Monday, February 04, 2008

Why Not Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton?

Today someone left a comment on my very first Bush Twins in Uniform post from way back in June 2005 -- which also was my very first post on this blog.

Someone hiding under the name "bunbun8464" says:

you didn't mention Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton in your jabs at the GOP---let's be fair kids. And did any of the Kennedy's kids serve? Any of Gore's?
Be fair!
Okay, it's a fair question. Sort of. But as usual, those from the wingnut wing of semi-reality just don't get it. They miss the point so much that it has to be intentional. But that's a common tactic among those people: Pick out some minor point and elevate it to the point where it exceeds and surpasses the original thesis. A case in point: The so-called Rathergate controversy, wherein the authenticity of the memos themselves was called into question, instead of the actual content of the memos. And that campaign, as you know, was completely successful. The question as to whether the memos could have been typed with proportional spacing in 1972 (short answer: Yes, the IBM Selectric was widely available -- and in use in the military -- by the mid-1960s) completely overtook and submerged the actual story, that of Baby Doc's questionable National Guard service.

But I digress. Back to kb's question.

The reason I do not include Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton or any of the Kennedy offspring, etc etc, should be obvious -- and in fact, it is obvious to the readers of this blog who are part of the Reality Based Community -- is summed up by the motto of Operation Yellow Elephant: It's their war; why aren't they fighting it?

In short, it's really easy for Rethugs to start a war for business reasons and send our children to fight it, but they aren't willing to "invest" their own children in it.

And why not?

Because they are a greedy bunch of fucking hypocritical lying elitist assholes.


Anonymous said...

Hey Farns, Thanks for the "Farnsworth Kiss of Death"! The Giants won!!!! Who's up next for the kiss, Obama and then Shillary? Keep up your losing ways bud :)

But back to your original post... Again, what is with you and that damn pagan ritual that a conservative must sacrifice his offspring at the alter of war to prove his commitment? I don't remember the draft being active and no requirement that the Bush twins enter the military just to satisfy liberals.

Did Clinton sacrifice his before invading Bosnia?

Anonymous said...

"Because they are a greedy bunch of fucking hypocritical lying elitist assholes."
Farnsworth, if you have something to say, just come out and say it. Don't beat around the bush.

Farnsworth68 said...

Welcome back, PH. I was actually rooting for the Giants myself. Probably the only thing we'll ever agree on.
And there you go with Clinton again. Jeez, dude, he hasn't been president for seven years. Get over it already.

Anonymous said...

Oh and still drinking that Kool-aid about Rathergate? Why didn't you look at this portion in Wikipedia? And it's not just the typewriter, there are numerous other problems with the memos:

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts at Adobe Systems, responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the IBM Executive or Selectric Composer, which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing.[1] Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if Press Roman had been intended to look like Times Roman, the result is significantly different.

Phinney's analysis was based on the fact that the typography of the Killian documents could be closely matched with a modern personal computer and printer using Microsoft Word with the default font (Times New Roman) and other settings. Therefore the equipment with which the Killian documents were actually produced must have been capable of matching the typographical characteristics produced by this modern technology... Differences in individual character widths accumulate over the length of a line, so that comparatively small differences would become readily apparent. Because of the differing character widths employed, the letterspacing exhibited by the Killian documents (matching that produced by a modern computer and printer) could not have been produced with a mechanical typewriter using proportional letterspacing in the early 1970s. At the time the documents were purportedly created, the matching letterspacing could only have been produced using phototypesetting or hot-metal printing. Since it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, Phinney concluded that they are almost certainly modern forgeries.

Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman.

Anonymous said...

Uh Farns, aren't you the one who brought up Amy and Chelsea... and even Bush's TANG records? You never seem to have a problem bringing up things from th wayback machine but if I do you go spaz on me.

Farnsworth68 said...

PH, you never disappoint me.
As always, you are missing the point.
But that was the whole reason behind my bringing up "Rathergate".
The question as to whether or not the memos could have been produced using technology available at the time became the story. The basic questions as to Baby Doc's TANG "service" were pretty much completely ignored by the so-called liberal media. The wingnut blogosphere latched onto the technology question, and, as I say, that became the story.
You'll notice that I never offered an opinion on the questionable provenance of the memos; I only pointed out that the meme of the discussion shifted over to the theory that typewriters of the time were unable to produce proportional spacing. That became the story, and suddenly experts were trotted out who said "yes it could" or "no it couldn't". The answer, of course, is that it could, but that wasn't the point. The point, if I need to reiterate it, was that no one in the Bush camp was ever asked about the substance of the memos, because that was no longer the story.
Nice try, though.
Oh, and PH... If you actually bothered to read the post, you'll see that I was responding to one "kb", and s/he was the one who brought up Amy and Chelsea, not me.
But as I said above, you never disappoint me in your ability to intentionally miss the point. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

You might also start comparing what happened to rathers and say someone on Fox who did as bad if not worse? In fact rathers seems to be the only person in media today held to some sort of standards.

Farnsworth68 said...

Hey, DB, welcome back! And you are correct in your statement that Faux News is held to a different standard of truthfulness compared to the SCLM.
And that standard is, sadly, no standard at all. They've lowered the bar to the point where you'd need a backhoe and a flashlight to find it.

Anonymous said...

Good to be back, need a break from the grind...

Actually I just remembered (yeah lucky for me) that CNN and Mikey Moore had a bit of mis coverage and quoting about his SICKO movie stats and nobody lost their job. Instead they invited Mikey on and he handed them their hat and ranted about doing a movie on them!

Not just FOX, anybody can lie and get away with it, but I see the difference... Rathers didn't lie at all...

Lesson learned? It is horrible to have once piece of supporting evidence in your story wrong.
However, making up the entire thing is ok.

Anonymous said...

"And there you go with Clinton again. Jeez, dude, he hasn't been president for seven years. Get over it already."

And TANG was what 35 years ago but liberals tried to make a story out of nothing... they even tried in 2000 but that dog wouldn't hunt back then either.

Farnsworth68 said...

So, PH, are you trying to tell me that Baby Doc completely fulfilled his National Guard enlistment requirements? That he wasn't "missing in non-action"?
It's a little different for someone who wants to act like the dictator of the United States and commander-in-chief of the military to have gone somehow missing during most of his time in the guard, and Bill Clinton who did... who did... Hmmm, what did Clinton do again that's comparable to Der Monkey Fuehrer?
Oh, and I'm not a Clintonista, it may interest you to know. I've long maintained that he was the best Replublican president since 1909. Even down to the typically Rethug inability to keep Little Willy in his pants.
So you won't win any points by trying to bait me with Clinton.
Again, though, nice try.

Anonymous said...

When did Bush go missing? Was it the same time that Kerry who was still in the military, was illegally talking surrender to the North Vietnamese?

Anonymous said...

Wow, I stumbled into one angry blog.

Surprising that you left the quote from TR on your blog though.

Blindly following a President and demanding no criticism is bad? Gee, how did he know Obama was going to run for President and get elected?

How many sheep have to go over the cliff before the media and mindless hordes wake up to what is really going on? When Obama's policy of class warfare kicks in, I want to see how many of the "disadvantaged" that he is promising everything to have jobs for the millions who are going to be umemployed... oh wait, I can answer that now: None.

As if giving another welfare check to those already on welfare or not paying taxes right now is going to help the economy.

Better to start class warfare. Get the low wage/ no wage earners fired up and angry at those who have good jobs and work their asses off. Good luck with that. Can't think of a better way to stimulate the economy!

Farnsworth68 said...

Jeez, did the title "One Pissed Off Veteran" not already tip you off?
Go ahead and whine about President Obama and your pigheaded misinterpretation of his policies, you little twerp. It doesn't matter, because YOU LOST!
Come back when you're not hiding under that protective cloak of anonymity and we might -- if I'm feeling particularly generous that day -- engage in some rational discourse.