Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Well, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield have done very little to ensure that our troops go into battle with the proper equipment and training.
remember Rumsfeld's quote about going into battle with the army you have and not the one you want. remember families of soldiers having to use their own money to buy bullet proof vests, kevlar and other things that should have been supplied by the government for their loved ones. Remember soldiers adding addition metal to their vehicles in Iraq to try to protect them from roadside bombs??
Clearly our leaders have sent our soldiers into battle ill-equipped. this alone should shock and disgust the citizens of this country.
Leave to right-wingers to jump on anything a democrat says as being "crazy" while ignoring the malfeasance of our leaders.
We are being led by a group of "chicken hawks" whose biggest cheerleaders (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter etc.) are also chicken hawks.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Take what he said in context. Also remember that there still is freedom of speech in this country, despite the best efforts of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield and their right-wing cheerleaders Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, for example, to paint everyone that disagrees with our leaders as being disloyal or supporters of terrorism.
Finally, if what Stark said is so offensive then his constituents will vote him out of office.
BTW, is his words anymore offensive than Ann Coulter's recent comments regarding jews????
Posted by Ruth, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I am a liberal Democrat. I always will be. Stark's comments are shameful. I am embarrassed for my Party, and I apologize to our troops for his disgusting statement. There is no context that can explain it away.
We Democrats should be proud of our Party. We have stood up for the poor and the oppressed and the environment. Stark has put a black mark on us.
Posted by apples, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I don't believe Bush is "amused" by what happens to our ill-equipped soldiers in Iraq. I do believe that he does not care one second about what happens to our ill-equipped soldiers in Iraq. I don't believe there is any empathy in George Bush.
Posted by pears, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 6:11 am
Thank you, Ruth, for your heart-felt response. Pete Stark should resign.
For those who are trying to rationalize this hate, please try to re-think your responses. The level of hate for Bush is similar to the level of hate for Lincoln by the South in the Civil War. It is not worthy of a civilized people.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 6:22 am
Pears--Why should Pete Stark resign?
You are confusing lack of popularity with hatred. If you want an example of hatred than think of the Republicans feelings for the Clintons during their time in office.
Maybe we should differentiate between words, which do not cause physical damage and actions or lack thereof by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld which have caused the death of many of our soldiers as they go into battle ill-equipped. Also remember how they were treated by the VA when they returned--another example of Bushs' total lack of a clue or an empathy.
Amazing how republicans pounce on every word that people disagree with them say, but express no outrage aver malfeasance by their party members.
Posted by pears, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 6:33 am
What Pete Stark said was pure hate.
Bush sent troops into battle that were much better equipped than any other troops in our history. FDR sent much more poorly equipped troops against Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima. This is not about Bush. This is about unmitigated hatred.
Anyway, what does FDR's actions in WWII have to do with it?
Stop trying to change the subject by bringing up Stark's exercise of his free speech rights and FDR's actions during the war--we are talking about the callous manner that our leadership treats our soldiers during and after they are in Iraq.
No wonder Bush wanted his daughters to party on in Florida rather than join the military.
Posted by pear, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 7:26 am
Stark's hatred for Bush is not about what Bush has or has not done in the Iraq war. If Hillary had done the same exact actions, he would not express his hatred towards her. His ad hominem attack on Bush is an expression of some deep emotional problem. He needs help. But he should resign first.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 7:32 am
Pear--Obviously Pete Stark will not resign. If his actions are so bad, the voters in his district will turn him out of office.
Clearly you and fellow republicans are grasping at any straw to try to divert attention to the colossal failure of the war effort in Iraq, due to the incompetent leadership of chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney.
There is no hatred of Bush involved--just contempt for his policies and his actions. There is a difference.
Amazing how some words can cause you and others to call for someone's head, but you ignore ACTIONS of malfeasance by Larry Craig, David Vitter, ted Stevens etc.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 11:24 am
The military profession is not a grabbag, it requires abilities and commitment well above other callings. To imply, as with the chickenhawk argument, that anyone can serve is a display of ignorance and contempt for that calling. The day of the cannon fodder and the human wave attack is hopefully past, and the military no longer can waste time and money on yardbirds and uniformed camp followers.
Posted by Fred, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Another reason why, while I often disagree with her politcal views, I really respect Nancy Pelosi. I think she seems like one of the "good" democrats that isn't a socialist extremists.
Starks comments illustrate how ugly our politcal process has become. I think Pete Stark the citizen can say whatever he wants without limitation. Pete Stark the congressman should behave with dignity and class while performing his official duties.
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2007 at 9:38 am
Watch George W. Bush give a speech, and you'll notice that something comes over him when the subject turns to war or executions. He leans forward, all hesitation gone from his voice, as he struggles to contain a smile and his eyes gleam with what can only be described as bloodlust.
So it shouldn't have been a surprise that as the war with Iraq approached, Bush became increasingly excited. According to the Washington Post, friends and lawmakers who met with Bush just before he launched the invasion found him "upbeat," "chatty," "cocky and relaxed" and "in high spirits." The most revealing moment came when he thought the cameras were off: Before he gave his national address announcing that the war had begun, a camera caught Bush pumping his fist, as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. "Feels good," he said.
Posted by Sincerely, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 20, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hooray for sarlat!
I'd go a step further and insist that among GWB's masters are those who literally revel in the spilled blood of innocents. These ghouls are are convinced God commands them to practice human sacrifice. These ghouls despise all of us, and are celebrating the misery and chaos they have unleashed on the world.
Posted by Claire, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2007 at 10:44 am
Al you need to do is watch the smirk on Bush's face when he's asked about casualties in Iraq. He can't even fake empathy. Pete Stark has nothing to retract or apologize for. He was telling it like it is and has performed a most important service for the American people, particularly in light of the corporate media's complete failure to be anything but a propaganda tool for this felonious regime.
A strong Commander in Cheif cannot shed a tear over each caualty, or even total casualties, every time he is asked about them. He needs to keep his eye on the goal. He honors his troops by supporting his and their mission. There are appropriate moments to show emotion, such as memorial ceremonies and visits to the hospitals (as in the example above).
Posted by For Free Speech, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 20, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I completely support free and honest speech, originally intended to allow any US citizen the right to give an opinion without govt interference.
As opposed to...
Increasingly far left Democrats in our country are increasingly lying to try to get their way. The portrayal of the Veto of SCHIP is a good example...instead of telling the truth, that Bush supported a x billions dollar increase, just not an Xsquared billion dollar increase, they consistently portrayed him and all Republicans as being these monsters who wanted to cut the program.
Or, the far left leadership is increasingly trying to squelch free speech, as exemplified by the 41 Democrats who signed a letter, based on a lie, ( which doesn't matter to this point, actually, if it was true or not) to try to silence Rush Limbaugh...or as exemplified by the Clintons, in concert with the Democrats, who sent a not so thinly veiled threat to the TV stations about airing Path to 9/11....or as repeatedly shown through strikes/petitions/hecklers at speeches by known conservatives ( when was the last time you saw a conservative group trying to stop the speech of a US citizen at any university or venue?)
Between the absurd, hateful and destructive statements of supposed Statesmen about war and our military from the Starks/Reids/Murthas/Kerrys et al ( echoed by their echo chamber at moveon.org and some in the movie industry), and the absolute proof of Democrats trying to use their govt power to silence free speech, as well as non-government citizens feeling it is perfectly ok to prevent a speaker from speaking at a public venue, I ask every American to WAKE UP!!
It is time to pull the Democrats BACK TO THEIR BASIC VALUES, which included DEFENDING FREE SPEECH, DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY, SACRIFICE OF SELF FOR THE COUNTRY ( THINK JFK), DEFENDING THE LIFE OF EVERY HUMAN BEING, TOLERANCE FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE, to say just a few.
Ask yourself why you don't know any "out" Republicans around here, yet anyone in a Red State can feel perfectly safe being a declared Democrat. Do you want to live in a country where one group of people fears another because of which political party it belongs to? Which group of people
The Republicans have taken over these values, and really own them. ( Ask all your Republican friends when they switched parties and why.)
What happened to the Democrat Party? Who took it over?
Thank you to those hardy Democrats who have the guts to stand up and call one of their leaders OUT OF LINE! We need some real Democrats back in power.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2007 at 6:06 pm
So, Pete Stark, under pressure, gave an apology, today. Too bad the rest on this thread could not see this one coming. Stark was WAY out of bounds. He also admitted, today, that he was "insignificant". He groveled, but it is better late than never.
Posted by Fact-checker IS Limbaugh, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:52 pm
or the leftward who have never listened to Limbaugh, yet believe that he makes incorrect statements. He IS the fact checker...I defy anyone to listen to him for 3 hours per day for 2 weeks, and find something that he says incorrectly.
I was like you. I believed what "they" told me about Limbaugh, until someone challenged me to catch him in a lie or inaccuracy. So, I took the challenge. I tried hard, researching, thinking, researching some more. He said such absurd things about various bills, finances, unintended consequences of various programs I had held dear, that I just knew he had to be just a nutcase.
Darn if I couldn't catch him being wrong. Gradually, I came to realize I could trust him a lot more than just about any other news source to keep me up to date in politics. I still fact check him, 5 years later...I can say that I have very, very rarely caught him in a factual error. Maybe three times. And, the thing is, the next day, he always apologizes and corrects himself. AND puts it on his website.
It is no accident that his millions of listeners consistently poll the most informed in current news, period.
And, he doesn't pretend one second to be anything other than what he is, a conservative. He doesn't pretend to be "unbiased", unlike the biases news that we get spoon fed every day in almost every other venue. Even the Wall Street Journal writers have gotten to the point where I can see their bias shining through in how they report.
I wouldn't mind if Katie Couric or Dan Rather et al, or the writers of various "pieces" in our local papers would just openly say in their byline, "Liberal", or "Far left Liberal", so that unsuspecting people would know that there is going to be a natural, maybe even intentional, bias to their reporting.
So, take the challenge, and maybe you will learn something.
Posted by Big Welcome Mat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Some people can not differentiate welcoming diversity of THOUGHT and agreement.
Especially as a Conservative, who values freedom of speech and thought, I would want to make sure that I was never in an environment of nothing but conservatives. Where would the sharpening of minds come from? I would be in an echo chamber.
So, most conservatives who go to most universities, like Stanford, are extremely capapble of reciting exactly how a liberal thinks, and therefore have practiced thinking on both sides of the coin. They are not in an echo chamber.
How many liberals have that opportunity to practice thinking? Not many. Most can look around and see mirror images of themselves in universities. Rumsfeld will be a welcome addition to challenge intelligent people in the freest nation in the world to think, not echo.
Posted by try actually reading what your link, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 7:52 am
Fact re: 12 year old boy.
Rush never targeted him. I know, I listen every day.
Fact: Rush points out that the 12 year old boy would receive the same care, even if there was NO expansion of SCHIP.
Fact: Rush points out that it is the ADULTS manipulating this little boy into saying words that aren't true who are the disgusting ones here. The boy says something about asking Bush to keep letting "kids like me" get care..when kids like him WILL CONTINUE to get SCHIP even without any expansion at all. Bush vetoed the massive expansion of SCHIP into including "poor children" who are 25 in families that make up to $82,000 per year!
Because the headline says "Rush smears", doesn't mean it is true. It is, as usual, a way of smearing Rush into stating he said something he hasn't. He has never talked badly about this boy, not once.
Try actually listening to him, and understand everything he says, don't let others think for you.Don't base your opinion on what someone else filters for you. Go to the source.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 8:05 am
try actually reading what your link:
Isn't Limbaugh "filtering" things so that we can form an opinion? What is the difference, really between the websites I posted and what Limbaugh does on the radio--they both offer "facts", they both filter.
What about his "phony soldier" comments? Turns out the guy did serve in the military-so Rush had his "facts" wrong.
By the way check out this list of who did and did not serve in the military. You will note that Pete Stark served in the Air Force
Posted by I challenge you, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:27 am
You are hilariously proving my point. No, he was talking about the REAL phony soldiers..those who have CLAIMED to be in the military, and weren't, or, in the latest case, the one he was referring to was the guy who claimed to have been in Iraq and seen atrocities and was going around spouting all kinds of nonsense...and it turned out he got kicked out of boot camp and had never been. So, yes, the guy was "in the military" for whatever number of days it was ( 43???) but had never gotten even out of Boot Camp. So, that "soldier" was used until busted to spread lies. We are prosecuting people who lie like this. Unfortunately, the damage these guys do can never be undone, because their lies are repeated throughout the world and because people are gullible and it fits the "template" of the far left, these liars are believed.
Rush tells the REST of the story, because we all get the first part of it in the media. He is unabashed about his agenda, doesn't try to hide between anything called "unbiased", and tells THE TRUTH about anything he reports on. You will never catch him twisting what people have actually said, like what your links have done. He researches the rest of it, and doesn't smear.. So, no, not the same.
Again, I challenge you to actually track down the whole story and learn all the facts before you speak. Try listening for 2 weeks, 3 hours per day, and research everything you think is WRONG..then come back.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:44 am
I challange you---
You say-"No, he was talking about the REAL phony soldiers..those who have CLAIMED to be in the military,".
So there is more than one? I thought when Rush got hammered for claiming that the soldiers that criticize our Iraq policy are "phony soldiers" he said that he was referring to just that one "phony soldier".
Turns out he was a real soldier for 43 days--which is 43 days more than Rush served in the military.
Based on your writings he was referring to more than one--so which is it one or more?
If Rush is "telling THE TRUTH about anything he reports on" and people beleive it, then we are in more serious trouble than I thought.
Anyway, shouldn't Rush be in prison. Didn't he once pontificate on how all drug addicts should show up at the jail/prison and turn themselves in?
Also what about Rush's mocking of Parkinson's disease victim Michael J Fox? I guess Fox was fair game because he is in favor of stem cell research, something that Rush opposes.
We all know that once you go against Rush you are fair game for any and all insults, abuse etc. It happens again and again.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 11:53 am
"what does the gender of the person that scolded Stark (if he indeed was "scolded") have to do with it?"
Pelosi, a mother of five, knows how to scold, using guilt. No man could have done it like she did. She nailed Stark right where it hurts. If Pelosi's first name was John, instead Nancy, Stark would still be sticking with his vitriolic hatriotism. Nancy shamed him...like only a mother could. Good for her.
Posted by you keep proving my point, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Again, if you listened to Rush, you would know he wasn't mocking Fox. He was stating the obvious, that it was OBVIOUS that Fox, who manages to keep his body motions under control under any other circumstances, clearly did NOT manage his meds for the Ad he ran, showing himself with out of control Parkinson's symptoms, in order to promote killing embryos for research.
If you bothered to actually listen to the 5 minutes, not just watch the body movements, you would know that. Your "filters" chose to keep Rush's words out of the clips because they knew that if people heard what he was saying they would say..hey, wait a minute, Rush has a point!
Posted by to Marvin, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 1:32 pm
By the way, yes, the USA has prosecuted and won the conviction of about 12, last I heard, "phony soldiers"..people who claim connection to the military for financial or propoganda gain, but who are lying.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm
you keep proving my point aka "marvin"--
I understand that nothing that Rush Limbaugh does is ever wrong. Mocking a person with an illness is okay. Rush knows no bounds and has no sense of decency.
Fox has admitted that sometimes he does not take his meds so that people can see the true effects of Parkinsons (i can assume that had he taken his meds, then Rush would have mocked him as not really being sick with PArkinsons) and it obviously goes a little deeper than just "killing embryos for research"--as many level headed republicans realize also.
You are right, I am done also, trying to argue with a dittohead is like expecting Rush Limbaugh to actually do something to solve the problems he whines about constantly instead of just talking nonstop between doses of oxycontin.