Another blue-dog liberal turns traitor!

[Shapley]

Jamie,

On Page 2 of this thread you wrote:

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

- emphasis mine -

And this is, after all, a thread about the war. Specifically, it is (or was) a thread about John Warner's position on the current war and the Vietnam War.

I did not say you linked abortion to the war, I said you brought up abortion in thread about the war.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

You're backpedaling.....There were 4 other general topics mentioned in there as well...YOU chose to single out abortion, not me. The topic was with regard to states's rights...not some wildly conceived connection between abortion and the war...YOU came up with that.

State's rights have nothing to do with the war since that is of course a federal issue. According to your interpretation, abortion would be a state's right issue (along with health care, assisted suicide, medical marijuana, and stem cell research to name a few.)

In the "Another blue-dog liberal turns traitor!" thread you wrote:
#################
Shapley wrote:
I was browsing through old threads earlier, and stumbled on this one. I reread it, and was thinking about how it (- my emphasis) was hijacked into a thread on abortion when, suddenly, it hit me. It was no hijack. The war and abortion are direct parallels. It can even be noted in looking at who supports "a woman's right to choose abortion" and the Democrats desire to abort this war, they are almost parallel, as well. Even the arguments are the same:
#################
The topic hijacking to which you refer took place on the U.S. Shari'a watch topic thread and you will recall that I specifically stated that it was not an appropriate topic for that thread.

[Shapley]

I sense that you are feeling singled out. I did not say you hijacked it, nor that you drew a parallel between abortion and the war. The thread was hijacked and, if you read page 3, was primarily concerned with the issue of abortion as it relates to States' rights.

I clearly stated that I was the one who saw a connection between abortion and the war. Not about States' rights and the war, not about any of the other topics (which we did not discuss in detail on this thread) and the war, but between abortion and the war. I drew the connection, I outlined the connection, and I put it out there for discussion.

I didn't 'single out' abortion, however, we discussed States' rights in general, and then you offered this question (still on page 2):

So Shap, I will ask you a question, I believe that you are pro-life. Given that, and your stand on State's rights, you believe that it would be within the right of the state to allow (or deny) abortion. However, and correct me if I am wrong, you are against a woman's right to choose. If you believe that a group of voters can elect to allow abortion, then why should it not be the right of every woman to do so individually?

And the page that followed went into a discussion of abortion, States' rights, individual rights, abortion as killing, etc. OT attempted to bring it back 'on topic' at one point, but it continued for a while before the subject of John Warner's memory was brought up and the subject
returned to the war or, rather, to the Vietnam War.

My point was that the 'hijack' was not a hijack, since there is a parallel between the two subjects. The subject is, or was, debated. I don't know why you think I'm picking on you, I merely pointed out that the first mention of abortion in this thread came from you. I believe I am correct in that.

That is not back pedalling, except to say that I pedalled back to page 2 to find the quotes. I have stood my ground while explaining both my thoughts on the subject and the reason for putting them out there. I would hope we could have a reasonable discussion of the relative merits, or lack thereof, of my position without anyone feeling 'picked upon'. I did not feel picked upon when you singled me out in the above question to about abortions and a womans' 'right to choose', I merely provided the answer within the scope of the discussion.

Suddenly, everyone seems gun shy around here.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Not gun-shy, Shapley. Just feel that the horse is dead, that interminable wrangling is beneath me, and that intentional aggravation of the other b.com bb folk ought to be beneath you.

This is another time you've instigated an argument for no purpose other than your own amusement.

[OperaTenor]

What the quilter said.

[Shapley]

This is another time you've instigated an argument for no purpose other than your own amusement.

Not entirely. I saw a connection, had a thought, a theory, whatever, and I posted it for discussion or, if you will, for argument (I've never really understood the difference between the two). I knew it would be controversial, but I'm no stranger to controversy. I did not expect, however, so many people to take such umbrage at my theory.

Those who consider the horse dead need not enter the frey. As far as I can tell, we've never once discussed a theory that attempted to connect the national attitude on abortion and the national attitude on the war. I honestly thought I had found a live horse.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

When you single me out as bringing up the topic of abortion....yes, I feel singled out:

quote="ShapleyAs I've said, Jamie brought the subject of abortion into a thread on the war.

My point is that it was only one of 5 items mentioned WITH REGARD TO STATES RIGHTS that evolved in this thread. As you admit, you were the one making the connection with the war (a totally unsubstantiated opinion to which you are entitled) I made no such connection and never intended to...it's ludicris, as I stated in my first post on the subject after you initially stated your thesis. Your logic does not follow (non sequitur). Of course that is simply my opinion to which I am entitled. I believe that it is time for the "Dead Horse" icon. I have nothing futher to say on the matter.

[piqaboo]

the dishonesty of the Democrats, and their unwillingness to cooperate (while chiding the President for the same thing)

making them a perfect mirror image of the Republicans during the last Democratic presidency.

Nothing changes but the names of the players.

[Shapley]

making them a perfect mirror image of the Republicans during the last Democratic presidency.

Actually, the Republicans in Congress under President Clinton were able to accomplish a great deal of things through cooperation - Welfare Reform, NAFTA, The Financial Service Modernization Act of 1999 all come to mind.

I cannot name a single such action that the Democrats in Congress under President Bush aligned with, except the resolution granting authority to go to war in Iraq and the Patriot Act.

I will grant that, with a Republican Majority in both houses, this President did not feel as complelled as President Clinton did to 'reach across the aisle'. However, in those instances in which he did so, he was rebuked by Democrats. Their policy has been 'oppose, oppose, oppose' when it should have been 'propose, propose, propose' if their goal was the betterment of the nation, rather than merely winning elections.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I'm merely making an observation based on what I've seen.

No, you're drawing conclusions based on faulty reasoning and doing a good job of accusing people of things you have no call to.

I've been called nuts before, and I've been wrong before. In this case, however, I don't believe that I am... I try to look at what has happened in America that has led to such things a mall shootings, university shootings, widespread abortion, abandonment of commitment, high divorce rates, and general rudeness.

I might suggest you take a close look at your accusation and grade it on rudeness.

I do think the President Bush has done damage to this nation, but I think he has done so for different reasons than you, OT, or Jamie believe.

I believe he has done some good in ways that OT in particular feels were harmful.

I believe, however, that the dishonesty of the Democrats, and their unwillingness to cooperate (while chiding the President for the same thing) has done considerably more damage than anything this President or his administration has done.

I believe a lot of it is payback for all the grief the Republicans dishonestly gave Clinton. Even Barry Goldwater told them to knock it off. I must admit I'm rooting for casualties at this point. There is very little in either party I find palatable or in the best interests of the country.

I think the war has not been fought in the best manner, but I don't agree that it should never have been fought.

I believe the search for bin laden was a worthy cause. We failed at that, too.

I also believe that, even if this war could have been avoided, because the commitment to engage in it was made, it has to be brought to conclusion, by victory, by negotiated treaty, or by other honourable means. It should not be ended by simply abandoning the cause or, to use the oft-repeated analogy, taking our toys and going home because we don't like the way the game is played.

That's not why I think we should quit. I think we should quit because we're doing more harm than good, both to Iraq and to ourselves. In the process, as far as I can tell, our only hope is to partition Iraq into at least three different territories, perhaps even countries. Civil war will be the result of our withdrawal, either now or a hundred years from now.

The tactics we're seeing in this war are the tactics we will see in the future, whether in the streets of Baghdad, the streets of Tehran, the streets of London, or the streets of New York. We have to learn to counter them, to stop them, to defeat them. If they are allowed to successfully deter us from duty, then there will be more, not less, of them in the future.

And this attempt to deter them has been a step in the wrong direction. By creating chaos and a power vacuum in Iraq, we've simply untied the bonds that kept such activities at bay there. Destroying al qaeda was a good idea. Destroying an already emasculated regime was foolishness.

Search your heart, Grasshopper, you know it to be true.

What I know to be true is that staying the course is what the captain of the Titanic attempted. That does not bode well for the course we are on.

[barfle]

Suddenly, everyone seems gun shy around here.

Draw!

[Shapley]

I might suggest you take a close look at your accusation and grade it on rudeness.

I think my original post very clearly identifies the Democrats in Congress as the ones who have abandoned responsibility and seek to abort the war. I clearly mention the Democrats in Congress, and refer to their vote to grant authority to go to war, and their desire to now abort that vote. As I read the post, I have nowhere accused anyone on this board of anything, except pointing out that it was Jamie who first broached the topic of abortion on this thread (which is not an accusation, just a matter of pointing the truth). And yet, so many of you seem to take offense. I was not aware that so many of you were Democrat Congresspersons.

I do believe that the overall mood of the country, which has swung (according to the polls) to favour Democrat positions is indicative of my statement that they have 'led the majority of the people with them'.

The war and abortion are direct parallels. It can even be noted in looking at who supports "a woman's right to choose abortion" and the Democrats desire to abort this war, they are almost parallel, as well.

The Democrats who voted to authorize the war prefer to pretend that they were misled, caught up in the passion of 9/11, and didn't really consider the consequences of going to war in Iraq, and they want to abort the war, hoping that it will abort the responsibility for their vote.

Now, a relatively short time later, the consensus of the Democrats has moved to one of aborting the war effort, and they seem to have led the majority of the people with them.

If you're feeling sorry for my dissing the Democrats in Congress, then perhaps you should reread some of the posts regarding the President and the Republicans in general. I seem to recall terms like 'liars', 'crooks', 'slime', 'criminals', 'murderers', etc. Broad generalities, all, and used to tar the entire side of the Congressional body. But I've not taken offense as so many here seem to have done.

I still believe my statement to be accurate. There is a sense of abandonment of responsibility, commitment, duty, and honour in this country, and it is reflected in the platform of the Democrat party. Every person may have a different reason for taking the position they assume on the issues, but the end result is that the country shifts in a direction away from commitment and duty. Divorce rates are up, abortion rates are among the highest of any industrialized nation in the world. No one wants to assemble the pieces, to look at the big picture. I'm told you can't compare the two, and I ask; "Why not?" Just because no one else connects the dots doesn't mean they can't be connected.

Is it suddently rude to ask hard questions? Now I know how Galileo and Darwin must have felt.

[OperaTenor]

I do think the President Bush has done damage to this nation, but I think he has done so for different reasons than you, OT, or Jamie believe.

I believe he has done some good in ways that OT in particular feels were harmful.

Okay, I'll bite. What.......?

[piqaboo]

There's nothing wrong with exploring if the Right-to-Choose and the Leave-Iraq group are the same folks.

There is rudeness in putting it this way (italics and color mine), particularly given that you know the beliefs of those you are addressing on this board:

I think it is telling that those of us believe in commitments, who believe in responsibility for one's actions, and who believe in responsibility, are generally the ones who favour restrictions on abortion and completing the mission in Iraq.

Plus, its silly. The predominantly Republican congress didnt vote to declare war, which shows they also lacked commitment and refused to stand up and take responsibility for the actions of the congress.

[Shapley]

Plus, its silly. The predominantly Republican congress didnt vote to declare war, which shows they also lacked commitment and refused to stand up and take responsibility for the actions of the congress.

I have said before that they have the right to waive their authority, which they did, but that they still have a responsibility for the decision to do so. To say "I'll vote to give you the authority to decide for me" does not absolve you of the vote cast in your name. Congress voted to give the President to authority to go to war, which he did.

I still fail to see it as rudeness. I believe that supporting abortion is supporting an abandonment of responsibility and commitment, and I think that supporting failure of the war effort does likewise, and thus I made the statement. That's not the first time I've made those statements, but it's probably the first time I've tied them together. Both involve making a decision and then negating the consequences of that decision at the expense of others. However, I was clear that I place the blame for setting the national attitude toward responsibility on the shoulders of the Democrats in Congress, since it is their platform that sets those as policy.

Perhaps I could have versed it in softer language, but the point would not remain unaltered.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

Barfle said:

What I know to be true is that staying the course is what the captain of the Titanic attempted. That does not bode well for the course we are on.

Actually he tried to change course when he saw the iceberg. Had he hit it dead on there's some evidence the Titanic might have survived long enough to effect more rescues.

IMHO and based on historical precedence I don't think a Democrat president in 2009 is going to pull the troops out.

Please do not put a dress on this pig. The Democrats don’t want to pull the troops out for any altruistic reason, at least be honest enough to grant that point. They want to embarrass this president, period, and if the cost of that embarrassment is more dead G.I.s, tough.

If they think the war is a mistake, then cut off the funding now before another G.I. dies. ANY action other than that is fatal despicable political grandstanding.

The Democrats want Bush to pull them out (with a little help from them) because they don't want to take responsibility for what happens afterwards. THAT'S why they won't de-fund the war, just snipe from the edges to keep the kook left fringe happy.

As for historical precedence, in 2009 a Democrat controlled congress and president (O’Bama's is my guess), will be the first since 1964 to inherit a war from another president. I don’t recall Johnson pulling Kennedy’s troops out of Vietnam.

Oddly, if this happens this will be the first time a Democrat inherited a war from a Republican; historically it’s always been the other way around.

So the new Democrat president will have three options; pull the troops out, status quo or up the ante. Personally I don't think they will have the nerve to quit so that leaves status quo or upping the ante. Upping the ante’s probably out for O’Bama (dunno about Hillary) and status quo is the usual Democrat default; remember Jim Carter’s prediction that the Soviet Union would be around for hundreds of years?

So I think He/She will just put them in little defensive positions and let them get killed at a slightly slower rate until Iran gets the bomb and demands we leave the region. After that? Dunno.

[barfle]

I might suggest you take a close look at your accusation and grade it on rudeness.

I think my original post very clearly identifies the Democrats in Congress as the ones who have abandoned responsibility and seek to abort the war. I clearly mention the Democrats in Congress, and refer to their vote to grant authority to go to war, and their desire to now abort that vote.

No, you did not mention Congress at all. And you used a very broad brush to attempt to coat those you feel have two opinions you differ with.

It can even be noted in looking at who supports "a woman's right to choose abortion"

That doesn't even use the word "Democrat." Only later do you bring Democrats into the picture.

While I share your scorn of Democrats in general, I still see your connection between those who do not support the war in Iraq and those who do support the right of a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy as a moral issue to be a general accusation against the "duty, courage, and honor" of those who hold those positions.

As I read the post, I have nowhere accused anyone on this board of anything, except pointing out that it was Jamie who first broached the topic of abortion on this thread (which is not an accusation, just a matter of pointing the truth). And yet, so many of you seem to take offense. I was not aware that so many of you were Democrat Congresspersons.

Again, the word "Congress" does not appear in the post.

If you're feeling sorry for my dissing the Democrats in Congress, then perhaps you should reread some of the posts regarding the President and the Republicans in general. I seem to recall terms like 'liars', 'crooks', 'slime', 'criminals', 'murderers', etc. Broad generalities, all, and used to tar the entire side of the Congressional body. But I've not taken offense as so many here seem to have done.

Because nobody took two positions you feel to be correct and attempted to indicate that they were morally deficient. They accused the President and his band of yes men of those characteristics.

I'm told you can't compare the two, and I ask; "Why not?" Just because no one else connects the dots doesn't mean they can't be connected.

The dots are not even in the same coloring book, and the connection is not a question of "duty, courage, and honor."

Is it suddently rude to ask hard questions? Now I know how Galileo and Darwin must have felt.

There are no question marks in your message, either.

Let me recap. You explicitly stated that those who 1) believe in abortion rights and 2) do not support the war in Iraq are lacking in "duty, courage, and honor." That fits any definition of the word "rude" that I am aware of.

[barfle]

I do think the President Bush has done damage to this nation, but I think he has done so for different reasons than you, OT, or Jamie believe.

I believe he has done some good in ways that OT in particular feels were harmful.

Okay, I'll bite. What.......?

Tax cuts.

[barfle]

Please do not put a dress on this pig. The Democrats don’t want to pull the troops out for any altruistic reason, at least be honest enough to grant that point. They want to embarrass this president, period, and if the cost of that embarrassment is more dead G.I.s, tough.

If they think the war is a mistake, then cut off the funding now before another G.I. dies. ANY action other than that is fatal despicable political grandstanding.

It's difficult for me to assign any single reason for people wanting to end the war in Iraq without total defeat of whoever the enemy might be this week.

My own opinions are the only ones I can comment on with any authority, and from what I see, the demonstrated incompetence of the existing "course" is reason enough to demand a change. And that change is not "just like we've been doing, but more." I admit I'm no battlefield tactician. I pulled the triggers on some neat stuff, but never in anger. I don't know what to do, but I know what we've been doing is simply helping people decide to blow up as many other people as they can.

[Shapley]

"duty, courage, and honor."

Actually, I mentioned 'duty, commitment, and honour. I don't think I mentioned courage at all...

I specifically mentioned 'the Democrats that voted to authorize the war'. I think that very specifically narrows it down to those in Congress. To the best of my recollection, there was no vote outside of the halls of Congress.

I do believe that those who support abortion rights have abandoned a sense of duty and commitment. Having created a living being, one has a duty to protect that child. Aborting the child aborts the duty, and terminates the commitment the child brings with it. I also believe that there is a general movement in this nation away from the concepts of commitment, duty, and honour, and that both the move towards the acceptance of abortion rights and the support for abandonment of the commitment in Iraq are symptomatic of that movement.

I'm sorry that many of you think that I should 'tone down' my viewpoint, but I don't see how that can be done. I have made clear my beliefs on abortion in the past, and I am unwilling to change them. I'm always happy to discuss them, to hear opposing viewpoints, but I can't water them down or soften them.

Since my viewpoint is so offensive here, I will take a note from Jamie and drop the subject on this thread, as he has graciously done. You are free to have the last word.

Respectfully,

Shapley

P.S.

RE:

Shapley wrote:
Is it suddently rude to ask hard questions? Now I know how Galileo and Darwin must have felt.

There are no question marks in your message, either.

I have asked myself the questions, and posted here for discussion the answers I came up with. I don't think Galileo or Darwin expressed their theories in the form of a question either. This ain't Jeopardy.