DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 19, 2008, 11:22:54 PM
-
I am watchiung it now, lots of detail in a timeline format.
All sides represented.
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrrulesofengagement_2008-02-19
Wow , that is an intense and wrenchng story.
-
Plane,
I am watching the same program..and I was about to post a thread about this.
My god....My god...
In my opinion.....War is pure, and I mean pure hell...and sometimes there are no rules in the human psychology. Oh God.
Children died. Soldiers cut in half. My god......War.
This was a mistake....damn Bush. Damn. How could he conduct a war that was supposed to stop terrorism in our country....Didn't he realize that we could have conducted a sort of "wall" of protection in order to save New York City, and Albuquerque, New Mexico without killing babies???
I am sickened.
-
No ,I beleive that President Bush has made good choices.
Even though War is ugly and painfull there is a right time for it.
-
No ,I beleive that President Bush has made good choices.
Even though War is ugly and painfull there is a right time for it.
=======================================================
Yeah, he sure taught those Iraqis to amass WMDs. Or did he teach them not to bomb the WTC?
There is always a right time to kill soldiers. Otherwise, they'd have to wait for someone to retire for a promotion.Juniorbush is a knucklewalking drooling obscene moron.
-
"Juniorbush is a knucklewalking drooling obscene moron."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I get the feeling you say this to people who tell you "good morning".
-
"Juniorbush is a knucklewalking drooling obscene moron."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I get the feeling you say this to people who tell you "good morning".
LOL.....I was thinking the same thing Plane ;D This is at least the 4th thread today, that Xo felt the need to clarify his position on how he feels about Bush (& Cheney)
-
"LOL.....I was thinking the same thing Plane This is at least the 4th thread today, that Xo felt the need to clarify his position on how he feels about Bush (& Cheney)"
I think truth is truth...no matter how many times one speaks it.:
Yeah, he sure taught those Iraqis to amass WMDs. Or did he teach them not to bomb the WTC?
good point, Xavier.
....cheep shot against XO, imo ....especially in response o a thread of genuine disgust for the loss of so many lives in the war that was probably not worth it in the end.
-
"LOL.....I was thinking the same thing Plane This is at least the 4th thread today, that Xo felt the need to clarify his position on how he feels about Bush (& Cheney)"
I think truth is truth...no matter how many times one speaks it.: Yeah, he sure taught those Iraqis to amass WMDs. Or did he teach them not to bomb the WTC? good point, Xavier.....cheep shot against XO, imo ....especially in response o a thread of genuine disgust for the loss of so many lives in the war that was probably not worth it in the end.
Miss Cynthia.....seriously, I think you're (IMO) beginning to let your emotions get the better of you. You don't like Bush, fine. You think he made a terrible mistake going into Iraq, fine. I have no problem with that. Xo has been letting his hatred of Bush permeate in nearly every thread, which is also fine...but doesn't make him immune to anyone that points that out
EVERY life lost, and let me repeat EVERY life, (be it innocent civilians, or coalition military) lost in this war is absolutely tragic, and mourned. One can only wonder that if Saddam had fully complied as he was mandated to do, how many of these lives would have not been lost. War is sometimes a necessary evil, and it WAS the last avenue Bush opted for, as diplomacy and heavy handed sanctions weren't getting the cooperation necessary from Saddam, and following the events of 911, Bush could no longer wait endlessly. It would have been irresponsible of him, as my President, had he.
That said, if you want to jump ito the egregious and asanine distortions used by the left, such as from Xo, Brass, & Tee, implying that we went after Saddam because he supposedly had something to do with 911, or even worse, we went in for the oil garbage, don't. It'll make you look as idiotic as when they perpetuate those lies. You know why we went into Iraq, and it was NOT because Iraq was behind or even had something to do with 911. We went in becasue there was documented connections both direct and indirect that Iraq had with terrorists, much like those that pepetrated 911. And if those terrorists could do what they did with just some boxcutters, God knows what they might be able to accomplish with the use of one of Iraq's WMD, that nearly EVERYONE thought he had, including the prior Presidential administration, and nearly every foreign leader, outside of those Arab countries directly connected to the Middle East. We (as in most rational people) all thought he had them. It was perfectly logical to assume such given not just the intel, but the time he had with no inspectors, and the fact he's used them before
Now, as I said, feel free to hate Bush for what you perceive was a grave wrong. But I emplore you not to fall down the path of the idiotic left, with the asanine mantra of how Bush supposedly lied us into war. That's the branch that belongs to those who believe Bush stole the election. I call it the Elvis faction
-
cheep shot against XO, imo ....especially in response o a thread of genuine disgust for the loss of so many lives in the war that was probably not worth it in the end.
======================================
It has an end? Not if McCain allows his campaign of fear to prevail.
The war won't be over until the billionth Muslim (ie the people Richiepoo calls Islamofascists) is dead. And that will never happen.
Endless war keeps Halliburton going full tilt.
There were no WMD's and morte important, they knew 100% for sure that Saddam had NO WAY of delivering any weapons to the US.
The war was and is useless, and it was planned in the most incompetent way, with no exit strategy whatever. Colin Powell was the expert Juniorbush should have listened to, but instead he listened to Dick Cheney, his mind gone spastic from the counter indications of the industrial strength heart medications, and Don Rumsfeld, who was this mammoth ego trapped in a demented mind with a desire to prove everyone wrong when he himself was the wrongest of all.
The Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Juniorbush, in defiance of what everyone knew the voters wanted. All the stupid and ignorant ratwing asshole denial in the Universe cannot change that.
There were no WMD's and no reason for this stupid war, and every maimed or deceased American or Iraqi can blame stupid Junio0rbush for being the weakling, Stubborn feebleminded incompetent klutz that is is and always has been and always will be.
Of course 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq, but most Americans were led to believe that this was the case, according to various polls.
The whole thing was manipulated by Karl Rove and his evil minions.
May God rot Juniorbush. May he rot Cheney twice.
-
Let the hate flow...
-
People are funny.
They curse the rich while watching an emoti-thon on world hunger while stuffing their face with pizza and popcorn.
Like they never heard of acting local while thinking global.
And then they curse the war when we can change course every two years if so desired simply by voting in like minded representatives.
How has that worked out?
I suspect it isn't the war, and it isn't hunger that drives the more vocal. It is using the issue to gain power. And power and the money that comes with managing the franchise is what it is all about.
Think i'm kidding. Let's see how many of the newly elected dems get thrown out on their butts for not ending the war as promised.
-
".....they knew 100% for sure that Saddam had NO WAY of delivering any weapons to the US."
Oh?
How is such a thing known?
Saddam had Abu Nidal on staff, smuggling in a few hundred pounds of wepon doesn't seem like too much of a challenge for that sort of a staff.
-
Saddam had Abu Nidal on staff, smuggling in a few hundred pounds of wepon doesn't seem like too much of a challenge for that sort of a staff.
=======================
Okay. Mr Smarty-pants, why didn't he just smuggle in some of his nonexistent atomic weapons, weaponized anthrax and/or smallpox, poison gas or nerve agents and wipe out Juniorbush on the spot, since it was so easy?
The fact is that it isn't at all easy to do this, and Saddam did not have the means OR the weapons (other than the illusory ones lurking between your ears).
-
>> ie the people Richiepoo calls Islamofascists <<
Not just me BO, not just me. Although there has been some discussion regarding whether perhaps Islamo-Nazi is more accurate.
In your case BO, I think fascist is spot on.
As for BO's rabid hatred and his continuous need to vent, remember he said this about a brief discussion concerning Mrs. Clinton:
>>But You rating assholes look like the fools you are by constantly blathering on about how much you hate Hillary.<<
Compared to us BO, based on your own criteria, you are the village idiot.
-
So, how do you propose to exterminate one billion Muslims?
I think concentration camps and Zyklon-B are out. Effective, but the press was all over that one the last time it was tried. I imagine a billion Islamofascists might take up rather a lot of space, but they could keep everyone else in soap or a goodly while. Which one of you saviors of humanity gets dibs on the silver and gold fillings?
-
You really are limited aren't you.
As for me, I HOPE Muslim's can CHANGE. The nasty ones that is. The 100 million or so who want to return to the 17th century. You know the one's. You've seen them on video tape during some rather nasty things. Oh, that's right, that doesn't bother you because it's not happening to YOU.
So let's all HOPE that Barack Hussein Obama can heal the souls of those people, as well as people like BO.
-
So, how do you propose to exterminate one billion Muslims?
I think concentration camps and Zyklon-B are out. Effective, but the press was all over that one the last time it was tried. I imagine a billion Islamofascists might take up rather a lot of space, but they could keep everyone else in soap or a goodly while. Which one of you saviors of humanity gets dibs on the silver and gold fillings?
Geezzz ...you guys sure are passionate about your argument, eh?
Fillings, Islamofascists etc.
I do think that we as Americans are frustrated with being "attacked" on our soil 9-11. First of all.
SEcond of all....we are pissed off that we couldn't prevent that attack...so what do we do?
We attack and get more pissed off than ever before. My point?
You guys are so angry at one another and ready so poke out eyeballs that you aren't focused on what is important in this discussion.
"The 100 million or so who want to return to the 17th century."
Rich is right on one level....but there is no 'RETURN' to the 17th century....they never LEFT IT.
So, we are fighting a battle with guns, while the other side is hacking away with knives...and doing so quite well. But, Xavier's point is well taken because we shouldn't have tried to fight off those with knives to begin with. Overkill....this war has only been overkill ...and no solution worth salt has been really achieved.
So, we fight. We argue...and we hate....
I say stop the bitching and find a middle ground. Find a solution that would make Americans proud...not the way Bush tried to do.....slow the battering and reduce the insults here. PRovide more concrete formulas for change....as intelligent men.....XO and RichPO.
-
>>Rich is right on one level....but there is no 'RETURN' to the 17th century....they never LEFT IT.
I am? :D
Let me explain something to you. I appreciate your intentions. I really do. However, there is no middle ground with someone like BO or Mike. None. I think you can see that. I have often had discussions with the sane democrats in this forum in the past. Chickencounter for one. Crocat for another. Even domer and I have discussed things without ranker. I'm sure there are others, but the point is that because of people like BO and Mike, it makes it next to impossible to have a rational discussion with any democrat in here. They hear me say things to BO and Mike and assume I'm speaking about them too. I'm not, I'm speaking to those two in the manner they deserve. Come on now Cynthia, do I really need to get along with people who call me a Nazi and insinuate I'd like to put people in concentration camps and pull out their teeth? Should I show respect to a man who says the most hateful things about my country and it's citezens on a daily basis? These people say those things and far worse referring to ALL Republicans. I've never done that. I refer to liberals, and I've always made a distinction. Although the distinction is narrowing, it's still there. Sorry, but there's no reason to treat them any different than they deserve.
I've said it before, we're headed for trouble in this country. Sooner or later people are going to get feed up enough about being called racist and Nazis and fascists for no reason other than for political gain, and then they're going to do domething about it.
-
As for me, I HOPE Muslim's can CHANGE. The nasty ones that is. The 100 million or so who want to return to the 17th century. You know the one's. You've seen them on video tape during some rather nasty things. Oh, that's right, that doesn't bother you because it's not happening to YOU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you only want to exterminate 100 million people instead of a billion.
This would be easy. Every American can take twofriends and together they can go out and off one bad Muslim.
The problem is that the families of each bad Muslim will not like us for dong this, and they might turn against us, just as perhaps your mother or wife or son might not appreciate you being killed by three weird foreigners.
Should we kill our Muslim on the spot, or should we try to make it look like a suicide, heart condition, or traffic accident?
My guess is that your message of HOPE that people who don't speak your language and know nothing about you will come to agree with you might be even less effective than Obama's message of HOPE to people who he can communicate with, and you will doubtless prefer John McCain's message of more weapons and soldiers and wars.
I am HOPING that no one needs to kill anyone.
You make it sound like evil Muslims have tried to kill you. Is this true? Is there something you might want to share with the class? Or is your paranoid delusion solely the result of overdosing on Israeli and wingnut propaganda?
-
Saddam had Abu Nidal on staff, smuggling in a few hundred pounds of wepon doesn't seem like too much of a challenge for that sort of a staff.
=======================
Okay. Mr Smarty-pants, why didn't he just smuggle in some of his nonexistent atomic weapons, weaponized anthrax and/or smallpox, poison gas or nerve agents and wipe out Juniorbush on the spot, since it was so easy?
The fact is that it isn't at all easy to do this, and Saddam did not have the means OR the weapons (other than the illusory ones lurking between your ears).
He had the means and the weapons before we attacked him in 91, I don't beleive we could have kept him under the sanctions that prevented his rebuilding much longer.
Saddam had experiments going on with every sort of WMD and had brought some of them to fruition , the biggest part of the threat was that the know how was at his disposal even if the materiels weren't.
In a very crouded environment some of the poisons his people had learned to make were capable of killing thousands per pound of poison , how were we going to get his promise to never give any to Abu Nidal?
-
>>So you only want to exterminate 100 million people instead of a billion.<<
Yeah, that would do it.
-
>>He had the means and the weapons before we attacked him in 91 ... <<
You have to ask yourself a very simple question. Why would Saddam risk war with the United States over weapons he didn't have? Was he bluffing? Was he willing to risk all his power and his very life? I doubt it. I can't believe after 91 and 9-11 that he would have any doubt we were serious. There are WMD's somewhere in Iraq. One day they're going to cause a major environmental problem.
-
You have to ask yourself a very simple question. Why would Saddam risk war with the United States over weapons he didn't have? Was he bluffing? Was he willing to risk all his power and his very life? I doubt it. I can't believe after 91 and 9-11 that he would have any doubt we were serious. There are WMD's somewhere in Iraq. One day they're going to cause a major environmental problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
R Kelly believes that he can fly.
Saddam said he had no WMD's all along. He did not think that Juniorbush would actually invade./
He wanted his neighbors to believe that there must be WMD's as a security to keep them at bay.
-
So, how do you propose to exterminate one billion Muslims?
I think concentration camps and Zyklon-B are out. Effective, but the press was all over that one the last time it was tried. I imagine a billion Islamofascists might take up rather a lot of space, but they could keep everyone else in soap or a goodly while. Which one of you saviors of humanity gets dibs on the silver and gold fillings?
Geezzz ...you guys sure are passionate about your argument, eh?
Fillings, Islamofascists etc.
I do think that we as Americans are frustrated with being "attacked" on our soil 9-11. First of all.
SEcond of all....we are pissed off that we couldn't prevent that attack...so what do we do?
We attack and get more pissed off than ever before. My point?
You guys are so angry at one another and ready so poke out eyeballs that you aren't focused on what is important in this discussion.
"The 100 million or so who want to return to the 17th century."
Rich is right on one level....but there is no 'RETURN' to the 17th century....they never LEFT IT.
So, we are fighting a battle with guns, while the other side is hacking away with knives...and doing so quite well. But, Xavier's point is well taken because we shouldn't have tried to fight off those with knives to begin with. Overkill....this war has only been overkill ...and no solution worth salt has been really achieved.
So, we fight. We argue...and we hate....
I say stop the bitching and find a middle ground. Find a solution that would make Americans proud...not the way Bush tried to do.....slow the battering and reduce the insults here. PRovide more concrete formulas for change....as intelligent men.....XO and RichPO.
I know the middle ground, I think. We get out of the Middle East. Lock, stock and barrel. We keep embassies there and ZIP else. Out of Saudi Arabia, Oman and on and on, including Iraq (in an organized fashion). Afghanistan doesn't count because we take all those troops we have now in Iraq, put 'em in Afghanistan, take care of the problem there BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY (if it is deemed that military means will do it otherwise we hire assassins to kill whomever we want and pay them whatever it takes) and bring 'em back. Maybe we put 'em in Korea or wherever, but we get out of the Middle East. We tell the Isaelis to mind their manners and work out a solution or no more pesos and we then go about minding our own business.
At that point, we are free and clear. If after that, some radical in the Middle East messes with us, we apply the maximum force necessary, otherwise, we leave 'em alone. We'll continue to corrupt them anyway with our culture.
-
I know the middle ground, I think. We get out of the Middle East. Lock, stock and barrel. We keep embassies there and ZIP else. Out od Saudi Arabia, Oman and o n and on, including Iraq (in an organized fashion). Afghanistan doesn't count becuase we take all those troops we have now in Iraq, put 'em in Afghanistan, take care fo the problem there BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSary and bring 'em back. Maybe we put 'em in Korea or wherever, but we get out of the Middle East. We tell the Israelis to mind their manners and work out a solution or no more pesos and we then go about minding our own business.
At that point, we are free and clear. If after that, some radical in the Middle East messes with us, we apply the maximum force necessary, otherwise, we leave 'em alone. We'll continue to corrupt them anyway with our culture.
====================================================================
This seems logical. Much better than extermination a billion people or even 100,000 people.
-
Sure, pack it up and ignore the Middle East. Then make sure we can't drill for our own oil. Then ignore Europe as it burns.
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So what does that leave us? I know the local libtards don't have a clue when it comes to foreign policy, but professor, you know better. Ignoring Hitler didn't make him go away. Clinton ignored the problem and brought us 9-11. It would be nice if we could reason with these people but it's clear they aren't capable at this point.
Hey, maybe we should build a wall clear around the country. But then we'd be accused of being Israel, that evil Jew country. You just can't make a libtard happy these days, so why bother?
-
Sure, pack it up and ignore the Middle East. Then make sure we can't drill for our own oil. Then ignore Europe as it burns.
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So what does that leave us? I know the local libtards don't have a clue when it comes to foreign policy, but professor, you know better. Ignoring Hitler didn't make him go away. Clinton ignored the problem and brought us 9-11. It would be nice if we could reason with these people but it's clear they aren't capable at this point.
Hey, maybe we should build a wall clear around the country. But then we'd be accused of being Israel, that evil Jew country. You just can't make a libtard happy these days, so why bother?
Let's take 'em one at a time.
"Sure, pack it up and ignore the Middle East. Then make sure we can't drill for our own oil. Then ignore Europe as it burns."
We need to be self-sufficient anyway. Since we obviously are not on that road ourselves now due to politics, etc., perhaps we need to be placed in a position where we MUST be energy self-sufficent. Plus, perhaps then we can REALLY get some decent R&D on alternative energy sources like solar, geothermal, etc. Even cold fusion.
"Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So what does that leave us? I know the local libtards don't have a clue when it comes to foreign policy, but professor, you know better. Ignoring Hitler didn't make him go away. Clinton ignored the problem and brought us 9-11. It would be nice if we could reason with these people but it's clear they aren't capable at this point."
I'm tired of this same old tired crud dealing with them. Let 'em stew amongst themselves. We're slowly getting them anyway via our culture. I'm tired of the resources we pour into that region with little to show for it. We can continue to watch them via technology and human intelligence via the Company.
"Hey, maybe we should build a wall clear around the country. But then we'd be accused of being Israel, that evil Jew country. You just can't make a libtard happy these days, so why bother?"
I'm not sure a wall will do it even along the Southern border, but I'm willing to at least try. It would certainly cost a lot less than the resources we are pouring into the Middle East.
-
>>Rich is right on one level....but there is no 'RETURN' to the 17th century....they never LEFT IT.
I am? :D
Let me explain something to you. I appreciate your intentions. I really do. However, there is no middle ground with someone like BO or Mike. None. I think you can see that. I have often had discussions with the sane democrats in this forum in the past. Chickencounter for one. Crocat for another. Even domer and I have discussed things without ranker. I'm sure there are others, but the point is that because of people like BO and Mike, it makes it next to impossible to have a rational discussion with any democrat in here. They hear me say things to BO and Mike and assume I'm speaking about them too. I'm not, I'm speaking to those two in the manner they deserve. Come on now Cynthia, do I really need to get along with people who call me a Nazi and insinuate I'd like to put people in concentration camps and pull out their teeth? Should I show respect to a man who says the most hateful things about my country and it's citezens on a daily basis? These people say those things and far worse referring to ALL Republicans. I've never done that. I refer to liberals, and I've always made a distinction. Although the distinction is narrowing, it's still there. Sorry, but there's no reason to treat them any different than they deserve.
I've said it before, we're headed for trouble in this country. Sooner or later people are going to get feed up enough about being called racist and Nazis and fascists for no reason other than for political gain, and then they're going to do domething about it.
Rich,
Thank you for the insight into your thoughts. Really, you have offered a bit more perspective.
Sometimes, I think the people on this board tend to hurl fuel toward others --so much that it clouds up the issue and the point one is trying to make. You have cleared a lot up for me here.
I hear points on both sides. I agree with "line item" points here and there....and I can't stand to be put into a box of either a liberal or a conservative. I try to pull out pieces of the puzzle in the discussions and create logic and common sense in the scheme of things. I know they say that you can't get away from being in either box....it's like being a little bit pregnant, but I really have found a way to step back and listen to all sides.,
President Clinton dropped the ball before 9-11. Period
Hillary has experience on the job...more so than Obama. Perhaps. But, he is popular for some reason, so perhaps there is more to the history books of the future we don't understand. Lincoln wasn't popular and look what he did.
Hillary could very well have learned something during her stay in office that we just can't analyze or understand on a deeper level. Just a thought. Doesn't mean one has to agree or fall in like wih the package.
McCain can say what we all feel......"Castro should die"? ----ok, well not a wise statement to utter in public, I admit.. .But Castro was wrong to suppress his people the way he did. Communism is a bad apple. Who would want to live in the past....except for those vintage car owners., ha!
The list goes on and on...there are bits and pieces of these issues that have to be discussed on point. Instead of the same old rhetoric of he said he said.....liberal vs conservative with no room in the middle of the bed for stretching, why can't folks at least bash he devil in these details. Geesh....
So, I thank you and those who have taken the time to explain themselves a bit more on this board. In the old days, bitching and insults were the theme of most threads.
I agree that Micky tends to show a sense of disdain for America..big time.....but he does have passion for his beliefs and he lives here on the "gate". We have a small community here on the gate, so we have to deal with that. I have to admit I have enjoyed this place so much compared to the days of gates pastl. Why? Because of the way Xavier and Professor and Sirs, and Plane hold an intelligent discussion. That doesn't mean I have to agree wih them. You are a bit like a pitbull. I have to say. I tremble a bit when I respond to you because I don't want to have to hear those words you typed to Terra. I'll be honest, Rich.
Anyway...
I know that XO is a fantastic "thinker" as well as the Professor, and others. But to call names, Richpo doesn't solve the problem on both sides. I agree. it just fuels the pissiness, and extinguishes the flames of points that could be made and taken to a deeper level. Now, all we see is a swift boat of personal digs and basher tones. I like to debate Micky and XO and Prof...and I am getting better at debating BT.ha! The reason is that those people provide something in a civil way to chew on.....think through...and politely hold room for response. I have no problem being "wrong". I have no problem with the "gift" of changing my mind. I have changed my thinking in many ways since this Iraq war began. I am allowed to think freely. THere are many people in my own world here who are so afraid to "jump ship" to the other side...that they replace logic and common sense with frozen rhetoric, when it comes to important issues.....,issues worth the chew.
You remind me a bit of Mike because of the deep and passionate "anger" you both exude in your threads....well, ok...so what. That's ok. Hell, passion is mighty and strong if it doesn't insult, right? Nott necessarily. Insults are a way of making one's feelings known...not unlike a parent hitting a child because it only feels good on the part of the parent - in that moment. The child didn't learn a thing...except to react and hurt, and scream and hit back!
You don't have to get along with any person< Rich...and I am not saying that you should.
I would like to find out solutions for these problems in our world. I have a feeling the future generation of debaters will not bother with insults and innuendos......such things will have been a sign of times past.....instead there will be direct and viable "discussions" with direct and viable solutions to problems.
If you notice decades and decades if not centuries of debates have focused on what the person wants instead of what the person debating can give up and negotiate in order to make it work.
"Make it work, people." Tim Gunn
-
I think the US can purchase oil without persistent meddling in the politics of the Middle East. I think we could have far better relations with both Cuba and Iran than we do and it would benefit all concerned. Israel could be treated in the same manner as we treat the UAE, Qatar, Bahrein or Egypt, without special aid or concessions, the same way that Denmark or the Netherlands does. Or best ally is not Israel, it is Canada, followed by the UK and Mexico. If Jesus needs to return, he can return to Israel without the help of my tax money pissed away on giant walls, free medical care and total subsidies for ultra orthodox laggards who reproduce like bunnyrabbits and work not at all. Israel has a perfect right to subsidize them, but I should not have to.
The US should try to become as self-sufficient in petroleum and energy as quickly as is humanly possible, even if it means that Big Oil does not make humongeous profits. Especially if it means this.
The US needs to exit Iraq as soon as possible. Only Iraquis can create a stable Iraq, and if we have to be there holding up a house of cards, that is just an unneded expense, as it will collapse as soon as we leave, and we will have to leave eventually. McCain's threory that we should expect to stay there for 1000 years is either stupid hyperbole or just plain stupid.
The Al Qaeda attacks were the result of the US meddling in Saudi affairs, especially sending US troops that passed around Christian missionary propaganda when their supposed mission was defense. I don't think they won a single convert, either. It was very stupid for Olebush to send them there and more stupid for Clinton and JUniorbush to keep them there. When they were moved to Qatar and Oman, it made no difference whatever, which proves they need not have been there.
WE have the potential in the US for wind, tidal, geothermal, solar, and heat differential energy. If the government needs to subsidize the research and allow devices to be built without charging patent rights, we should do this. It is what was done to develop synthetixc rubber during WWII and it worked just fine.
-
XO: " I think the US can purchase oil without persistent meddling in the politics of the Middle East."
Ah, but I would argue that the idea is to be energy self-sufficient NOW. I am afraid that as long as we have a steady supply of oil, regardless of the source, not enough attention will be paid to R&D in REAL alternative energies.
-
I like to debate Micky and XO and Prof...and I am getting better at debating BT.ha!
I think you're getting better at debating, period. You have posted some excellent thoughts in this thread.
-
I like to debate Micky and XO and Prof...and I am getting better at debating BT.ha!
I think you're getting better at debating, period. You have posted some excellent thoughts in this thread.
Thank you, Poochie. There are times when I am able to focus and get those "points" out. My work comes home with me these days, and there is very little time to respond to the issues. I am still learning a lot from my read here. The stay has been delightful for that reason. I went back in and tweaked a bit in the thread I posted here..
Anyway....coming from you, those words are indeed a compliment.
Cindy
-
"Saddam had experiments going on with every sort of WMD and had brought some of them to fruition , the biggest part of the threat was that the know how was at his disposal even if the materiels weren't."--Plane
Well, then who is to say that if the world had waited to see those WMD come to another fruition (he had already used them once before)...who's to say that united nations would have kept him under scope and then acted on the crimes he was commiting, eventually. Instead Bush decided to attack the entire country and now look where we are. Not popular, the evil one in the eyes of the world and all for a big strong arm of the "law" attitude.....we have in a way become the middle east's WMD.
I am not saying that the issues of the world's power monsters are settled in such a simple way---have the UN get involved. The UN? Bu, I am saying that the days of WW2 are over. I know this has probably been said before by someone....but then, why not put out a hit on Saddam and get it over with? There had to have been a better solution to this problem and fear of WMD in a country so very far away from our own.
After 9-11, we had to do something to stop terrorism on our soil. When did that equate to Saddam and his WMD?
Doesn't make sense.
-
After 9-11, we had to do something to stop terrorism on our soil. When did that equate to Saddam and his WMD?
Doesn't make sense.
=======================================
We were used.
Obviously. 9-11 became a pretext for the invasion of Iraq and the passing of laws allowing the government to spy on its citizens.
Juniorbush was tired of everyone saying that Olebush was a failure because he didn;t get rid of Saddam. It was like Saddam had the Bush family gonads in his pocket, and Junior just had to get them back.
It might have been possible to depose Saddam without making the horrible mess that Rummy's bad planning made of it. But it wasn't necessary, and all that have died have done so in vain.
-
"But it wasn't necessary, and all that have died have done so in vain."
It's hard to hear those words.....died in vain.
Perhaps it's the war that was "in vain".
I feel that no matter......any soldier who dies in a battle dies for the battle----not necessarily in vain----because if the war had been worth the call, then the soldier's death would never have been considered "in vain".....The war is the entity suffered in vain this time around....not the dead boy who did what he was trained to do. To me there is no dying in vain when it comes to doing one's job. Sad but often times the worst part of a deadlly stupid war.....the comments that resonate back to families and communities...those little words; IN VAIN.
-
Juniorbush was tired of everyone saying that Olebush was a failure because he didn;t get rid of Saddam.
Who was saying that?
-
It's hard to hear those words.....died in vain.
Perhaps it's the war that was "in vain".
========================================
Of course it's not easy to hear. It's like someone stole all your Christmas presents, like your car had a hole in the tank.
Let's say that the war was for no good reason, and the men died because they were fighting that war.
They would mostly all be alive today had there been no war.
============================================
Juniorbush was tired of everyone saying that Olebush was a failure because he didn;t get rid of Saddam.
Who was saying that?
Perhaps everyone except you.
But many many people said that Olebush should've take out Saddam during Gulf War I.
Surely you heard at least two of them.
-
But many many people said that Olebush should've take out Saddam during Gulf War I.
Surely you heard at least two of them.
You and Knutty?
-
It's hard to hear those words.....died in vain.
Perhaps it's the war that was "in vain".
========================================
Of course it's not easy to hear. It's like someone stole all your Christmas presents, like your car had a hole in the tank.
Let's say that the war was for no good reason, and the men died because they were fighting that war.
They would mostly all be alive today had there been no war.
============================================
Juniorbush was tired of everyone saying that Olebush was a failure because he didn;t get rid of Saddam.
Who was saying that?
Perhaps everyone except you.
But many many people said that Olebush should've take out Saddam during Gulf War I.
Surely you heard at least two of them.
I know it's hard...but in some ways I am also saying that it is not that accurate. The men did a job they were trained for. There is an honor in battle that transcends winning or losing or for nothing, I guess I am saying here...and I will never chose such words as dying in vain because there is so much more to say about the soldier especially after he/she is dead.
-
Can we say that the brave men of the Wehrmacht or the Waffen SS died in vain, then?
Of course, they did what they were trained to do, but the sad truth is that most jobs entail doing what one was trained to do, and eventually it all comes down to nothing. The guy who spends his life stocking supermarket shelves, the accountant that spends a life doing tax returns, the drycleaner who spends a life getting out stains.
Eventually all the food is eaten and those who bought it are dead, the taxes and paid and the money is spend, and no one remembers for what, the clothes get stained again and eventually wear out.
But the soldier kills other people. If this results in a negative result, as it surely must much of the time, it's less useful to the rest pof us than the labors of the stockman, the accountant or the drycleaner, when you come right down to it.
And there is not likely to be a negative result of the labors of the stockman, the accountant or the dry cleaner.
-
Xavier,
When a man/woman kills in war that is not necessarily a killing of revenge/hate, etc I just can't compare a dry cleaner, or even a milkman with a fighting soldier. Ok, so the milkman's milk goes sour upon delivery. A delivery in vain? Perhpas..., but then again there will be another cow down another lane, another washed out bottle...and another successful delivery the another bottle of milk.
There will be other soldiers in other wars who will die. But, I just can't come to compare the milkmaid to the fallen soldier.....
"in vain" conjures up "waste"..... I would prefer to consider my sour milk a loss, in vain? nope.
By the by, there was a time as a child that I remember opening the front door to pick up the fresh bottles of milk on the porch. Times sure have changed.
There were jars of milk and there were jars of wars back then, before back then and will probably continue to be forward from "then" as wars are part of the landscape as are cows.
Come on, there has to be a more considerate term or honor paid to the man/woman who has died while fighting for a "cause"....especially if the soldier has been fighting for a "cause" with no chance of input, or a legitimate chance of "getting out", well not easily, that is. Did the Vietnam Vet die in vain, or did the gent who fled to Canada "live" on in vain? To the dead soldier, perhaps the one who runs lives in vain.
in any even, we all as human beings deserve more, imo.
Personal choice, I suppose.
-
Come on, there has to be a more considerate term or honor paid to the man/woman who has died while fighting for a "cause"....especially if the soldier has been fighting for a "cause" with no chance of input, or a legitimate chance of "getting out", well not easily, that is. Did the Vietnam Vet die in vain, or did the gent who fled to Canada "live" on in vain? To the dead soldier, perhaps the one who runs lives in vain.
in any even, we all as human beings deserve more, imo.
Personal choice, I suppose.
===================================================================
I agree that soldiers always get more publicity when they get killed in action or blown up fighting in some foreign land for flag and country, but I disagree that they deserve more acclaim than a normal civilian in a struggle against cancer, AIDS, heart disease or any one of a thousand ghastly diseases.
The sad fact is that everyone dies, which is what the Buddha noted as one of the Great Truths, and I am afraid that pretty much all of us die simply because of our mortal nature. We all die, and for no good reason. Even if there were a good reason, if we had not been afforded the proper moment for showing it, we would have died anyway. It's what we do, just like breathing, sleeping and eating lunch.
We can make a really big deal of how much bravery was involved in that last charge against the enemy at Stalingrad by either side, or defending the perameter against thousands of Vietcong at Tan Son Hut or Pork Chop Hill, or whatever, but this is no more intrinsically noble than the illustration of the guy on the Quaker Oats box is honest... only less trite.
-
"We all die, and for no good reason."
Well, there ya go.....the point at which we disagree. We all die...and yes, we all die for a very good reason. We also all LIVE for very good reasons. WHo knows what lives have been touched any individual soul on the planet. Ok..well, we need no dig that far down. Hitler was pretty bad ass....and so was Saddam..but in the scheme of things....on the bell curve...we all give to society, and we all make choices. We are also honored in different ways.
All of our lives are worht something and our death is no different...in terms of worth and services rendered.
THe person who puts herself/himself out there to defend a nation, or a family member who is threatened by an intruder and family member A takes action and unfortunately kills said intruder...... a citizen who is in danger until someone citizen Joan steps in to make that soul's life exist just that much longer because she KO'D or perhaps killed a rapist/murderer.
The one who stepped in to defend is killed. Ok, sure I also consider that person a candidate to be honored.
I suppose we can argue all night about the reasons why someone who dies of AIDS OR FROM WMD etc is not celebrated in the same way. But he is. She is. Just not considered "in vain". Why do we rush to consider those who fight for someone/.something other than themselves a life lost IN VAIN?..
In vain will never touch the lips of my mouth when it comes to dying in battle, or being maimed or even injured when afterall, that person has done so much for others in an arena or atmostphere called--- combat. There is a sort of honorable civility....i.e. honor roll protocal .....that exists when it comes to stepping up to a plate for such purposes.
Very frew people hold that conviction in life.
I applaud the people, no matter what.
I can't put them under my Christmas tree wrapped or unwrapped. They belong as part of the decoration and adorations design each and every holiday. A holiday that marks their lives and their sacrifices.
I guess that's why we have Memorial Day.
Thank you for that day Uncle Sam.
-
I didn't say that we don't LIVE for a good reason. I think we decide what our purpose is by ourselves.
I said we DIE for no good reason, other than because we have been designed as mortal.
So, did the Waffen SS die in vain, defending the Third Reich from Slavic and Jewish domination, and creating leibensraum for their fellow Germans?
-
I didn't say that we don't LIVE for a good reason. I think we decide what our purpose is by ourselves.
I said we DIE for no good reason, other than because we have been designed as mortal.
So, did the Waffen SS die in vain, defending the Third Reich from Slavic and Jewish domination, and creating leibensraum for their fellow Germans?
Ok...refocusing here.....
we die for for no good reason?
I say we die to live with Jesus..but THAT'S my belief..."another thread" someday.
But, to say that any soldier be he/she German Nazi, SS, French Bosnian or Iraqi...NEVER DIES IN VAIN.
The reason I feel that way is explained in my previous post. Soldiers are soldiers. I must clarify the definition and make known the distinction between soldier's death and platform of cry. SO, yes, I think that the SS did not die in vain. Human beings do not die in vain. Period. That's my stand.....except for the criminal element ...those who intend to kill for the purpose of greed and self centered hate. Come on, you know the difference....Jesse James, Hitler...died in vain...their life was lived in vain. The men who fight for any cause do not die in vain. XO. that's all I am saying here. ....Ok. you want to know who dies in vain....The day Charlie Manson dies he will have fulfiled his death as a life without purpose..but again Jesus is the one who will judge his soul.
Xavier, "cause" and the plight and fight for a "cause" donates and provides a get out of jail free card.....dying without shame or in vain.
Jesse James died in vain. He died commiting crimes because he was selfish and uncivilized. You might say that the soldier of today is just another Jesse James...but I disagree.
-
>>Ok...refocusing here.....<<
I think at this point, that's impossible. Well, for some people. The reasons for the war were spelled out specifically prior to action being taken. The leftist anti-Bush/anti-Americans are never going to come to grips with the truth on the subject. They simple refuse to do so. Even if they realize the truth, they continue to lie about it for political gain. So we hear the same ole same ole, and for some people, if you repeat it enough, it becomes the truth. That's just the way it is.
As for dying in vain, I doubt if you could ask Cindy Shemales son how he felt about that, I'd bet he would feel proud of his service and would not believe he died in vain. Saying those kinds of things is just a way for leftists to lie, once again, about the war, and the people fighting it. Really, do you think these leftists really have a clue as to what these soldiers think or what this war is really about? The answer is no. If they gave a damn they'd be happy we're winning. We're the good guys. Well, not to them, and that's the point.
Claiming our brave men and women are dying in vain to protect our freedom is just another insult in the long line of insults leftists direct at our soldiers and our country.
-
Claiming our brave men and women are dying in vain to protect our freedom is just another insult in the long line of insults leftists direct at our soldiers and our country.
...
No, they are simply dying .... but not in vain.....instead in hopes ...hopes to protect our freedoms. The liberals think that is a naive stance to take, but I see it as civil and worthy of honor
..Ok...so,even though we might be losing this war on terrorism (at this point in time), Rich, I do agree that it IS an insult to our soldiers and our country to put them in the grave with a pissy attitude. Shame on the American who does that. . Sorry XO , but I believe that is a shame....my opinion..
. I don't want to be put in a Republican box for that....just a secure nurturing common sense Tiffany blue, thank you very much.
Humanity and self respect for those who step up to the plate, hit a couple of strike outs and then die.
Damn, how can any American not appreciate their efforts?
If they are all leftists, or simply simple minded anti Americans....no mind....it's wrong to consider any person's death in combat as in vain.
My lord.
-
I think at this point, that's impossible.
You hope, you mean.
Well, for some people.
Like yourself?
The reasons for the war were spelled out specifically prior to action being taken.
I've never had an issue with that.
The leftist anti-Bush/anti-Americans are never going to come to grips with the truth on the subject.
Have you been talking to your psychic again?
They simple refuse to do so.
Think that might have anything to do with the incompetence of the Bush Administration in particular and the Federal Govt in general?
Even if they realize the truth, they continue to lie about it for political gain
And I'm glad to see by that inference that the conservatives are so squeaky clean. They've never lied about anything have they? Pssssssst. Larry Craig?
So we hear the same ole same ole, and for some people, if you repeat it enough, it becomes the truth
Ahhh, so now we know why you post that stuff about Shari'a law every day or every other day.
That's just the way it is.
Well, that's your perception. Here's mine: after going into Iraq the Bush Administration exhibited sufficient incompetence to turn the majority of Americans against the war. Add to that wireless wiretapping, secret courts that aren't even being used, and scandals of abuse and torture and the people get fed up. They're loathe to throw good money after bad. They hold the same to lives. Sooner or later the Iraqi's are going to have to stand on their own, we can't afford to hold their hands forever.
As for dying in vain, I doubt if you could ask Cindy Shemales son how he felt about that,
Great, you've managed to insult hermaphrodites and Cindy Sheehan in the same sentence. Can you post without insulting someone that you disagree with, or is that your basic debate technique?
I'd bet he would feel proud of his service and would not believe he died in vain
How would you know? Been talking to your psychic again? The guy is dead, gone, kaput. The hypothetical you pose is moot.
Saying those kinds of things is just a way for leftists to lie, once again, about the war,
OOOOH, those wascally weftists!! Why can't they be just like us wighties?
and the people fighting it.
There's enough lying, misinformation, and spin as far as our military members go, being done on both sides of the political aisle. Claiming that one side is doing it more is irrelevant when both sides engage in it.
Really, do you think these leftists really have a clue as to what these soldiers think or what this war is really about?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Antiwar_veterans_group_War_crimes_are_0121.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Antiwar_veterans_group_War_crimes_are_0121.html)
http://www.bigcynic.com/2008/01/iraq-veterans-t.html (http://www.bigcynic.com/2008/01/iraq-veterans-t.html)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/29/2194/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/29/2194/)
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_7400588 (http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_7400588)
http://ivaw.org/index.php (http://ivaw.org/index.php)
There's five. I'd guess that soldiers are like any other American, in that they're not united in their ideologies and goals. To claim that one group of soldiers speaks for another is absurd.
The answer is no.
Do you always talk to yourself like this? Perhaps you should seek some medical attention.
If they gave a damn they'd be happy we're winning. We're the good guys
Perhaps they give a damn about things other than winning and losing. This isn't a monopoly game. As to us being the good guys, some think we're good and some don't. It's that pesky problem with free will again.
Well, not to them, and that's the point.
There's a point to this banality?
Claiming our brave men and women are dying in vain to protect our freedom
Some people see it as protecting our freedom. Some don't. Don't pretend that people have never died in vain in war, the sloganeering doesn't cut it.
is just another insult in the long line of insults leftists direct at our soldiers and our country.
Well, some of those leftists ARE soldiers. Does that mean that they're self-loathing? And all American leftists are Americans, perhaps you've lost sight of that in the whole "rights = saints left = evil" scenario. I know that it's difficult to grasp this, but perhaps the left wants the same thing as the right (peace, freedom, prosperity), only they want to try and achieve it by different means. That's what our system was built for, not for lining up people into neat little boxes and labels.
On a side note. I'm tired of this. You can't seem to debate, only insult, slur, belittle and demean anyone who disagrees with you. You do this in the place of actually presenting evidence to your point of view, with the exception of some hack piece written in a conservative journal. You're not able (by the evidence that I've seen anyway) to formulate your own thoughts, you only parrot the latest thing you've read and then proceed to lambast anyone who disagrees with you. That's not debate, it's recess in second grade. And it's getting old.
-
Now Now, Hp....I think that if one reads between the lines, Rich is expressing his own thoughts. I wonder why we jump on people for being left of right.....why can't one just debate and move on.
Rich is rich with pissiness, this is true, but I haven't read anytihng in this thread that spells out such as you have accused. Perhaps I am wrong, but he does believe in something in his heart. ....just as we all. I may have to re read his post..but I thought it was just "Richpo's way" of finding that strategy to debate.
I might be wrong.
I'll have to re read both your posts.
-
Now Now, Hp....I think that if one reads between the lines, Rich is expressing his own thoughts. I wonder why we jump on people for being left of right.....why can't one just debate and move on.
Rich is rich with pissiness, this is true, but I haven't read anytihng in this thread that spells out such as you have accused. Perhaps I am wrong, but he does believe in something in his heart. ....just as we all. I may have to re read his post..but I thought it was just "Richpo's way" of finding that strategy to debate.
I might be wrong.
I'll have to re read both your posts.
Well, I don't know who Hp is ;D But speaking for me Cynthia, I'm just tired of seeing it. There are people on the right and left who manage to articulate their views with respect to disagreeing viewpoints, and I respect them for that. The problem that I have with Rich is this: everything is absolute. No ifs, ands, or buts. No room for an opposing viewpoint. No effort to try and see that viewpoint. Everything is black and white, cut and dried.
Things don't work that way in the real world, most things are grey. Even the red and blue states, when taken as a whole, are more purple than anything. I had a good and respectful debate with Rich awhile back about gay marriage. I like debates like that. I don't like debates where people are derided and given malicious nicknames. It's crude and unworthy of the intelligence of the people here. My above post is substantial departure from the way that I usually post. I decided to give him a dose of his own medicine, because I'm sick of seeing it. Maybe I need to take a break for awhile too, something to think about the next few days.
-
..Ok...so,even though we might be losing this war on terrorism (at this point in time)...<<
How do you figure we're losing? This is what I mean, it flies in the face of the facts. We haven't been attacked on American soil since 9-11, we've killed thousands of terrorists, taken out the leadership of Al Queda, and Saddam Hussein is boiling in hell and no longer fund terrorists or give them safe haven. How is that losing?
-
fatman,
If you're tired of it, don't waste my time with your limp wristed lectures. I'm not impressed. I was having a nice little discussion when you felt the need to stick your chubby little nose in and attack me.
Next time, ignore me, or keep your mouth big fat mouth shut.
Understand me Ms. Divine?
-
>>Rich is rich with prissiness ... <<
Some folks have a difficult time with the truth I guess. I'm going to avoid responding to this kind of thing because I don't feel you are up to the challenge are realize what you're asking for. I'm sorry the fatman is on the rag and felt the need to attack me. Since I can't slap people around after they go after me, I'll just chuckle a bit and consider the source.
I'd be happy to continue our discussion, but take my advice, don't discuss me with other people on the board. I'll eventually start talking about you.
K?
-
If you're tired of it, don't waste my time with your limp wristed lectures.
Ah, another insult, what a surprise.
I'm not impressed.
Darn, and I was trying sooo hard too.
I was having a nice little discussion
Sorry, but calling Cindy Sheehan "Cindy Shemale" and railing about these mythical "leftists" doesn't constitute a "nice little discussion". More like a rhetorical propaganda piece.
when you felt the need to stick your chubby little nose in and attack me.
Because I'm tired of seeing you pull the same shit time after time. I call knute on his shit, I'll call you on yours. But hey, if you want to be a buffoon, by all means...
Next time, ignore me, or keep your mouth big fat mouth shut.
Point is, I don't have to ignore you. Ignoring you is allowing you to keep spewing your bullshit all the time. I won't do it.
Understand me Ms. Divine?
Is this supposed to be some kind of gay slur on your part? Because if it is, you need to come up with something a little more original than that, or "limp-wristed lecture". Wait, I forgot, you can't come up with anything original. Guess you'd better do a quick google search and find something.
Some folks have a difficult time with the truth I guess.
I don't have a problem with the truth. What I do have a problem with is mean-spirited buffoonery that you try to pass off as the truth. I note that you didn't try to refute anything that I posted, which btw, in my post I didn't once call you a name (ms. divine, limp-wristed, etc.). While Ami and sirs have demonstrated that nuance is not beyond understanding to those on the right, it evidently went way past you.
I'm going to avoid responding to this kind of thing
That's funny, I thought that the post you posted referring to me as a limp-wristed lecturing Ms. Divine constituted a response. Want to clarify?
because I don't feel you are up to the challenge are realize what you're asking for.
Can you clean up your typos so that I can understand what the hell you're trying to say here?
I'm sorry the fatman is on the rag and felt the need to attack me.
Hmmm, I don't have a vagina and thus it's impossible for me to menstruate and be "on the rag". Perhaps you should enroll in a remedial community college biology course so that you don't make these mistakes. The need to attack you was derived from your own buffoonery. I'm not some wild eyed rabid dog that attacks for no reason. Perhaps you should consider that.
Since I can't slap people around after they go after me,
Two things here. First, your instinct to escalate to violence after a war of words says a lot about you. Rather than refute what was said, or even to resort to your standard technique of heaping tired cliches and insults on the person who disagreed with you, your first thought is to "slap people around". If you can't get past that line of thinking, perhaps you should move on. Second, I'd like to see the day that you could "slap me around". While there was a time that I was fat, that day isn't anymore. My monicker was chosen from the name of the atomic bomb, once again that nuance thing flies right past you. I'm 30 years old and work out at the gym 5 nights a week. I can bench press 420 lbs. In high school I was a second-team all-state defensive tackle, and took the state title in wrestling my junior and senior year in the 190 lb division. I took tae kwon do classes for 7 years. So you might want to think twice before you spout off about slapping me around, I'm not some club hopping fairy that wilts under your steely gaze.
I'll just chuckle a bit and consider the source.
Yup, keep on chuckling. Evidently you haven't considered the source at all, or you would have asked you why I posted the way I did.
But that's not a surprise.
-
fatman,
I'm not interested.
-
I'm not interested.
In what? Is this what you do when you run out of insults and banalities?
-
Once again fatman, take your fixation elsewhere.
-
SO, yes, I think that the SS did not die in vain. Human beings do not die in vain. Period. That's my stand.....except for the criminal element ...those who intend to kill for the purpose of greed and self centered hate. Come on, you know the difference....Jesse James, Hitler...died in vain...their life was lived in vain. The men who fight for any cause do not die in vain. XO. that's all I am saying here. ....Ok. you want to know who dies in vain....The day Charlie Manson dies he will have fulfiled his death as a life without purpose..but again Jesus is the one who will judge his soul.
====================================================================================
Hitler dies in vain, but Hitler's soldiers did not die in vain, so long as they were fighting for a more powerful Third Reich and not personal gain. If a
Is that what you are saying?
What I understand as "dying in vain" to mean is that an individual has died in such a way as no worthy cause was advanced. Suppose you are driving a Humvee along a highway in Iraq, and it hits a bomb. Boom! You are dead. You many have had the intent to further the cause of democracy in Iraq, but the truth is, you died because of bad luck.
Had the tire of your Humvee been ten inches to the right or the left of the bomb, you would have been spared, alley, alley oxen free.
But you weren't. You had bad luck and now you are dead.
What did you accomplish by dying?
-
Now Now, Hp....I think that if one reads between the lines, Rich is expressing his own thoughts. I wonder why we jump on people for being left of right.....why can't one just debate and move on.
Rich is rich with pissiness, this is true, but I haven't read anytihng in this thread that spells out such as you have accused. Perhaps I am wrong, but he does believe in something in his heart. ....just as we all. I may have to re read his post..but I thought it was just "Richpo's way" of finding that strategy to debate.
I might be wrong.
I'll have to re read both your posts.
Well, I don't know who Hp is ;D But speaking for me Cynthia, I'm just tired of seeing it. There are people on the right and left who manage to articulate their views with respect to disagreeing viewpoints, and I respect them for that. The problem that I have with Rich is this: everything is absolute. No ifs, ands, or buts. No room for an opposing viewpoint. No effort to try and see that viewpoint. Everything is black and white, cut and dried.
Things don't work that way in the real world, most things are grey. Even the red and blue states, when taken as a whole, are more purple than anything. I had a good and respectful debate with Rich awhile back about gay marriage. I like debates like that. I don't like debates where people are derided and given malicious nicknames. It's crude and unworthy of the intelligence of the people here. My above post is substantial departure from the way that I usually post. I decided to give him a dose of his own medicine, because I'm sick of seeing it. Maybe I need to take a break for awhile too, something to think about the next few days.
LOL...three minutes after hitting the sheets and in the process of sleepyland, I realized all of a sudden my mistake. I was too tired to ge out of bed and fix it, Fatman. Sorry about that...I was so ttired last evening. I had been babysitting my precious niece who is 4 all weekend, and I was plum tired.
I'll get back o you here in a minute...>MY "T" key is not working well....so youa ll will have to read between the t lines. I have to HITTT IT HARD each time. These laptops are a pain.
more later. . .FM>
-
Now Now, Hp....I think that if one reads between the lines, Rich is expressing his own thoughts. I wonder why we jump on people for being left of right.....why can't one just debate and move on.
Rich is rich with pissiness, this is true, but I haven't read anytihng in this thread that spells out such as you have accused. Perhaps I am wrong, but he does believe in something in his heart. ....just as we all. I may have to re read his post..but I thought it was just "Richpo's way" of finding that strategy to debate.
I might be wrong.
I'll have to re read both your posts.
Well, I don't know who Hp is ;D But speaking for me Cynthia, I'm just tired of seeing it. There are people on the right and left who manage to articulate their views with respect to disagreeing viewpoints, and I respect them for that. The problem that I have with Rich is this: everything is absolute. No ifs, ands, or buts. No room for an opposing viewpoint. No effort to try and see that viewpoint. Everything is black and white, cut and dried.
Things don't work that way in the real world, most things are grey. Even the red and blue states, when taken as a whole, are more purple than anything. I had a good and respectful debate with Rich awhile back about gay marriage. I like debates like that. I don't like debates where people are derided and given malicious nicknames. It's crude and unworthy of the intelligence of the people here. My above post is substantial departure from the way that I usually post. I decided to give him a dose of his own medicine, because I'm sick of seeing it. Maybe I need to take a break for awhile too, something to think about the next few days.
Hello Fatman,
The way I see it is that you have every right to give RichPo a dose of his own medicine. His medicine is "his"....but that doesn't mean he is the wizard of F'*ing Oz..ok so the teacher knows a few words.....gulp
seriously, you speak up Fatman..by damn your thoughts are your thoughts....I don't see you trashing Rich or others. Rich, you have to admit you are a bit of what we call on the playground....A BULLY!!
Whatever...so be it....if Rich has something concrete to say...listen, if he has something "else" to say....thus offend thee....talk to the hand.
Debating is struggling with and concentrating on, divulging one's complete thoughts on a subject...not being as ass.
I am always up for a read if the printer has something concrete to offer.
Continue on ...fatman. talk to us. I am one of your supporters.
Cindy
-
fatman,
I'm not interested.
Yes, you are. You are a latent gay man.
What do you think about that statment? RichPo....how about calling you richpothole ...how would you like that? oooo..a woman has called you a name....you will trash me like you trash others. why?
You are an angry man, Rich...and it's sickening....ok call me on the carpet bt for calling a meanspirited male on the car pit.
How much more degrading can you be towards Fatman?
God, you are mean.
-
Yes, you are. You are a latent gay man.
I really hope not. That would be giving latent homosexuals a bad name.
You are an angry man, Rich...and it's sickening....ok call me on the carpet bt for calling a meanspirited male on the car pit.
I'm not sure if Rich is angry or if he's just ignorant and has a poor sense of humor. Perhaps he may be willing to clarify?
How much more degrading can you be towards Fatman?
If it were just me Cynthia, I wouldn't have a problem. The problem that I have is that it's anyone who disagrees with him or his politics. Cindy Shemale, losertarian, Ms. Divine, Princess, BO, and those are just in the past couple of days. I am aware that there are people in this forum who don't like that I'm homosexual. I can live with that, people have a right to believe what they choose to believe. I haven't seen any of them other than Rich make crass comments about it. There are plenty of names that I could come up with for Rich and post, but I don't, because I don't want to stoop quite that far down. So I just give him back what he gives.
God, you are mean.
I've dealt with meaner.
And I dont want this to be a pile on Rich party, or a pity the fatman party. I'm quite capable of defending myself. ;D
-
fatman,
I'm not interested.
Yes, you are. You are a latent gay man.
What do you think about that statment? RichPo....how about calling you richpothole ...how would you like that? oooo..a woman has called you a name....you will trash me like you trash others. why?
You are an angry man, Rich...and it's sickening....ok call me on the carpet bt for calling a meanspirited male on the car pit.
How much more degrading can you be towards Fatman?
God, you are mean.
So, I am sure BT is listening...?
-
>>Yes, you are. You are a latent gay man.<<
:D
Yeah, that must be it.
-
>>So, I am sure BT is listening...?<<
I doubt it. But it's all my fault anyway, so whatever.
-
Ok fatman,
Let's be real....you have feelings....by damn.
Rich is not appropriate, and he isn't going to change.
Don't be so nice.
HE's not worth the comb over, at this point in time.
When a person is a bully, gawd damn it...we step up and hold bully proofing classes to deal with such souls.....in our schools.
Richpo is a magnet for madness and he can do harm. It's time he stops that crap. But he wont in here....I disagree, it's about time to have a richpo party to help him sip the Kool-aid a bit faster.
He would no more care for your needs than he man in the mad moon....and Richpo, as much as your scare the shit out of me to even say these words.....you are wrong. You have been as mean as a desert snake.
I will not reply to his wrath against me...be warned. He will pull his gun out and shoot the crap out of me here...but I am a civil and compassionate person, and be damned, I am not going to let a bully go without consequence.
Cynthia
-
Wow ... you two really are something.
So here's what's going to happen next. I'm going to ignore both of you freaks. I will not respond to you. I will not refer to you in any way. I've flushed both you turds for good.
Bye.
-
Wow ... you two really are something.
So here's what's going to happen next. I'm going to ignore both of you freaks. I will not respond to you. I will not refer to you in any way. I've flushed both you turds for good.
Bye.
Ok, I am responding....I am.
Good. Thanks.
As an Irish Catholic, I can only wish you well, Rich.....will you ever be able to see yourself as
"something" and stop the madness?
Who gives a crap what you do to us in your toilet....To wear the shamrock is a crock...I am Irish and you, sir are not a Irish Catholic soul.....you have a long way to grow. . . stop the insults, and you might make something of yourself.
My god, man....I deal with such children daily...calling names..."gay boy" etc, yes,even in the 3rd grade. When are the boomer generation of human beings going to wake up and see that children (who really only mimic what they hear on the outside world stage) have the unfortunate reasoning to call names and put down one another? Why is it that grown adults have to find that path and rest on the limb of meanspiritness in order to make a point. It's boring. It's a waste. It's old. It's not even worth the Disneychannel stuff.
-
Richpo is a magnet for madness and he can do harm. It's time he stops that crap. But he wont in here....I disagree, it's about time to have a richpo party to help him sip the Kool-aid a bit faster.
It's not on me to expect my standards from other people in here.
But a modicum of civility and respect, I don't think that's asking too much. If I wanted Rich banned (I don't) I would have talked to a moderator or bt about it (I haven't). Rich has shown he can be good and carry a coherent debate.
I'd just like to see that again.
-
Wow ... you two really are something.
So here's what's going to happen next. I'm going to ignore both of you freaks. I will not respond to you. I will not refer to you in any way. I've flushed both you turds for good.
I'm not too worried, it might take a day or two, maybe even a week, and you'll be spouting off like your old self. This is kind of like the time you were going to save all of us assholes the trouble right?
What was that saying Truman had about the heat? Something about staying out of the kitchen?
-
Too much time spent on Rich.
Hey Fatman, tell me about you. Where are you at in terms of politics?
Cindy
-
Hey Fatman, tell me about you. Where are you at in terms of politics?
You mean in terms of my political beliefs? To put it simply, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I prefer a near isolationist foreign policy but am not unaware of the importance of diplomacy, war, and detente with ideological enemies. The Presidents that I most admired in the past century were Eisenhower and Nixon.
Fiscally conservative
Balance the budget. We can't run on credit forever, and spending like drunken sailors is only speeding our car toward the bridge abutment. Running a government on borrowed money is like running your household finances on payday loans. Pare the bureaucracy to a manageable size. There is something to the quote "The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". We don't need a special committee, council, or agency for every political whimsy that pops up. We should demand and expect efficiency from our elected officals.
Socially Liberal
I support gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships. Though I disagree with abortion personally, and have minimal reservations as to limiting that "right", I am not of the mind that it should be banned in totality. I believe that if you give the government an inch on anything, it will consider it a mandate to take a mile. Thus I am not in favor of the government spreading its influence onto matters it was not originally intended for, such as UHC, gun control, medical (or recreational) marijuana.
Presidents
Eisenhower kept the Russians at bay. Ended Korea. Presided over an era of prosperity and peace, and the beginning of federal enforcement of civil rights. Faced down McCarthy and his hysterics. Nixon took over the country in its most turbulent hour since the Civil War. Ended the Viet Nam conflict. Established OSHA and the EPA. Opened the door to China. Entered into detente, which in my opinion, had more to do with the eventual collapse of the Eastern Block that Reagan. Glasnost had its roots in detente.
-
Well, we do agree on the "fiscal conservative" issue. Both Democrats and Republicans are adept at spending money irresponsibly, I am afraid.
Reagan?
-
Reagan?
I'm not sure what you mean Prof? I'll assume you want my opinion of Reagan, if you meant something other please feel free to correct me.
I don't think Reagan was a bad President, but I don't think he was a great one either. I have mixed feelings on the military buildup, though I do agree with the need for a "Star Wars" program. I think that Meese was a poor choice for AG, though GHW Bush was a good choice for VP. He was a little too close to the religious right for my taste, ignoring the AIDS thing when it first started to get going was a bad decision, that I think was influenced more by politics than by any intentional disregard or an uncaring aspect of Reagans character. I regret that he wasn't younger and wish that he hadn't developed Alzheimer's, so that we could have gained a little insight into his Administration and thinking.
-
Hey Fatman, tell me about you. Where are you at in terms of politics?
You mean in terms of my political beliefs? To put it simply, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I prefer a near isolationist foreign policy but am not unaware of the importance of diplomacy, war, and detente with ideological enemies. The Presidents that I most admired in the past century were Eisenhower and Nixon.
Fiscally conservative
Balance the budget. We can't run on credit forever, and spending like drunken sailors is only speeding our car toward the bridge abutment. Running a government on borrowed money is like running your household finances on payday loans. Pare the bureaucracy to a manageable size. There is something to the quote "The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". We don't need a special committee, council, or agency for every political whimsy that pops up. We should demand and expect efficiency from our elected officals.
Socially Liberal
I support gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships. Though I disagree with abortion personally, and have minimal reservations as to limiting that "right", I am not of the mind that it should be banned in totality. I believe that if you give the government an inch on anything, it will consider it a mandate to take a mile. Thus I am not in favor of the government spreading its influence onto matters it was not originally intended for, such as UHC, gun control, medical (or recreational) marijuana.
Presidents
Eisenhower kept the Russians at bay. Ended Korea. Presided over an era of prosperity and peace, and the beginning of federal enforcement of civil rights. Faced down McCarthy and his hysterics. Nixon took over the country in its most turbulent hour since the Civil War. Ended the Viet Nam conflict. Established OSHA and the EPA. Opened the door to China. Entered into detente, which in my opinion, had more to do with the eventual collapse of the Eastern Block that Reagan. Glasnost had its roots in detente.
Very interesting, Fatman. Thank you.
I think your views are the most unique I have read in here to date.
I tend to agree with you about Nixon. If we can go beyond the criminal misconduct issue, we see him as you have spelled forth.
Excellent post. Thank you.
I'm beat. SBA testing all this week. We shall see how our students test out in three weeks. For now, they are struggling to make the grade. I often wonder what it would be like to have taught in the generation of my own youth. Would we have passed such tests with flying colors? These kids are real troopers. They are hanging in there. We test everything from Rhombus to right angle and fraction to sphere, even though it's only February's end...and there are still three months of instruction left in the year.
Too bad....our students have yet to receive the instruction on fractions. Something has got to change. Bu, I doubt the country is listening.
anway....thanks Fatman.
Blessings to you. Fine bio. Fine. YOu are a unique man.
-
Nixon fled the White House in disgrace to save his pension before Vietnam ended. He lied like a rug about some 'secret plan' to win in Vietnam, and let Gerald Ford preside over the rout. Nixon could have ended Vietnam by the end 1970, but it drug out until 1976.
Reagan was just an actor they hired. He played his role well, that is about all you can say about the pitiful old doddering fool. The USSR would have collapsed of its own weight without him.
-
Nixon fled the White House in disgrace to save his pension before Vietnam ended. He lied like a rug about some 'secret plan' to win in Vietnam, and let Gerald Ford preside over the rout. Nixon could have ended Vietnam by the end 1970, but it drug out until 1976.
I understand that you don't like Nixon. A lot of people don't, and I realize that my opinion is in a distinct minority. Show me a President or member of Congress who doesn't lie like a rug. That said, the man did a lot of good things that unfortunately, a lot of people can't see through the Watergate/Viet Nam cloud. I can only imagine what Carter would have tried in a Chinese rapprochement, if it was anything like Iran I'm glad Nixon got it done ahead of time. I'm not trying to minimize Watergate, those actions were wrong though no one has ever proven definitively that Nixon was aware of the break in before it occurred. I think that the whole "secret plan" thing has been overworked by some.
At least that Congress had the balls to cut funding.
Reagan was just an actor they hired. He played his role well, that is about all you can say about the pitiful old doddering fool. The USSR would have collapsed of its own weight without him.
Reagan was also a smart politician. He's one of the few Presidents who left office more popular than going in. While I don't think that he single handedly brought down the USSR as some do, he was certainly a part of it.
Contrast Nixon and Reagan with Kennedy, who is probably the most overrated President, and Johnson, another President with deep character flaws who also got a few things done.
-
Nixon fled the White House in disgrace to save his pension before Vietnam ended. He lied like a rug about some 'secret plan' to win in Vietnam, and let Gerald Ford preside over the rout. Nixon could have ended Vietnam by the end 1970, but it drug out until 1976.
I understand that you don't like Nixon. A lot of people don't, and I realize that my opinion is in a distinct minority. Show me a President or member of Congress who doesn't lie like a rug. That said, the man did a lot of good things that unfortunately, a lot of people can't see through the Watergate/Viet Nam cloud. I can only imagine what Carter would have tried in a Chinese rapprochement, if it was anything like Iran I'm glad Nixon got it done ahead of time. I'm not trying to minimize Watergate, those actions were wrong though no one has ever proven definitively that Nixon was aware of the break in before it occurred. I think that the whole "secret plan" thing has been overworked by some.
At least that Congress had the balls to cut funding.
Reagan was just an actor they hired. He played his role well, that is about all you can say about the pitiful old doddering fool. The USSR would have collapsed of its own weight without him.
Reagan was also a smart politician. He's one of the few Presidents who left office more popular than going in. While I don't think that he single handedly brought down the USSR as some do, he was certainly a part of it.
Contrast Nixon and Reagan with Kennedy, who is probably the most overrated President, and Johnson, another President with deep character flaws who also got a few things done.
Your views mirror those of my father's, fatman...especially when it comes to the part about the good things Nixon did for this country. You know, I find your thoughts a bit refreshing, even though they are out on a limb in an arena of politics. I find your comparison of Reagan and others to the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson is intriquing, indeed.
Hey...They made an opera about Nixon in China, for god's sake...What more can a politician ask for? ha!
Xavier, I find your feedback about the "man" (Reagan) and his 'other job' actor personified....a sort of cop out, frankly. Surely you mustt admit he was a great politician, if anything else..and that job began in California, as governor, in fact in the actors guild during the 50's.
Can anyone here provide more critical details about why Reagan was not a good president vs a good one? I would like to hear a bit on that.
Surely Nixon was not the most popular president to grow in the garden, but I wonder sometimes if Americans take advantage of the Nixon's extreme mistakes in office as their chance to bitch and condemn the man for good. Interesting comments, FatMan. Interesing indeed.
I hear this conversation at my father's dinner table all the time. It's the first time I have read such sentiments in the gate lately...that is.
-
<<Xo has been letting his hatred of Bush permeate in nearly every thread, which is also fine...but doesn't make him immune to anyone that points that out>>
This and Ami's snarky little "Let the hate flow . . . " comment are great demonstrations of a kind of deflection that basically turns the conversation around from a blistering examination of Bush's lies and crimes (starting a war based on lies to grab oil and power in the Middle East and unleashing the hell of war on millions of innocent victims) to a psychoanalysis of, of all people, XO.
The most transparently ridiculous debating tactic, but nothing too cheap or cheesey for our crypto-fascist friends.
Hatred of war can and should be extended to hatred of those who wage war deliberately and for no good reason. For those who lie and distort and twist to justify their evil deeds.
As far as I can see, if you can't hate Bush, who the hell CAN you hate? (Oh, of course - - I know. Jane Fonda. Cynthia McKinney. Cindy Sheehan. Real bastards like them. THEY are the ones who are really responsible for all the pain and suffering of war.)
You know why these right-wing thugs get away with their absurd and crazy bullshit time after time after time? Because no one challenges them on it. No one calls them out. People are SCARED by the "support our troops" sloganeering - - to attack Bush is to attack the war is to attack the troops is to be "unpatriotic." And Americans are nothing if not "patriotic."
I feel good about Obama and his campaign, but I feel better about Cindy Sheehan and others who are really pointing out the nakedness of the Emperor, saying the unspeakable and ripping down the whole lying facade of the war-mongers and fascists who have America by the balls for the time being.
-
As far as I can see, if you can't hate Bush, who the hell CAN you hate? (Oh, of course - - I know. Jane Fonda. Cynthia McKinney. Cindy Sheehan. Real bastards like them. THEY are the ones who are really responsible for all the pain and suffering of war.)
Why hate anyone?
What's it get you?
-
<<Why hate anyone?
<<What's it get you?>>
It's a good question. Doesn't get me anything. But I hate the bastard. Not as much as I hate Nazis and Hitler, but the same hatred for the same reasons. He's the same kind of person and he caused the same kind of suffering.
Can't help hating, but it's natural and it's real and I don't believe in suppressing real emotion. It's not healthy. My own theory is that it's damaging to repress genuinely felt emotion. That's why I think real Christians are really sick people. I see these guys on TV saying they have "forgiven" their children's killers and they just turn my stomach. They are like worms, not human beings.
-
Can't help hating, but it's natural and it's real and I don't believe in suppressing real emotion. It's not healthy.
I don't "suppress" my hate - it just doesn't exist. I feel hate when I've been personally wronged, and then just until I get out of the situation. Once I'm out, the emotion goes away; I don't carry it around with me.
-
Surely you mustt admit he was a great politician, if anything else..and that job began in California, as governor, in fact in the actors guild during the 50's.
Can anyone here provide more critical details about why Reagan was not a good president vs a good one? I would like to hear a bit on that.
========================================
will surely admit no such thing. was wise to the old doddering geezer from day one. Reagan was not a great politician. He was a great actor. He did have some clever handlers.
He got his start in politics when he managed to get himself elected president of the Screen Actors Guild. He had good relations with the management. Then, during the HuAC hearings, he ratted out many of his fellow actors to the investigators, and they used his testimony to intimidate other SAG members into 'confessing' every actor or director that has even a slightly leftist leaning. This resulted in getting him TV roles, and later he was hred by several right wing manufacturing lobby organizations to give something called 'the speech' to civic clubs first all over California, then all over the country. 'The speech' basically said that corporations should not be taxed at all, bcaue they pass it all on to consumers, and the government is incompetent. He never mentioned that General electric was so corrupt as to merit several officers thrown in jail for price fixing, or that Ma Bell was way behind the curve in improving services.
Eventually his handlers got him elected governor of California, where he pretty much ruined the excellent university system and suggested that it would be a good thing if the poor people who received the food that the SLA pressured the Hearsts to donate to the poor should be poisoned with ptomaine (the SLA was not going to eat the food, just some poor people who had to beg for it to eat). This was quite typical of his comments when he made off-the cuff remarks. He could read the material that was written for him very well and managed to convince most people of his sincerity (as they say in Hollywood, once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made), but when he had to wing it, everything from millionaire Oklahoma oil Indians to the threat of extraterrestrial takeovers of the planet to his witnessing the Holocaust came spewing out: there were all just the plots of movies he'd seen and scripts he'd read, and most people didnpt even hear about the otigin of his wacko remarks.
Then his handlers decided that he should be president. They couldn't get him nominated over Ford, but in 1980, after hey had successfully wrecked Carter who trusted the lying bastard Kissinger over the Shah in ran, followed by the hostage crisis, they got the old geezer elected
nce he was elected, about twelve seconds after the inaugration, the ran crisis was over and all the hostages were released. We were supposed to believe that there were no machinations involved, but this was less convincing than the tooth fairy legend.
He destroyed unions, took the solar panels off the White House to please big oil and more than doubled the budget deficit. But he reminded people of some kindly old grandpa, and he was forgiven his treachery, his incompetence and the incredible corruption of his various secretaries, particularly those who dismantled the NLB, the Dept of nterior and oSHA.
His term was an eight year photo opportunity. He was the most incompetent president that people actually liked. All because o0f his monumental capacity to fake sincerity, and even his Altzheimers.
He does not deserve a Presidential Library, but rather a huge, Washington Momument-sized Oscar near the reflecting pond.
-
He destroyed unions, took the solar panels off the White House to please big oil and more than doubled the budget deficit. But he reminded people of some kindly old grandpa, and he was forgiven his treachery, his incompetence and the incredible corruption of his various secretaries, particularly those who dismantled the NLB, the Dept of nterior and oSHA.
Were the White house Solar panels working?
-
It appears that within political debates, when one has little to no substance to their position, all that's left is hate to fuel their position, which doesn't require any substantive facts, or even common sense, just raw emotion. It would appear that in some, the hate is proportional to their lack of substance
-
<<I don't "suppress" my hate - it just doesn't exist. I feel hate when I've been personally wronged, and then just until I get out of the situation.>>
Typical pattern for someone who looks out for no. 1 and doesn't really give a shit what happens to anyone else. The conservative way. I wasn't raised that way and I can thank God for that every fucking day.
When I see bad guys it rankles my ass in a real personal way. Bush didn't do anything to me or mine, but I really feel for those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis blown to pieces, crippled, tortured, mutilated all in a pointless war started by Bush and his confederates for no reason that they're willing to own up to publicly. I hate liars and I hate murderers. Bush is one of the worst I've seen in my lifetime. That Hitler was a lot worse doesn't help Bush at all, IMHO.
-
<<It appears that within political debates, when one has little to no substance to their position, all that's left is hate to fuel their position, which doesn't require any substantive facts, or even common sense, just raw emotion. It would appear that in some, the hate is proportional to their lack of substance>>
Getting pretty pathetic by now, sirs. In every position I've taken, Bush lied, Bush stole etc., I have produced reams of facts, circumstantial evidence in the most part, but that's natural when exposing liars who won't give written confessions of lying, and always in voluminous detail.
You, having no real arguments or facts to contradict a reasoned argument based on circumstantial evidence, always resort to "zero evidence," "reading Tee leaves" and similar empty rhetoric, which of course is all you CAN do, given the weight of the circumstantial evidence against you. So, keep on sputtering impotently about Tee, Tee the hater, Tee the man without facts, Tee the anti-American, Tee the terrorist-lover, Tee the Antichrist, whatever. Or sometimes,for variety, XO the hater, XO the man without facts, etc. While you keep trying to turn every issue-based argument that isn't going your way (and that means practically EVERY issue-based argument because no one is more consistently wrong than you are) into an ad hominem argument (a sure-fire confession of moral and intellectual bankruptcy) I am just going to ignore your lame-ass drivel and concentrate on what I originally came here to do, which of course was to debate issues on their merits, using the traditional debating tools of relevant facts and demonstrable logic.
-
<<It appears that within political debates, when one has little to no substance to their position, all that's left is hate to fuel their position, which doesn't require any substantive facts, or even common sense, just raw emotion. It would appear that in some, the hate is proportional to their lack of substance>>
In every position I've taken, Bush lied, Bush stole etc., I have produced reams of facts, circumstantial evidence in the most part, but that's natural when exposing liars who won't give written confessions of lying, and always in voluminous detail.
Actually no, you've produced realms of leftist lies & distortions, & are simply calling them "facts & circumstantial evidence". This is made all the more pronunced that when ACTUAL facts of documents and official conclusions are provided you, refuting your repetaive asanine positions, you just proclaim they're in CYA mode. And now it's useally coupled with some reference to fascism and/or Hitler. Even when its Democrats and/or those who don't support Bush's "war on terror"......in other words, must fit template, must fit template. Bush is evil, Bush stole the election, Bush lied us into war, yada, rant, blather, and don't dare try throwing any actual facts that refute that in the way. He's evil
You, having no real arguments or facts to contradict a reasoned argument based on circumstantial evidence...
...Outside of course actual CONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS by INVESTIGATIVE BODIES, that have made it clear that Bush didn't manipulate the intel or lie us into war, coupled with common sense. But, yea, you just keep going right on calling it "zero evidence". Must fit template....must fit template.
-
<<Actually no, you've produced realms of leftist lies & distortions, & are simply calling them "facts & circumstantial evidence".>>
Actually, yes: I produced facts that constitute circumstantial evidence which in your usual pathetic and lame attempts at rebuttal you make no attempt to refute or analyze, apparently acting under the belief that by merely labelling them "leftist lies and distortions" you have successfully disposed of the issue. Typically juvenile, but predictable.
<<...Outside of course actual CONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS by INVESTIGATIVE BODIES, that have made it clear that Bush didn't manipulate the intel or lie us into war, coupled with common sense. But, yea, you just keep going right on calling it "zero evidence". >>
Uh, no, actually, I DON'T call it "zero evidence," I call it a blatant whitewash. Blatant because of the composition of the "investigative bodies" that "investigate" the activities of their friends and colleagues. There has never been a truly independent "investigative body" authorized to investigate either 9-11 or the stolen election. What you call "conclusive documents" are the results of friends and colleagues investigating friends and colleagues. About as "conclusive" as the Warren Commission Report.
-
I hate liars and I hate murderers. Bush is one of the worst I've seen in my lifetime.
Regardless, they exist. I avoid dealing with liars and murderers, but I don't spend my time and energy hating them. It serves no purpose. I do, however, calmly work against them.
And I have yet to see anything "conclusive" about Bush being more of a liar than any other politician. And I don't consider deaths in a properly authorized war to be "murder."
-
<<...Outside of course actual CONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS by INVESTIGATIVE BODIES, that have made it clear that Bush didn't manipulate the intel or lie us into war, coupled with common sense. But, yea, you just keep going right on calling it "zero evidence". >>
Uh, no, actually, I DON'T call it "zero evidence," I call it a blatant whitewash.
Minus of course any FACTS to bolster said pathetic deflection. Must fit template.....must fit template, don't dare try laying any facts that refute my predisposed position of how evil Bush is.
As transparent & pathetic as you can get, Tee
-
<<Minus of course any FACTS to bolster said pathetic deflection. >>
The FACTS of course are the names and records of the members of the "investigative bodies," none of which would be "facts" in sirs' lunatic world, but "leftist lies and distortions." Or the FACT, for example, that neither Ralph Nader or anyone designated by him, nor George Soros, nor anyone designated by him, nor anyone of comparable stature in the anti-Establishment world, were ever asked to participate in the "investigations" of the "investigative bodies." Those "investigative bodies" were in fact, as every sane and normal person realizes, a safe bunch of Beltway insiders carefully chosen not to make any waves.
THOSE are "facts." Your pathetic claims that the "investigative bodies" really "investigated" anything that could negatively impact upon the "President" or that their "reports" are "conclusive" of anything important are certifiably delusional.
-
I agree and disagree here.
My view, which agrees somewhat with my Canadian misguided colleague, is that Bush mas made many miscalculations, including Iraq. Even William F. Buckley agreed.
My view, which MT will disagree with, is that Bush has done so not because of meanness but he simply made incorrect decisions. I believe there was no spite or cruelty or conspiracy theory surrounding oil. Again, I present the idea that Bush really sensed there were WMDs in Iraq, so that is why he authorized the invasion.
But to HATE a President? I disagreed with just about all of Clinton;s social programs, but I did and do not HATE him.
I present to you MT that hate is a bridge too easily crossed and yet a path difficult to retrace once attempted. It serves no real purpose other than self satisfaction.
-
<<I present to you MT that hate is a bridge too easily crossed and yet a path difficult to retrace once attempted. It serves no real purpose other than self satisfaction.>>
I'll present to you my upbringing, Professor, which probably goes back to Old Testament values even though my parents themselves were not religious people. There are good guys and bad guys in the world, Professor. They are known by their deeds, although intention of course factors into it. Bad guys are to be hated, good guys are to be loved. Bad guys are to be destroyed, as Hitler, the Nazis and the entire German society of the day were destroyed. Blasted from the face of the earth, as Churchill once said.
I can exterminate a nest of wasps without any hate in my heart. But it would be impossible to kill a Nazi without hate in my heart. I would submit that merely killing him or her without hatred would be nowhere near as satisfying as killing them with your heart full of hate at the same time. Killing bad people without hate would remove all traces of joy from the act. Hatred of the evil is a natural and human emotion. Without it, the human race could not have survived, or if we had, we would be a race of miserably oppressed slaves ruled by people as evil as the descendants of Bush and Cheney would be if allowed to cross-breed with others as evil as themselves for thousands of years.
It is unnatural and IMHO unhealthy NOT to hate someone as bad as Bush or Cheney, considering the things they have done, the sufferings they have caused, all avoidable, none of it necessary. I would be less than human if I didn't hate them. "For evil to triumph, it suffices only that good men stand aside and do nothing." I believe that if God exists, he has commanded us to destroy the evil-doer, by the sword in the old days, and today only after a trial and conviction, with due process of law, but the destruction if convicted must be complete and that means complete physical anihilation. Bush and Cheney should be on trial for their lives before an international war crimes tribunal.
-
<<Minus of course any FACTS to bolster said pathetic deflection. >>
The FACTS of course are the names and records of the members of the "investigative bodies," none of which would be "facts" in sirs' lunatic world, but "leftist lies and distortions."
Only in Tee's world are simply the names of all the Dems and Republicans involved in the bipartisan investigation, somehow proof of some CYA whitewash. Not to mention the similar conclusions made in Great Britain. Brilliant
Or the FACT, for example, that neither Ralph Nader or anyone designated by him, nor George Soros, nor anyone designated by him, nor anyone of comparable stature in the anti-Establishment world, were ever asked to participate in the "investigations" of the "investigative bodies."
Ahhh, that's what we needed, folks who were as public as possible in their condemnations of how bad Bush and the war were to offer "objective" analysis of the intel, privvy to congress. Yea, in Tee's world, that works ::)
Those "investigative bodies" were in fact, as every sane and normal person realizes, a safe bunch of Beltway insiders carefully chosen not to make any waves. ... THOSE are "facts."
LOL....So says your must fit template OPINION, minus again any FACTS or EVIDENCE. Why you keep revalidating my point is beyond me, but by all means, continue
-
<<Only in Tee's world are simply the names of all the Dems and Republicans involved in the bipartisan investigation, somehow proof of some CYA whitewash. Not to mention the similar conclusions made in Great Britain. Brilliant>>
Yeah that's right. And only in Tee's world do the "anti-war" Democrats Pelosi and Reid continue to fund the very same war that they pretend to "oppose." Brilliant. When are you going to wake up to the real world and the total fraud of the "two party" system, where one party pretends to oppose the militarism and imperialism of the other party but does absolutely nothing to stop it? In your never-neverland, the Democrats are the anti-war party. In the real world, they keep the war going. Oh well, why let a few simple facts interfere with your concept of the so-called "two-party" system?
<<Ahhh, that's what we needed, folks who were as public as possible in their condemnations of how bad Bush and the war were to offer "objective" analysis of the intel, privvy to congress. Yea, in Tee's world, that works >>
Of course, why let real critics of the administration take any part in evaluating its performance? A good administration deserves to be evaluated by its friends and supporters so the people can all trust the evaluation report. Let the inmates write their own progress reports, who the hell needs doctors?
<<LOL....So says your must fit template OPINION [that those "investigative bodies" were in fact, as every sane and normal person realizes, a safe bunch of Beltway insiders carefully chosen not to make any waves] minus again any FACTS or EVIDENCE. >>
Oh. Stupid me. I got it all wrong again. OK sirs, help me out - - which members of those "investigative bodies" were NOT Beltway insiders? They were all "mavericks" and "rebels," eh? Show me one.
<<Why you keep revalidating my point is beyond me, but by all means, continue>>
Translation: Declare victory, hit ENTER. Gotcha.
-
My view, which agrees somewhat with my Canadian misguided colleague, is that Bush mas made many miscalculations, including Iraq. Even William F. Buckley agreed.
My view, which MT will disagree with, is that Bush has done so not because of meanness but he simply made incorrect decisions. I believe there was no spite or cruelty or conspiracy theory surrounding oil. Again, I present the idea that Bush really sensed there were WMDs in Iraq, so that is why he authorized the invasion
Once again Prof, something that we're in complete agreement upon.
-
My view, which agrees somewhat with my Canadian misguided colleague, is that Bush mas made many miscalculations, including Iraq. Even William F. Buckley agreed.
My view, which MT will disagree with, is that Bush has done so not because of meanness but he simply made incorrect decisions. I believe there was no spite or cruelty or conspiracy theory surrounding oil. Again, I present the idea that Bush really sensed there were WMDs in Iraq, so that is why he authorized the invasion
Once again Prof, something that we're in complete agreement upon.
And a position I (& dare I say, most rationally minded folk as well) tend to concur with as well
-
<<My view, which MT will disagree with, is that Bush has done so not because of meanness but he simply made incorrect decisions. I believe there was no spite or cruelty or conspiracy theory surrounding oil. Again, I present the idea that Bush really sensed there were WMDs in Iraq, so that is why he authorized the invasion>>
It just makes no sense at all. The Project for a New American Century, authored mainly by rabid Zionists, including Robert Zoellick, Paul Wolfowicz, Eliot A. Cohen, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, all of whom (with the possible exception of Cohen) served in the G. W. Bush administration. Donald Rumsfeld was another author of the PNAC, also prominent in the Bush administration. PNAC proposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq as far back as the Clinton administration. Bush's entire administration was permeated with Zionists and PNAC members, long-time supporters of an invasion of Iraq, and some of them (including Douglas Feith, not particularly associated with PNAC) and Perle had actually worked for the Zionist government before coming into the Bush administration. Iraq at the time was a major enemy of Israel, and taking out Saddam Hussein was obviously very much to Israel's advantage.
Again Bush's idea that there were WMD in Iraq is (a) dead wrong (b) was sourced exclusively by sources which could all be traced back to the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which had a very obvious interest in regime change and (c) was not sufficient to convince France, Germany, Russia, India, China, Canada and many other countries that the "threat" required invasion when Bush invaded anyway.
Furthermore, the issue is a red herring. It was never established that possession of WMD by Iraq was any kind of threat to the U.S.A. as Iraq had never used WMD against the U.S. in any prior conflict. In fact, it was obviously suicidal for Iraq to attack Americans or America with WMD, thus extremely unlikely.
You can't invade another country on pure speculation of what they "might" do - - that's an outrageous formulation of what's acceptable international conduct and of course it's a pretty basic concept so there is no doubt at all that Bush understood this as well as anyone else. The claim of WMD was not even meant to be taken seriously for the simple reason that it made no sense at all. It was a smokescreen or fig leaf for a decision already taken, back when first formulated by PNAC, that the U.S. should invade Iraq, an oil-rich nation. The reason for the invasion could be presented later.
-
Were the White house Solar panels working?
==================================
Of course they were working. There was no problem, they were ripped off because Reagan's handlers wanted to make a statement that Big oil was back in the driver's seat.
-
<<Xo has been letting his hatred of Bush permeate in nearly every thread, which is also fine...but doesn't make him immune to anyone that points that out>>
This and Ami's snarky little "Let the hate flow . . . " comment are great demonstrations of a kind of deflection that basically turns the conversation around from a blistering examination of Bush's lies and crimes (starting a war based on lies to grab oil and power in the Middle East and unleashing the hell of war on millions of innocent victims) to a psychoanalysis of, of all people, XO.
The most transparently ridiculous debating tactic, but nothing too cheap or cheesey for our crypto-fascist friends.
Hatred of war can and should be extended to hatred of those who wage war deliberately and for no good reason. For those who lie and distort and twist to justify their evil deeds.
As far as I can see, if you can't hate Bush, who the hell CAN you hate? (Oh, of course - - I know. Jane Fonda. Cynthia McKinney. Cindy Sheehan. Real bastards like them. THEY are the ones who are really responsible for all the pain and suffering of war.)
You know why these right-wing thugs get away with their absurd and crazy bullshit time after time after time? Because no one challenges them on it. No one calls them out. People are SCARED by the "support our troops" sloganeering - - to attack Bush is to attack the war is to attack the troops is to be "unpatriotic." And Americans are nothing if not "patriotic."
I feel good about Obama and his campaign, but I feel better about Cindy Sheehan and others who are really pointing out the nakedness of the Emperor, saying the unspeakable and ripping down the whole lying facade of the war-mongers and fascists who have America by the balls for the time being.
Yikes, that's a lot of Cindy's and Cynthia's .>>> good thing my name isn't Cindy McCain.
":doh
-
There were lots of places Juniorbush could have invaded that had repressive governments hat were not Iraq. But Iraq had oil. They falsified the evidence and invaded Iraq for the oil. This should be obvious to anyone with even a tiny remaining shard of cerebral cortex.
Juniorbush and Cheney are hirelings of an oil oligarchy, but the military industrial complex is also thrilled with the idea of remaining in Iraq forever. it matters not whether these two criminals were wicked or just tools. The result is the same.
We should do our best to replace them with people as little like them as possible.
-
<<There were lots of places Juniorbush could have invaded that had repressive governments hat were not Iraq. But Iraq had oil. They falsified the evidence and invaded Iraq for the oil. This should be obvious to anyone with even a tiny remaining shard of cerebral cortex.>>
Ahhh, but therein lies the problem.
-
My view, which agrees somewhat with my Canadian misguided colleague, is that Bush mas made many miscalculations, including Iraq. Even William F. Buckley agreed.
My view, which MT will disagree with, is that Bush has done so not because of meanness but he simply made incorrect decisions. I believe there was no spite or cruelty or conspiracy theory surrounding oil. Again, I present the idea that Bush really sensed there were WMDs in Iraq, so that is why he authorized the invasion
Once again Prof, something that we're in complete agreement upon.
And a position I (& dare I say, most rationally minded folk as well) tend to concur with as well
I have to disagree , to say that Bush made bad decisions presupposes that there were better alternative choices availible , I don't see that there were.
\
Maintaining the status quo would have been an inferior decison .
\
Letting Saddam go his own way would have been an inferior decision.
That is how it looks to me .
I am not a geinus or a prophet , so I can't garuntee to you that I am right about these things , but
I don't think that an truely perfect alternative was ever availible.
-
My view, which agrees somewhat with my Canadian misguided colleague, is that Bush mas made many miscalculations, including Iraq. Even William F. Buckley agreed.
My view, which MT will disagree with, is that Bush has done so not because of meanness but he simply made incorrect decisions. I believe there was no spite or cruelty or conspiracy theory surrounding oil. Again, I present the idea that Bush really sensed there were WMDs in Iraq, so that is why he authorized the invasion
Once again Prof, something that we're in complete agreement upon.
And a position I (& dare I say, most rationally minded folk as well) tend to concur with as well
I have to disagree , to say that Bush made bad decisions presupposes that there were better alternative choices availible , I don't see that there were.
Don't get me wrong.....I'm referring to decisions and judgements made after Saddam was taken out, Plane. Going in was the last resort, and a GOOD decision made, based on the intel at the time. But following the mission accomplished, the post Saddam planning has been extremely poor in its implimentation, with back-up plans very poor if not absent, when things were'nt going to original plans. These would be judgement calls that Bush can easily be responsible for, and properly criticized on
-
Hmmmmm....
Invadeing Iraq and then pulling back to see what the Iriquis would do has been tried.
-
I don't think that an truely perfect alternative was ever availible.
======================================
Well, duh.
Are any perfect alternatives EVER available?
But the alternative in which 4,000 Americans were not killed in the Iraq War, where no Iraqis were driven into exile, where the Sunnis and Shiites managed to live nextdoor to each other in the same neighborhoods, in which the Golden Mosque was not blown up, in which maybe 20,000 US soldiers were not maimed or turned into vegetables just might have been a better one.
What it looks like is that Juniorbush, Rummy and Cheney cherry-picked intel, throwing out anything that might make invading Iraq sound like the bad, dangerous or stupid idea that it really was, and keeping all the rest. The various allies didn't want to anger the Americans by disagreeing with them, so they chose to sort of agree, but not to the point where they would send in large numbers of troops as in Iraq War I.
Juniorbush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq the day that they were selected. 9-11 was used as their justification.
The invasion was done without proper planning, and with Rummy disagreeing with and overriding Shinsecki and any other experienced officer that disagreed with him, and the results were the ghastly botched mess we had until Pertraeus managed to have some successes.
-
No one said a PERFECT solution was available, only that there were several including not getting involved.
If I invaded every country that MIGHT be developing WMDs because they just MIGHT want to ZAP me, well, I'd be busy doing that and nothing else.
I think, and this may sound simplistic, but geogrpahical proximity matters. If it were Mexico instead of Iraq, I might change my mind. But, of course, it wasn't.
Again, my belief, unsubstantiated as it is, is that Bush went witrh the best intel he had and it was flawed. Hard to.
\' blame him for that. Quite frankly, it happens. Unfortunately.
Once we conquered their armed forces, we should have handed the baton to anyone standing and left.
-
No one said a PERFECT solution was available, only that there were several including not getting involved.
If I invaded every country that MIGHT be developing WMDs because they just MIGHT want to AP me, well, I'd be busy doing that and nothing else.
I think, and this may sound simplistic, that geogrpahical proximity matters. If it were Mexico instead of Iraq, I might change my mind. But, of ocurse, it wasn't.
Again, my belief, unsubstantiated as it is, is that Bush went witrh the best intel he had and it was flawed. Hard ot blame him for that. Quite frankly, it happens. Unfortunately.
Once we conquered their armed forces, we should have handed the baton to anyone standing and left.
Since we were already involved the choice to become uninvolved would have required allowing Saddam to take over again.
Ducking out , leaveing the sciene , allowing whoever was standing to have controll ,was the choice taken in Afganistan when the Russians left. Did we learn then that this was a good choice?
-
<<Ducking out , leaveing the sciene , allowing whoever was standing to have controll ,was the choice taken in Afganistan when the Russians left. Did we learn then that this was a good choice?>>
Looks like it was a great choice - - for Russia. They weren't bothered by the Afghans any more. From then on the problem of Afghanistan became YOUR problem.