missed the point. That saying Coulter is an idiot and Bush is incompetent does not address my assertion that the method and form of argument in piece in question is similar to Coulter’s.

Your response - then and now - is that you don’t have time to read or are distracted and that folks on metafilter who notice that you don’t have time to read, but plenty of time to post and insult others are oppressing your right to free speech - somehow - in favor of the kind of speech Coulter engages in.

So to be clear: I’m really not at all sure what the hell it is you mean or even what you’re trying to insinuate.

But whatever it is - you have not at all defended or even addressed my commentary that the FORM of the arguments in the post - the piece we’re talking about here - “Bush Is Not Incompetent” are spurious like Coulters.

In your last post it appears you’re carefully misunderstanding what “here” means.

See in the quote from me “here” means within the piece itself - the “Bush Is Not Incompetent” article/editorial. Where Ann Coulter is published is elsewhere. And where you post is still a third place.

I would think, however, it’s not ok to call anyone scatterbrained anywhere. Perhaps I got snarky in my initial post, but I have little patience for someone who doesn’t read someone’s work - is obviously missing more than a few points - but feels qualified to argue from that ignorance anyway, and is furthermore militant in defending their ignorance.

I also think other folks have less patience than I do, thus their short, sharp replies. I’d have thought, given your defense of name calling and your dislike for ‘long windedness’ this would have appealed to you.

But name calling isn’t a ‘here’ sort of thing. I doubt you would call me scatterbrained to my face. And that’s not because I’m a tough guy. That is in some sense, a compliment. I suspect you’re polite enough not to insult anyone like that face to face - so why would there be some license to do it ‘here’ when your statements or input is attacked?

And I grant you first said my posts were scatterbrained - but that implies I am and your last post says it outright.

But again - why take the time to be acrimonious when by your own admission you don’t have the time or inclination to read and absorb in the first place?

If I’m proven wrong I’ll change my opinion (and have), if I insult someone I’ll apologize (and have), what I won’t do is back down from a fight. But really, that’s pointless - ‘here’.
Fighting for the sake of fighting is trolling and just noise for people who might actually want to read an opinion that differs from their own and update their ideas. Perhaps for a time it’s entertaining, but ultimately it gets tedious. Particularly if one is not in earnest.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:59 PM on June 28, 2006

Yeah, you were really victimized there. Like those 9/11 families. That must’ve really been a tremendous blow to your fragile psyche.

Victimized? Fragile psyche? Not me. Why would anyone read further when you start out with an offensive and trivial statement? That was a rhetorical question, in case you didn't get it.
posted by disgruntled at 12:48 PM on June 29, 2006

Whatever.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:02 PM on June 29, 2006