February 16, 2005

Blue America: The land of the easily offended Dennis Prager argues that blue people (i.e., liberal Democrats) are more easily offended than red people (i.e., conservative Republicans), and more readily take umbrage at any comment about women, African Americans, Jews, American Indians, gays, etc. than others.

One might extend this to include any "ism", including ageism, heightism, weightism, Macintoshism, etc. Do you think political alignment has aught to do with it? And if you're a liberal who's offended at the article saying you're easily offended, do you just prove his point? Why are people so easily offended (in general) at other people's opinions? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom FROM speech. Or does it?

posted by aeonite 19 years ago
  • I don't know what its like in America, but our right wing press (especially the Mail and the Express) seem to be much angrier and more outraged about everything and anything than I would have thought possible. I can't really see how liberals can be more easily offended.
  • I think this article is 100% correct. I hope that doesn't offend anyone.
  • To cite but one of many examples, take the widely held liberal slogan "War is not the answer." It is pure irrationality. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. And caused more, too...
  • I take offense at this article.
  • Is it cos I is blue?
  • I wish I knew some liberals. Then I could test this theory.
  • Saying that the loudest of the "Blue-Staters" are whiny bitches that fight for stupid causes and get offended far too easily and base actions on emotions is as correct as saying that the loudest of the "Red-Staters" are knuckle dragging redneck ignorant and bigoted jackholes who similarly don't base actions/ideologies on anything but emotion.

    Guess what? Both of them can go fuck themselves. I take offense at ignorance, regardless of what color state they think they live in.

  • I took offence once. It was a bastard to carry. (I'm going! I'm going!)
  • So exactly what kind of survey did he do to establish this? Or is this more of that "talking out of nether regions" that columnists seem to be so good at? It is an interesting topic, that deserves proper attention - e.g. a survey to establish whether self-identified liberals really are more easily offended. That survey, though, should ask about things that tend offend some conservative people (gay marriages, sex in the media, etc) to establish whether one groups really is more easily offended, or is simply offended at different things. It is counter-productive to respond to ideas you don't agree with by being offended. Yet, that is advice more easily given than followed. The truth is that all politics/ideas/debates have emotional elements, because we are emotional beings. I know my own triggers - I get offended when people make blatantly ignorant statements about poverty. Or maybe it's just angry - angry that people who do not know what they are talking about continue to insist they are right in the face of evidence to the contrary. The anger comes because I know it matters, that those people are acting on those eroneous and often prejudiced (as in pre-judged) ideas and shaping my world in ways that are detrimental. Probably we should drop this whole word "offended" - it acts as a death bomb to open debate and discussion. But we shouldn't say that emotions and suposedly irrational justifications - like morality - have no place in that debate. We should just be clear on what they are. Instead of saying "you have offended me", one should say "I am angry because you made this statement which belittles X." (Note how it also brings the responsibility back to the first person.) It may not be that what they have said was all wrong, but the interpretation may be flawed, biased, etc. To take a recent example, it would not make me angry for someone to say that women weren't applying for sciences because they were not interested (if this were so) - I would be very interested to know about their evidence. But it does make me very angry to hear Larry Summers focus on very spurious and not well understood secondary sex characteristics to explain the lack of women in tenured positions, in the face of increasing evidence of systematic discrimination against women in academic science. What makes me angry is not what he said (which may deserve more study), but that he used it to deflect attention away from reasons that have been substantiated.
  • dng - :)
  • Red staters are just as easiliy offended as blues... all you have to do is contradict something either group deeply believes in (religion, or equality) and the fuse is lit... fanatic Blue staters, however, will just have some lame, hippie, commie pinko protest... While fanatic Red staters will shoot you as you leave an abortion clinic, or beat you to death for being teh gay...
  • This article is funny. How easy is it to list things which offend conservatives and fundies? Let me count the ways: 1. Civil rights for homosexuals 2. Teaching of evolution 3. Books with dirty words or sex in them 4. Dissing Jeebus 5. Dissing W, or even suggesting he might be mistaken about something 6. Exposing one's self in Times Square Regarding #6 - YMMV
  • Snark aside, this article is nothing but sweeping generalisation based on conjecture and (possibly) subjective experience. It's an op-ed piece so he's entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is - opinion. Actually, it's more than just opinion, it's also name-calling and a bunch of strawmen. For example, the author makes such statements like: "With the acknowledgment that there are many individual exceptions, a major defining characteristic of modern-day liberalism is the ease with which liberals take offense personally and/or on behalf of others." He then proceeds to treat this as gospel without providing concrete examples. The same goes with his assertions of how "liberal blacks", "liberal women", and "liberals" in general behave. This kind of article actually tries to do exactly what it claims to deride: making an emotional argument rather than a logical or an intellectual one. By parroting the liberal stereotypes, the author becomes yet another voice reinforcing said stereotypes. What a bunch of twaddle.
  • Yeah, it's pretty damn goofy in the extreme to suggest that one's political affiliations are based primarily on how easily offended one is. Both sides get offended plenty easily -- a lot of libs over perceived bigotry, a lot of conservs over anything involving the genitals. Also, and I don't mean this as a criticism of the post, Prager's always struck me as something of a prattling idiot. It's all well and good to support your party and criticize the other guy's, but dismissing an competing ideology as not based in reason reveals some pretty shallow and self-congratulatory thinking. He even went so far as to say that Cuban and Vietnamese Americans aren't perceived as minorities simply because they vote Republican, but offered absolutely no support of that statement. Come on.
  • The poster agrees it's twaddle. Just thought it'd make for good discussion.
  • Allow me to get a little emotional: Just about everything we've said in this thread has been a generalization. No one has offered up a damn thing of substance. We got no facts, no figures, no evidence. We cite nuthin'. ... And THAT is a fact -- probably the only one offered in this whole thread so far! /goes back to throwing stones at glass houses
  • I realize that this is a generalization, but... Conservatives get offended when they feel that they are being attacked personally. Liberals get offended when they feel that other people (especially minorities or the poor) get attacked. So it would makes sense that liberals are more easily offended. There are more people you can attack to offend them.
  • Aeonite, all bile I spewed was meant for the author of the piece - sorry if I gave any impression to the contrary.
  • Possum, does that include calling the author out on not citing any sources beyond his ass?
  • i find this an interesting choice of FPP seeing as how we've lost three monkeys in the past couple days who were offended by recent comments. hmmm.
  • ooga_booga, I am the last person you need to worry about offending.
  • Debaser626 has it right on - both sides (or more accurately, most people) are offended when someone trangresses their moral system, whatever those moral beliefs happen to be. Some people tend to use the "O" word more often, because it is part of their jargon, but in terms of being "offended" it's all over.
  • Though I am reminded that people can be offended at direct insults to their own person - though I think we should be clearer and not say we are offended, but that we feel insulted by X statement.
  • Generalizations are not dead-on assessments or the gospel. And surveys/studies are crapshoots. (For every study, there's an equal and opposite counter-study. And we've all heard "lies, damn lies, and statistics.") So what does that leave us with? When it comes to figuring out "how stuff is" or "why stuff is" or "the way of the world," there really is no realiable method. I for one have learned to embrace generalizations and see them as good -- not because the generalizations offer an ultimate answer or an explanation for a situation. Rather, the generalization lets me see into the mind of another. And if you can see how people think and how they view others or view situations, that is a major tool to more effective communication. (Frankness can be so difficult to come by, and generalizations often offer some of the frankest conversation you'll ever run across.) Example: "Oh, it's now clear to me that you think all ____ people are ____? OK, we'll let's go visit some ____ homes so we can see how they really live." Getting the generalizer to listen is another thing altogether, though.
  • And we've all heard "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Not from statisticians or social scientists. No study is perfect. They do, however, aim to improve our understanding, and take their use of statistics very seriously. Unlike, for instance, the media.
  • aeonite - good to hear that, you putrescent pile of puss-filled parrots. *ducks behind a corner and chitters*
  • Now who's generalizing, jb?
  • Of course, even the gospel is not the gospel truth.
  • Red staters are just as easiliy offended as blues... all you have to do is contradict something either group deeply believes in (religion, or equality) and the fuse is lit... fanatic Blue staters, however, will just have some lame, hippie, commie pinko protest... While fanatic Red staters will shoot you as you leave an abortion clinic, or beat you to death for being teh gay... Bingo. And aeonite: I understand that you don't agree with the article, but really, what the fuck are you doing reading townhall anyway? Shit like this is all you're going to find there. And I don't like to go all mefi on you, but: a single-link editorial from a partisan site does not make a good fpp. i find this an interesting choice of FPP seeing as how we've lost three monkeys in the past couple days who were offended by recent comments. Good, the "this fpp offends me" posts were really starting to get on my nerves. The internet is no place for people that easily offended. If you don't like some things that people say, then don't go to a site where they're allowed to say them.
  • It seems like black people are always getting offended when I say "Shine my shoes, nigger!" I just want shiny shoes! It must be because they're liberals.
  • It is funny that I seem to see articles about "liberals whining" at least once a week, but I can't remember the last time I actually read an article that was actually by a liberal whining. Anyone else notice this?
  • The internet is no place for people that easily offended. Word to the Nth degree. On topic: This article doesn't come close to offending me. My eyes barely roll.
  • js: oof! :)
  • Who did we lose in the past couple days? I missed it. I'm not going to read this article cause I can imagine what it says. yeah, some liberals get their panties in a bunch over stupid shit. repbulicans are evil and want what's worst for everyone in the world besides themselves. Hmm, which is worse?
  • ...liberal positions are far more emotion-based than reason-based. Heh. Maybe you could convince people of that once upon a time, but the times have changed. ...take the widely held liberal slogan "War is not the answer." It is pure irrationality. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. "Liberal slogan?" Says who? In any case, leaving aside the important question of who decides what is and what is not "evil," it's undeniable that disease and famine have accrued a far higher body count and caused, in sum, far more human suffering than all the wars in history combined. Progressives and liberals have always been the ones leading the fight for public funding and policy changes to fight these problems, and that trend continues to this day - consider the AIDS situation, and the neo-cons Bizzaro-world "abstinence only" platform plank.
  • I think he doesn't understand that "War is not the answer" sounds snappier than "Violence as a first response always perpetuates more violence. Since violence causes suffering, and one of the avowed goals of liberalism is to minimize suffering, violence can generally be seen as counter-productive"
  • Violence as a first response always perpetuates more violence. Since violence causes suffering, and one of the avowed goals of liberalism is to minimize suffering, violence can generally be seen as counter-productive hmmm... I don't think that will fit on regular sized bumper sticker, maybe I should go price a Hummer.
  • said it before, say it again - any 'merican monkeys who wanna come live somewhere nice, come to Australia. Our PM might be a c*** but at least we have kebabs. I will also accept offers of a marriage of convenience, provided we can snuggle.
  • We have Kebabs here too, Pris. In fact, about half an hour from here is the biggest concentration of Arabs outside of the Mid East.
  • Besides, everyone knows that all Australians are criminals.
  • War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. Disease and (climate caused) famine are not evil, they are simply unfortunate. War is evil - the greatest evil.
  • Worse than slavery? I'd take war over slavery.
  • Slavery is certainly bad - unless you're a consenting adult, and into that sort of thing.... *stops typing, puts back on handcuffs*
  • Okay - let's not playig dueling evils. (Actually, war led to slavery, and slavery to war.) The point is that war is itself an evil - sometimes a lesser evil, sometimes an evil insanely horrific. In choosing between slavery and being in Sierra Leone or in the Rape of Nanjing...well, pass me those chains.
  • ...war is itself an evil - sometimes a lesser evil, sometimes an evil insanely horrific. And sometimes a necessary evil.
  • It is funny that I seem to see articles about "liberals whining" at least once a week, but I can't remember the last time I actually read an article that was actually by a liberal whining. Well, you'd probably consider an Eric Alterman article about the conservative bent of the Media as a reasoned and intelligent argument. Other people might see it as one liberal whining about a perceived lack of power/influence. It's all in your perspective. I for one see lots of liberal whining. Of course, I also see a lot of conservative whining (or whinging), so what do I know?
  • I for one see lots of liberal whining. Of course, I also see a lot of conservative whining (or whinging), so what do I know?
    they'll all be up against the wall when the revolution comes... then we'll hose 'em down, paint 'em pink and do the happy dance
  • But who is to say when it is necessary? And if that decision were with you, wouldn't you always beat yourself up wondering if you made the right one? Anyone with a strong conscience would.
  • F8x, have you not noticed all the conservatives in the media being busted lately. Check out the bios at the National Review. None of those people started as reporters. These rants about the MSM work well at Instapundit. Not here.
  • A wee comparison: here in London, we have a bit of a brouhaha about our Mayor, "Red" Ken Livingstone, laying into a reporter from the Evening Standard, who was doorstepping him at a party for the GLBT community, something Livingstone saw (with good reason) as harrassment of both him and the party attendees. He asked if the reporter used to be a German war criminal (a reference to the newspaper's current oweners, Associated Press, having supported German fascism very heavily in the '30s). The reporter said no, and that he was in fact Jewish, and that question offended him. Ken replied that he was acting more like a concentration camp guard, and that he should stop working for a paper that supports fascism (a reference not only to the newspaper's owner's history, but to its current editorial stance, which Livingstone believes to be highly reactionary, and additionally with a vendetta against him). Now, nothing in that exchange could be honestly construed as anti-Semitic. Insensitive, definitely. Insutling, probably. But pointedly, discriminationally offensive? Nope. Yet the Standard, and their nation-wide sister paper the Daily Mail, have turned it into a campaign against Livingstone. Yet these are exactly the same papers that every day bemoan "political correctness gone mad", and how people aren't allowed to speak what they honestly believe any more. It's their major editorial theme. A minor kerfuffle, I know. But a suggestion that the portrayal of the left as being more easily offended than the right is bollocks. It just suits their political purposes slightly more often; when it suits them, the right can get just as offended, just as shrilly, just as easily. Take offenses against patriotism in America right now for just one pathetically simple example. Also, that was a terribly written article, and both you and the writer should be ashamed.
  • Sully, where the fuck did f8x "rant about the MSM"? I'm genuinely baffled as to what site you're reading, because it's clearly not the same one as me.
  • War is necessary if the other side is wrong, won't admit to it, and causes a decent amount of harm because of it. That amount is, obviously, tough to quantify. But sometimes you have to do it. And if that decision were with you, wouldn't you always beat yourself up wondering if you made the right one? Anyone with a strong conscience would. Depends on the situation. Sometimes it's an easy decision. Take the Taliban, for instance. I wouldn't beat myself up about that one. I think we ought to err on the side of caution, sure, but I don't think we need to wait for absolute certainty, either. Sullivan, f8x's comment was hardly a rant. I was fine with your non sequitur, but the shot at f8x wasn't called for.
  • I have a point to make here, Smo. Jonah Goldberg
    Prior to his work in television Mr. Goldberg was a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.
    Jonah got his start at a neocon think tank. Let's move on. Kathryn Jean Lopez (aka KLo)
    Before standing athwart history at National Review, she worked at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank on Capitol Hill.
    David Malpass
    Between February 1984 and January 1993, Malpass held a series of economic appointments during the Reagan and Bush administrations, including six years with Secretary James Baker at the Treasury and State Departments. He was also Republican Staff Director of Congress
  • That was a point?
  • Sully, where the fuck did f8x "rant about the MSM"? Here Flashboy. And another point. I recall being used as the Monkeyfilter punching bag on the Brown Bunny thread. I didn't have a hissy fit on that thread like f8x did on the Reagan thread (and a few others) and then go into "why is everyone picking on me" mode like f8x always does. I don't think f8x's comment was disrespectfull to the board. Just b.s. consideing the shitstorm with consefrvative pundits on the take. I don't think any rationale person can honestly say that the conservative media is more honest than say the NY Times. That paper got burned with Jayson Blair and fired him and Howell Raines. Carl Cameron writes a bogus story about Kerry getting his nails done and Fox News keeps running with it even after they had to admit they shouldn't have published it on their website. Cameron still has a job.
  • That was a point? Yes it was. F8x trusts those people more than the MSM.
  • If I can hazard a guess at what f&xy's saying, it seems to be something like "there are biases and agendas being played out at both ends of the political spectrum, and depending from what angle you come at it these will be more or less obvious or offensive". If this is indeed the case, it seems to me a wholly anodine, indeed commonsensical, assertion.
  • The issue I have is the playing field level in journalism is not level. Liberal journalists tend to be hard on both sides and other media. Conservative journalists tend to be Republicans first. That's not good for the Democratic Party but I accept it as reality. F8x wrote in the Iraq election tread the the MSM coverage wasn't positive. I disagree. I also believe that the evidence shows that the right side of the media is less fair than the left. F8x would disagree. The fact is there is always going to be awful journalism that protects the interests ahead of the public William Randolph Hearst was a scumbag and a powerful man.
  • Sully (as one who most certainly didn't pick on you in the Brown Bunny thread, and one who agrees with you on the vast majority of political issues) - please drop it with the f8x thing. Stop setting him up as a straw man, stop replying to the position you think he holds as opposed to what he says, and start treating him as fellow human being instead of a personification of some political viewpoint. He's a nice guy. He has different beliefs. Well la-di-da. You are winning precisely zero elections here, dude, you're just pissing off the people who should be your friends. /grumpy
  • One sentence in another thread does not a rant make. Even if it was, it wouldn't be relevant to this thread. And even if it was, you hardly proved your case. To think that those four pundits -- 4! -- hid their past lives on their bio pages, where no one would look. Very clever of them. Almost conspiracy-like! Look, I'm not especially sympathetic to these sorts of arguments, from either side. And you've hardly convinced me; I doubt f8x will be swayed more easily. As for the assumption that f8x trusts these particular people more than anyone else, I'm not sure where you got that from. He could just as easily visit Andrew Sullivan and the like, people who I see criticizing all sides. It's not like the left is free of ideologues. I'll call out f8x when I think I think he's wrong, but I can't see how he is here. Hell, I'm with Wolof, f8x's comment in this thread was practically a tautology.
  • Damn you flashboy, with your quick fingers!
  • Who says I'm out to win anybody. After the Brown Bunny thread I really don't give a shit what people think of me. I don't know you people. You're just names in a forum. So let's drop the friend bullshit. I treat f8x like the guy that was dissing other people on his blog because they didn't believe the bogus WMD threat. MSM To quote Glenn Reynolds, "Indeed!"
  • So this is basically a troll?
  • See, that's the problem. We're not just names in a forum. That's how everything turned to shit in the last couple of days. There are people at the end of your modem, who read what you say and react accordingly. I honestly think everyone, you included, Sully, needs to bear that in mind. Regardless of "friends" or not, we're all people. Not just names.
  • Regardless of "friends" or not, we're all people. Not just names.
    hear bloody hear. tracicle's wisdom shines through an 'us-vs-them' slugfest! now kiss and make up, boys. Sullivan! Shake f8xmulder's hand or no ) for you!
  • So this is basically a troll? That's funny. Other people (besides me) have called f8x that. Regardless of "friends" or not, we're all people. Not just names. I noticed that in the Brown Bunny tread. Nice discourse.
  • Calm down, people. I have puppies and I'm not afraid to use them ...
  • Haven't seen any puppies for a while...
  • Lots of people supported you in that thread, sully. I would have been one of them if I had followed the thread more closely. I liked the post, but acknoledged that it could have been a bit more descriptive. You are interesting, funny, and thoughtful in your posts and your comments on here. The occassional ruffling of feathers should not sour you on your experience here. I say this, of course, but I confess that I actually am only a name, but one day I hope to have an address and a phone number.
  • Other people (besides me) have called f8x that. Most of whom have since recanted. I haven't seen f8x post simply to annoy or offend others. He has always engaged in any discussions he has entered into. I disagree with him a lot, and in that same thread you linked to, as a matter of fact. I tended to see you in the same sort of light, Sullivan, but as one with a different viewpoint. Your posts in this thread, however, have not done much to reinforce that impression. The Brown Bunny thread was unfortunate. But even if you were wronged in it, that doesn't mean you now have license to piss all over others, least of all the people who don't deserve it. My advice: get over it. Or at least respect the thousands of users (and the lurkers) who didn't crap in your thread.
  • My beef with F8x goes back to the Washington Times letter he posted about William Campenni. He said he served in the Alabama National Guard wirth Bush. He actually served in the Penn National Guard in 1972. I disagree with f8x's views on Bush but what irked me was that I had several links that showed the letter writer himself never served in the Alabama National Guard. F8x refused to admit that the letter was bogus. I have gotten punked myself and admitted it. In a the most respectful manner I can say, I have misgivings about the f8x's truthfulness. That's strictly my opinion. I think as a forum if a member post inaccurate information they should fess up. I made posts that turned out to be hoaxes and admitted my errors.
  • Eesh, a guy goes away for an hour and all hell breaks out. Sorry if I confused you, Sully, with my comment on *this* thread. Wolof more clearly stated what I was intending, so I won't repeat. In regard to this particular FPP, I am convinced that Dennis Prager, like most conservatives, sees a glut of liberal whining. Whether it is actually there or not is almost not the point--rather, his take on things frames his argument, and is, in one sense, not debatable, since anything you say in retort will be viewed by him as whining. The same goes for most liberal columnists who find themselves being assaulted by conservatives who find issue with their arguments. As far as how I view the people you linked, how would you know my stance? Because I'm a blood red conservative who's espoused the opinion that the media has a certain bent? But you bring up an interesting point, something I've never considered before: you apparently consider the National Review to be "MSM". I'm more inclined to think the NR is a response to the MSM, which I would pinpoint as the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Seattle Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. Mags like National Review are conservative, yes, but they are hardly the newsbringers - instead, they serve as editorial voices--conservative, yes, but not mainstream in the same way I am talking about. And for every Goldberg and Malpass, you've got an Alterman or a Dowd. At any rate, how does my FPP (hardly a "rant") about media coverage of Iraq elections count as a be-all-end-all ideology regarding how liberals and conservatives view each other? It's a ridiculous assessment of my position, and I'm getting tired of having to point out the fallacies contained in your many accusations against me. I treat f8x like the guy that was dissing other people on his blog because they didn't believe the bogus WMD threat. Cool. By that token I should treat you like a jerk for trying to publically urinate on my reputation with an FPP here. I've tried to be civil to you, Sully, but my patience is wearing thin...
  • Should preview these things... My beef with F8x goes back to the Washington Times letter he posted about William Campenni. He said he served in the Alabama National Guard wirth Bush. He actually served in the Penn National Guard in 1972. I disagree with f8x's views on Bush but what irked me was that I had several links that showed the letter writer himself never served in the Alabama National Guard. F8x refused to admit that the letter was bogus. I thought I had responded sufficiently, but I suppose you want me to recant something, even if I fail to see the validity of the opposing view, ie, your link to Oliver Willis' site which did NOT prove anything.
  • I recall being used as the Monkeyfilter punching bag on the Brown Bunny thread. Looking at that thread, there are currently 101 comments in it. About 30 were negative, and certainly much more than 30 were positive. You call that being used as a punching bag? I call that whining. In fact, the only name-calling was done by you, calling those of us who objected to your contextless FPP "hypocrites". So who was a punchbag for whom in that thread? As for your other comments. I would say something offensive, but why bother? You're just a name on my screen. Close my browser and you're gone.
  • drjimmy, FYI, we lost Christophine, Path and Beeswacky.
  • SideDish, when did we lose them? That's terrible news. I need to visit more often.
  • yeah, I really really missed something, and I am on here all the time! How! Why?
  • f&x's main point, it seems, was meant to be that, whatever side of the fence you're on, the other side will look like a bunch of whiny bitches. I agree- I think we can all agree on that. But tucked in that post was an off-topic snark about the liberal bias in the media, and that's what set sullivan off. Sully shouldn't have wasted the energy, as trolls should be ignored. Flashboy threw some gas on the flames, encouraging sullivan to go on, making this into a whole big thing, which was largely unnecesary.
  • We also lost humandictionary and I'm sure some others (unannounced).
  • I left, but I already came back. What'd I miss?
  • Monkeyfilter seems to be imploding. I care more for the people than the posts. Bananas to all.
  • I dunno if we Liberals (in general) are whining too much, but it does seem that we are lying down and taking the abuse of Conservatives rather than taking action. Understandably, it's difficult to take action when inertia is favoring Republicans, but we really should be spending our time reformulating our arguments and setting up to destroy those neo-con bastards, rather than bitching about the problem.
  • tucked in that post was an off-topic snark about the liberal bias in the media, and that's what set sullivan off. It doesn't take much to set Sullivan off, apparently. My "snark" wasn't intended to be a snark at all, something which you and sully both misinterpreted, I guess. I was merely pointing out the similarities in the way people always think other people they disagree with are whiners, using an example in real life. God forbid someone from taking something I post at face value, rather than reading into all sorts of hidden snark and bitchiness like you just did, smallish bear. Perhaps we can all, myself included, just take a couple sips from a drink of chill-the-hell-out...
  • for f8x and petebest, here's an update on lost monkeys from another post and yes humandictionary is gone too
  • We're losing all those quality monkeys? *wails, gnashes teeth, tears at hair*
  • f8xmulder
    I thought I had responded sufficiently, but I suppose you want me to recant something, even if I fail to see the validity of the opposing view, ie, your link to Oliver Willis' site which did NOT prove anything.
    You got Nexus F8x? You said, "If more evidence comes up that proves Bush didn't serve his time as he's claimed, I'll stand up with the rest of you and condemn him for both lying and for going AWOL."
  • Here's an artricle I pulled on Campenni in the Pittsburgh National Guard. Campenni was interviewed for the piece. I had to post it on my old blog since I can't found it online. Over to you F8x.
  • As for your other comments. I would say something offensive, but why bother? You're just a name on my screen. Close my browser and you're gone. My response.
  • Are we still on this, how many months later?
  • Sully, perhaps you are confused. Campenni flew with Bush in '71, not '72. There is no discrepancy here, nor does the article you linked on your blog prove that Bush didn't serve his time. I remain unconvinced.
  • Can we give it a rest? Pretty please? Sugar, cherries, a dollop of whipped cream?
  • Sullivan: Your response to Alnedra was childish, bratty, and uncalled for. Please grow up. As for your Brown Bunny nonsense...get over it, and stop using it to justify your snarkiness here.
  • F8x, I am not confused since Campenni was not living in Alabama in 1972. It's the Alabama time that no one can account for. Bush's pay stubs at the time state Colorado. He went to Alabama to work on the campaign of a family friend.
    Also in the spring of 1972, Bush refused to take a physical and quickly cleared out of his Guard base in Houston, heading off to work on the Senate campaign of Winton "Red" Blount in Alabama. Referring to that period, one of Bush's Guard flying buddies remarked to USA Today in 2002, "It was an irrational time in his life."
    Bush was in Alabama from May 1972 to November 1972. He failed his physical in Texas.
    The Texas Air National Guard stripped Bush of his pilot status in August 1972 for failing to take the annual medical exam required of all pilots. Former Air National Guard officials say it was rare for a pilot to skip his physical exam.
    The time on Bush's record that is questioned is for Alabama. Bush's time in Texas (which Campenni said he served with him) is not questioned. I have doubts that Campenni served with the President since he was in college during 71 and 72.
  • Okay Sully. I'm going to lay the facts out, as I understand them to be, which can be verified by official record. We've gone over this ground before, and I think we're getting nowhere. You will just have to live with the fact that I am satisfied with the official record. You may not agree with it, you may think you have the answers. Fine with me. Agree to disagree. After this, I'm done, mostly because tracicle wants us to play nice, I'm really pretty tired of this constant bickering between us, and frankly, I have a life, and it's really not worth digging up nexus articles to show that such and such was a such and such a place at such and such a time, so how could he be with such and such, and so on... So, the FACTS, as I understand them: Bush flew fairly rigoursly up to May of 1972; he is credited for duty on ten days in March and seven days in April. This jive so far with what you have? Regarding above, Sully, please don't misrepresent Bush. He did not "fail his physical in Texas" - he did not report for the physical, whereupon they removed his license to fly in late April/early May. There is a difference between failing a test and failing to show up for a test. Okay, then, beginning in May of 1972 (Bush's 5th year in the Guard), he is not credited for any time in May, June, July, August, and September. October, he has 2 days credited. November, he has 4. None in December. 6 in January of 1973. None in February or March of 1973. The record states that Bush requested to serve in Alabama since he was working on a Senate campaign. Are we still on the same page? Now what you're saying--let me see if I have this straight--is that Bush went AWOL...did not show up for duty in Alabama. What *I* understand, and this is corroborated by official pay receipts and medical records, is that Bush did in fact show up, was given credit for days served in Alabama. Now it's true, Bush did not fly during his time at Dannelly. A pilot who isn't licensed to fly isn't going to be doing a whole lot at the base, which probably accounts for the fact that, out of 900 men, only a few remember him being on base at all. However, Guard duty is still guard duty. Beginning in April of 1973, Bush stepped up to make up for some missed time. April of 1973 he received credit for 2 days. May he received credit for 14. June he was credited with 5 days and in July, 19 days. Later in the year, Bush requested an early discharge to go to Harvard Business, which he was given, 5 years, 4 months, and 5 days of his original 6 year commitment. As far as the National Guard point system that also determined whether time was spent in the Guard appropriately, Bush overachieved. 50 points was the minimum needed. Here are Bush's totals, by year: May '68-April '69: 253 May '69-April '70: 340 May '70-April '71: 137 May '71-April '72: 112 May '72-April '73: 56 May '73-June '74: 56 Have I left anything out, Sully? Remember, this is stuff that has Uncle Sam's stamp of approval on it, ie. official documentation. Call it naive, but I'm going to tend to believe that over a couple of bloggers who question some guy who flew with Bush during a year that isn't even in question and the best they can come up with is "Well, he seemed evasive." Come on! Bush's pay stubs at the time state Colorado. Uh, that's where the pay records were kept, Sully. So, I've done what I can to present the facts as I understand them. If I've missed something, I'm sorry, but the above is enough to convince me that Bush did indeed serve his time and did not go AWOL. I'll let you believe whatever you want. It's cool with me, because you and I are done here. Much love!
  • You guys rock. It's like the NBA finals a few years ago where Dennis Rodman and Karl Malone got their legs tangled up and fell to the floor together. Rodman would lay there until Malone would try to get up, then Rodman would try to get up in such a way as trip up Malone and send him back to the ground. It actually went on for some time.
  • it's NEXIS, not NEXUS. *hee hee*
  • only a few remember him being on base at all I missed that part - who remembers him on the AL base?
  • it's NEXIS, not NEXUS. Tell it to my Lexis.