Rehberg Loves the Limelight - Troops and Veterans Not So Much

Who are you? (1.00 / 1)

And why are you such a tool?

That is all.

---

by: SteveT. @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:36:25 PM CDT

This is your best argument? (3.00 / 1)

That's kind of sad. I was hoping you might have some substantive comments.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 10:17:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Steve T. (0.00 / 0)

I have no love for Rehberg.  The man is a tool.  I'm sure you two can have a whole bunch of bullet points for each other boasting about who loves the troops more and wrapping yourselves with the American flag.  You know, apple pie and all that stuff.  Does it mean anything?  Hell no.  And it never will.  

You keep on banging that drum, though.  

---

by: SteveT. @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:53:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the contrary, Steve (0.00 / 0)

There are many of us, right and left, who feel a deep sense of obligation to those who, through wisdom or folly, are tasked with defending this country.  Those people are our brithers suisters and relatives.  What Rehberg betrays with his hypocrisy is not a faith in soldiers, but in an overwhelming sense that Americans have faith in our soldiers, our relations and relationships.  He's not betraying them, he's betraying us. As jed so back-handedly points out, he is betraying something that is rather uniquely American.   Telling us that we shouldn't be concerned about such betrayal is little more than a capitulation to it.  It is telling us that we must meekly accept an affront while extorting us to reject other offenses that are very similar.

I apologize if you have a problem with my answer; I know it may not suit your feelings at the moment.  But asking us to find no meaning in the country others have served is bullshit.  My answer to you is "No".

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:06:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uniquely American? (0.00 / 0)

What is uniquely American about using a standing army to force weaker nations to behave according to imperial need?

---

by: jed @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:55:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Changing subject again? (0.00 / 0)

One would expect no less of you.  You're just Big Swede of the socialist set.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:19:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are a real phony, wulfgar. (0.00 / 1)

Your game is similar to what I call christing:  
You'll lie like a rug to prove a point--engage in any type of misdirection to gain a convert.  
You see no essential difference between principal and principle.
For me you are the epitome of what the clark objects to in the new Democrats.  

---

by: jed @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:27:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Glad to have made an impression (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:58:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

s/b (0.00 / 0)

"brothers, sisters and relatives".

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:08:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look at her list (0.00 / 0)

It's tiny pieces of massive, massive legislation taken wholly out of context and translated into a message that Denny Rehberg hates the troops.  

It's a standard tactic used by both Democratic and Republican Operatives to take pieces of Legislation and say, for instance, "Representative Smith voted against Legislation that outlawed the practice of killing kittens."  So now, let's say that piece of legislation happenned to be tacked onto a war funding bill, which the Representative voted against because they disagreed with the war.  That's a crazy little thing called "context."  Representative Smith probably appreciates kittens as much as the rest of us.

So my point about Montana Cowgirl being a tool (she is...) is that she did this exact thing here.  The two bills that Rehberg voted against were the Omnibus spending bill and the Stimulus package.  Which, if he didn't vote against them on principle, he certainly didn't do so against the wishes of a majority of Montanans or of his party.  But she took everything in those bills that involved Veterans and did her best to make it look like Denny was opposed to those pieces of the bill and hates our troops.

This post is dishonest on its face and I don't know why you don't see that.

And I stand by my point that arguing about who loves the troops more is an emotional ploy.  Nothing more.  It's that kind of shit that gets us into wars.

---

by: SteveT. @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:35:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not really (0.00 / 0)

This post is dishonest on its face and I don't know why you don't see that.

The only signs of support of an issue we have from our Representatives are their votes, and their words.  In this case, regardless of your excuse about the size of bills, Rehberg's votes do not match his rhetoric.  That is hypocrisy.

I find it curious that you don't seem willing to see that.

arguing about who loves the troops more

The only one who brought that up is you.  MT cowgirl brought up a very different point, that Rehberg's rhetoric does not match his actions.  Rather than bringing adoration and "love" into it, perhaps you could kindly stay on point here?

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:46:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

I kinda thought you would be able to see through this.

I'm not going to be pushed into the position of defending Rehberg here... I guarantee you there are Republican operatives who can go digging and find instances in which he voted for more funding for Veterans.  That's work for hacks like Montana Cowgirl and her counterparts on the right - and it's a battle for people who prefer that kind of hackery to promoting things like critical thought and analysis.

You're being amazingly dense here, Wulfgar.  The stuff she has under the stimulus package accounts for less than 1/100th of the spending in the bill.  Even if he did agree with all of the veteran's funding, what kind of Congressman that you know would vote for a bill that they disagree with 99%?

I'm not trying to play the moderate here - I'm not a moderate, and I really, truly dislike Rehberg and everything he stands for.  But that doesn't mean I'm not going to call someone out for a remarkably stupid post - even if it does criticize a man I dislike.

And this was a remarkably stupid post.

---

by: SteveT. @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:01:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BTW (0.00 / 0)

"Rehberg loves the limelight- Troops and Veterans not so much."

---

by: SteveT. @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:25:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now that's amazingly dense, Steve. (0.00 / 0)

The verb refers to subject, Rehberg,  The one who brought up a comparative subject was you.  Arguing as you have is simply creating complaint of uncomfortable context.

I'm not asking you to defend Rehberg.  I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize that other bloggers don't blog for you.  This post was not remarkably stupid; it was remarkably political.  Many things, on a political blog, are; imagine that. You may disagree, and I somewhat admire you because you do.  But Montana Cowgirl is no more a tool that you are for holding some kind of belief that you can foist your 'honesty' on someone else's property.  You want to disagree with the post?  Go right ahead.  Your disagreement was:  'I don't know you so you're a tool!'  Give me a break, Steve.  How is that possibly in service to anything but your own ego?

The truth that seems to so escape your father is that I and others can "see through" these things.  I am a moderate, and I want what others want.  I want to make to make up my own mind without people telling me how stupid I am for not agreeing with them.  Montana Cowgirl presented a simple proposition:  Denny's votes don't match his rhetoric.  I can easily agree with that.  Here we have you telling me that there is a deeper meaning that I am missing.  No, I'm not.  I understand this as a political struggle and propaganda based on one side's view.  SO FUCKING WHAT?!?  That's kind of the point of the website, Steve, and it's why I read it.  Just because she said it doesn't make her a "tool" and it doesn't make me blind to political reality.  I can make up my own mind, and the last thing I need is someone else telling me what I think or should think (that would be you at this point.)

What I truly think at this point is that there are a whole lot of commenters around here who need to back the fuck off, and figure out the venue.  This is a blog.  It is a wholly owned and operated site dedicated to dissemination of information and opinion by the owners/posters.  Notice, that means not by you, or me, or your dad, or anyone else who thinks that they run this site.  They don't.  If Montana Cowgirl puts up a post you think is crap, say so and move on.  Don't try and convince me that I think other than I do because I think your wrong.  This isn't your house.    

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:17:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm going to have to look long and hard (0.00 / 0)

To find your point here.  I never told Montana Cowgirl what to post.  I just told her that she's a tool.  And guess what?  It's still true.  Here's a crazy idea - maybe I posted the comment for the purpose of, I dunno, commenting.  Maybe I didn't have some hidden agenda to tell Jay and Matt how to run their blog.  That you see that agenda in my comments strikes me as really odd, and makes me think maybe you need to take a break.

And, in my humble opinion, those who put forward deliberately dishonest propaganda for the purpose of advancing one political party are probably necessary evils.  They're certainly not going anywhere - it's part of the system we have and I don't expect that to change.  But they're still fucking tools.  

My original point - removed from the hidden intentions you have attributed to it - stands.

---

by: SteveT. @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:30:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only two quibbles. (0.00 / 0)

Montana Cowgirl is now, and has been for some time, a representative front page poster at LitW.

And notice please that I didn't respond to your original comment.  You want to think her a tool, go right ahead.  But disagreement will likely be forthcoming when you present further allegations as happened here.

And, no.  Your initial point was and still remains wrong.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:56:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

Who are you?   (1.00 / 1)
And why are you such a tool?

That is all.

That's some deep and thoughtful dissent right there, troll.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:14:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This society is too warped toward a society of warriors as it is. (0.00 / 0)

Why should it spend even more on  volunteers whose lives were invested in thuggery agains third-worlders?

---

by: jed @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:17:29 PM CDT

Wulfie just cannot say anything in a few words-- (0.00 / 0)

unless he is attacking somebody.

---

by: jed @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:18:23 PM CDT