Lame local political slogans.

[Firestarter 0]

That's precisely my point. He absolutely SHOULD have been challenged on the issues, not on some bullshit accusation of him being "unpatriotic".

And can't a particular stance on a particular issue be patriotic or unpatriotic? Isn't it arguable that by putting workers' unions ahead of national security, you're compromising the latter for the former? And if you're willing to do that, isn't "unpatriotic" an arguable charge?

 

See Tyler, I'm not trying to make you admit that Cleland was unpatriotic. I'm just pointing out the fact that his service was irrelevant, that his being a cripple was irrelevant, and that someone could in good faith attack his stances on the issues as being deliberately detrimental to the security of the nation.

 

And that is the definition of "unpatriotic."

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I believe -- correct me if I'm mistaken, because again, I don't follow Georgia politics -- the issue was less of Union pandering than it was of his lack of support for the war.

 

Regardless of your feelings on the war -- and we know your stance on it -- you can't call someone unpatriotic for wanting multilateral support for that campaign. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong...

 

Sure, if he was doing some immense disservice to our country through the issues and being an obvious traitor in pandering to special interests over the interests of our nation, I'd agree. That's a valid issue of patriotism, and I think we have a lot of members of Congress who need to look at themselves in the mirror about that. However, in this case, I think it's hardly warranted that Cleland could be considered unpatriotic.

[Firestarter 0]

I believe -- correct me if I'm mistaken, because again, I don't follow Georgia politics -- the issue was less of Union pandering than it was of his lack of support for the war.

One of the central issues was the regulations governing Department of Homeland Security employees. Cleland was firmly on the side of the unions. Chambliss, like most of the GOP, was on the President's side. That's mainly why Cleland lost.

 

you can't call someone unpatriotic for wanting multilateral support for that campaign. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong...

Again, I'm not trying to make claims about whether Chambliss was right or Cleland was wrong, but hypothetically, couldn't one argue that waiting for (allegedly unlikely and militarily insignificant) multilateral support in the face of a gathering threat is also detrimental to our nation's interests?

 

I think it's an honest argument, and if you want to call someone "unpatriotic" for taking the opposite view, it's a defendable charge. It's not necessarily a smear campaign. Insinuating that someone supports Hitler, on the other hand, is clearly "dirty politics."

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

One of the central issues was the regulations governing Department of Homeland Security employees. Cleland was firmly on the side of the unions. Chambliss, like most of the GOP, was on the President's side. That's mainly why Cleland lost.

 

Fair enough, like I said, I don't live in Georgia and I hardly follow their politics.

[Ripper 0]

I believe -- correct me if I'm mistaken, because again, I don't follow Georgia politics -- the issue was less of Union pandering than it was of his lack of support for the war.

One of the central issues was the regulations governing Department of Homeland Security employees. Cleland was firmly on the side of the unions. Chambliss, like most of the GOP, was on the President's side. That's mainly why Cleland lost.

 

you can't call someone unpatriotic for wanting multilateral support for that campaign. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong...

Again, I'm not trying to make claims about whether Chambliss was right or Cleland was wrong, but hypothetically, couldn't one argue that waiting for (allegedly unlikely and militarily insignificant) multilateral support in the face of a gathering threat is also detrimental to our nation's interests?

 

I think it's an honest argument, and if you want to call someone "unpatriotic" for taking the opposite view, it's a defendable charge. It's not necessarily a smear campaign. Insinuating that someone supports Hitler, on the other hand, is clearly "dirty politics."

Of course, saying that your Pro-choice candidate is "anti-family" while Chambliss isn't is smear campain.

 

The Republican party took Georgia through the biggest joint smear campain I have ever seen to the point other republicans called it shameful. And now with all of them doing a shitty job, and the exact same redneck vote hating them for not getting flag-o-hate back up, they will be out in the next election.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Sorry, hit post too quickly.

 

Again, I'm not trying to make claims about whether Chambliss was right or Cleland was wrong, but hypothetically, couldn't one argue that waiting for (allegedly unlikely and militarily insignificant) multilateral support in the face of a gathering threat is also detrimental to our nation's interests?

 

I think it's an honest argument, and if you want to call someone "unpatriotic" for taking the opposite view, it's a defendable charge.

 

But couldn't he fire back with a claim that "risking more American lives is more unpatriotic" or some other such remark? The point is that the claim is completely unsubstantiated... on an issue like the war, at least. Who is Tom DeLay (or anyone) to say that someone doesn't love their country just because they don't support a unilateral war? Whether you want to admit it or not, questioning patriotism is dirty politics.

[Firestarter 0]

One of the central issues was the regulations governing Department of Homeland Security employees. Cleland was firmly on the side of the unions. Chambliss, like most of the GOP, was on the President's side. That's mainly why Cleland lost.

 

Fair enough

Tyler, you already admitted the charge was fair on the grounds of DHS regulations. I'm not trying to defend the campaign in its entirety; I wasn't a part of it and I don't know all that was said. All I was pointing out was that the word "unpatriotic" isn't automatically a smear. It can be a rational and substantiated attack.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Can be, but in many cases, it's used in a "dirty politics" context. Debating the merits of your stances is far more difficult than blandly declaring someone else "unpatriotic" for their stance.

[Firestarter 0]

I agree.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Can we make an agreement here?

 

Calling your opposition "Unamerican" with little reason why is stupid.

 

It means you have nothing of considerable worth to use against him, but want some scary words to keep people from voting for him. I guess part of the thing is that I don't know anything about this race or it's players and thus I'm probably not getting the full story, but so far all we're doing is questioning people's patriotism and what makes people patriots and crap.

 

Let's leave all that psychological drama to Ann Coulter books (OMG TRAITOR!) where it belongs.

[Guest MikeSC]

Read the quote again:

 

Just because you served doesn't make you a patriot.

 

Didn't say that anybody was like them. Said that military service does not make one an uber-patriot.

No, and I didn't call him an "uber-patriot" either.

 

However, the sheer fact that he lost his fucking legs in the war makes him far from unpatriotic.

And service does not make on a patriot at all.

 

Just because one serves does not mean he/she cannot possibly be unpatriotic.

 

I don't know squat about the race in question as I, honestly, don't give a darn about Georgia politics.

 

But, saying that somebody being a former vet means they can't be called unpatriotic is silly.

-=Mike