Editorial demands grow for pullout

[Michael Tee]

He was referring to the American Civil - - oops, I mean the War Between the States.

[Michael Tee]

<<The difference is context....explaining a mindset of telling an enemy that they're winning, vs your morronic effort to try and directly compare the Iraq war to Ali & Frazier>>

The moronic comparison was yours.  I merely pointed out the stupidity.  In fact, in the current context of the Iraq War, the enemy's motivation couldn't possibly depend on anything said by Nancy Pelosi.  You were challenged to find any evidence that they were fighting harder after Pelosi's words than before and you failed utterly to do so.  There IS no mindset that conforms to the one you attempted to portray, and drawing false comparisons to the boxing ring doesn't change that.
 

<<And I demonstrated the fallicy of your attempt to misrepresent my position, yet the consistent efforts you go to do so.>>

I didn't misrepresent your position, I mocked it.  And when you protested, I pointed out what part of my argument was mockery and what part was essentially a serious reply.  That the analogy you drew was false.  That you can't assume that what motivates a boxer will necessarily motivate an Iraqi Resistance fighter.  As a matter of fact I'm not even sure that words like Pelosi's could even affect a boxer's performance, let alone a Resistance fighter's.  In any event. bottom line is I found your argument about Pelosi ridiculous and I showed why.  But I took you seriously enough to give reasons and I dealt with the essential point that you had raised.

[sirs]

<<The difference is context....explaining a mindset of telling an enemy that they're winning, vs your morronic effort to try and directly compare the Iraq war to Ali & Frazier>>

The moronic comparison was yours.  I merely pointed out the stupidity. 

Actually, the stupidity was trying to take a concept (emboldening your enemy by telling them they're winning), and twisting it into some literal boxing match between the U.S & AlQeada, which is something I never did.  The issue I have with you on this is I'm confident you're absolutely aware of my position, yet purposely misrepresenting it, because you have no fall back in dealing with how the Democrat rhetoric absolutely emboldens and lifts the spirits of our enemy, while continuning to demoralize our troops....which again is probably a good thing in your mind, so why not be honest and say so, vs trying to lie about my position

[Michael Tee]

<<The issue I have with you on this is I'm confident you're absolutely aware of my position, yet purposely misrepresenting it, because you have no fall back in dealing with how the Democrat rhetoric absolutely emboldens and lifts the spirits of our enemy, while continuning to demoralize our troops....>>

Well, MY position was (a) she didn't embolden the enemy, they're bold enough without her and (b) your analogy with boxing was ridiculous.  And I did not misrepresent your position, I mocked it.  There was no way the mockery could have been taken seriously - - you would have to believe that i was serious when talking about wearing silk robes in combat if I was misrepresenting your postiion.  Better learn the difference betwen mockery and misrepresentation, sirs.

<<which again is probably a good thing in your mind, so why not be honest and say so, vs trying to lie about my position>>

Now YOU'RE raising a new issue, whether it's good or bad that the U.S. gets its ass kicked good and hard in Iraq.  I've never made a secret about my feelings on that score either - - they SHOULD get their ass kicked and I hope they do.  The whole thing is a criminal violation of international law and your "President" is a classic example of a war criminal, as defined in the Nuremburg Trials.  That STILL does not change my position that Nancy Pelosi is not doing anything to facilitate that well-deserved ass kicking.  (Shame on her)

[Plane]

"Now YOU'RE raising a new issue, whether it's good or bad that the U.S. gets its ass kicked good and hard in Iraq.  I've never made a secret about my feelings on that score either - - they SHOULD get their ass kicked and I hope they do."


Are you disapointed in the Al Quieda ?

[sirs]

<<The issue I have with you on this is I'm confident you're absolutely aware of my position, yet purposely misrepresenting it, because you have no fall back in dealing with how the Democrat rhetoric absolutely emboldens and lifts the spirits of our enemy, while continuning to demoralize our troops....>>

Well, MY position was (a) she didn't embolden the enemy,

And I demonstrated thru the analogy how that's BS.  No one's claiming she'd doing it on purpose.  The point is that such rhetoric gives them renewed energy to do even more damage (perhaps target and kill even more little girls)

(b) your analogy with boxing was ridiculous.

Only because it described perfectly, the point being made.  Similar analogies can be gained from other sporting events, but all refeence the same phenomenon, giving your oppoenent/enemy added incentive to do damaged by telling them they're winning

And I did not misrepresent your position

You most certainly as hell did

<<which again is probably a good thing in your mind, so why not be honest and say so, vs trying to lie about my position>>

Now YOU'RE raising a new issue, whether it's good or bad that the U.S. gets its ass kicked good and hard in Iraq.  I've never made a secret about my feelings on that score either - - they SHOULD get their ass kicked and I hope they do. 

Which is why such rhetoric from messers Reid & Pelosi are perfectly acceptable to you, as it DOES help facilitate precsiely what you want to have happen.  Again, I thank you for helping reinforce my point

The whole thing is a criminal violation of international law and your "President" is a classic example of a war criminal, as defined in the Nuremburg Trials.    

Well, thank you for that knute/brass/Lanya-like opinion.  Perhaps I can offer you some paper towels for the foam coming out of the corner of your mouth

[Michael Tee]

plane:  <<Are you disapointed in the Al Quieda ?>>

I wonder why you are so fixated on al Qaeda?  By all accounts they are a small faction in the Iraqi Resistance, which is almost entirely indigenous.

I said a long time back that al Qaeda had shot its bolt.  It will never come up with a Second Act equal to its first.  Al Qaeda exists mostly now in the imagination of a new generation of Muslims, as an inspiration, a living demonstration of what can be done, with courage, imagination and daring to think outside the box.  I would have hoped that they would learn to avoid civilian targets, but as long as the death toll of Muslim women, children and elderly continues to rise astronomically, as long as Muslims are tortured and killed in secret dungeons and cells all over the world, I guess that would be too much to hope for.  Violence begets violence.  When the U.S. finally learns that lesson then maybe al Qaeda and its disciples can phase themselves out of active operations.

[Michael Tee]

<<And I demonstrated thru the analogy how that's BS.  No one's claiming she'd doing it on purpose.  The point is that such rhetoric gives them renewed energy to do even more damage>>

Do you still not get it?  You demonstrated nothing "through the analogy."  The analogy that you chose was false.  Invalid.  Meaningless.  As a matter of fact, you can't even convince me that a professional athlete would be affected one way or the other by anything said by Pelosi, much less an Iraqi Resistance fighter.

<< (perhaps target and kill even more little girls)>>

I REALLY wouldn't go there if I were you.  We both know who is No. 1 in the killing of little girls, targeted or not.  With rape and without rape. 

<<[My boxing analogy was "ridiculous" to MT] because it described perfectly, the point being made.  Similar analogies can be gained from other sporting events, but all refeence the same phenomenon, giving your oppoenent/enemy added incentive to do damaged by telling them they're winning>>

Once again, completely overlooking the fact that your opponent is not a competitive athlete and is not engaged in competitive athletics - - yet for some reason is treated as if that is exactly what was at stake here.  At least you are consistent in your pure idiocy.  And totally impervious to any critical or analytical thought that challenges the absurdity of  it.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 01:39:42 PM
<<And I did not misrepresent your position
<<You most certainly as hell did>>

Did not.


<<[Such] rhetoric from messers Reid & Pelosi [is] perfectly acceptable to you, as it DOES help facilitate precsiely what you want to have happen. >>

What, I'm not allowed to have a point of view?  And if I DO have a POV, I have to accept that anyone who YOU claim is supporting my POV is in fact is supporting it?  A more intelligent take on the situation would be that Tee wants the Iraqis to drive the Americans into the sea, but doesn't think Pelosi is helping them any.  Why do I have to feel Pelosi is making a contribution to the triumph of international law just because you believe she is supporting the enemies of the U.S. invasion?  What gave YOU the right to decide who is and is not helpful to the cause of Iraqi sovereignty?

<< Again, I thank you for helping reinforce my point>>

If you weren't so logic-challenged, you'd see that I didn't reinforce your point at all.  Your argument is basically that if you choose to believe that anybody - - Posh Spice, for example - -  is an al Qaeda enabler, and I choose to deny it, that my support for the Iraqi Resistance would invalidate any argument I might make that she is not.  That is just so crazy that the best way to demonstrate its craziness is to put it into reverse - - if you say that Pelosi is an al Qaeda enabler, your support of the American invasion in and of itself renders your opinion on Pelosi invalid.  I really don't expect you to get the logic - - you never do.  I'm just laying it out for the record. This is a ridiculous discussion and I don't intend to waste any more time on it.  If you see it (and you won't) fine, and if you don't see it, we will just have to agree to disagree on it.

Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 01:39:42 PM
The whole thing is a criminal violation of international law and your "President" is a classic example of a war criminal, as defined in the Nuremburg Trials.   


<<Well, thank you for that knute/brass/Lanya-like opinion. [that the invasion is a criminal violation of international law and that Bush is a classic example of a war criminal as per Nuremburg definitions] Perhaps I can offer you some paper towels for the foam coming out of the corner of your mouth >>

Your level of rebuttal is about as mature and intelligent as I have come to expect from you.  Perhaps you should consider that knute, brass, Lanya and I are all right and that you are the one who is totally out to lunch?
 
 

[sirs]

<<And I demonstrated thru the analogy how that's BS.  No one's claiming she's doing it on purpose.  The point is that such rhetoric gives them renewed energy to do even more damage>>

Do you still not get it?  You demonstrated nothing "through the analogy."

Well, since you're going to continue to plead ignorant, best we move on

[domer]

Having read this panel alone, I nonetheless want to comment on the sheer amount of bullshit being thrown from each side. Iraq is a mess, and the depletion (and non-renewal) of our military assets are common knowledge as is the continuing, bloodcurdling level of violence there. The Bush camp fails miserably in a few ways that I will mention here (and myriad more I won't). The overriding failure is refusing to fully admit and take responsibility for the pitiful way this invasion was managed, which created a host more problems than the invasion itself could ever hope to solve, and indeed for the decision to invade in the first place. This failing lies squarely in Bush's lap -- a gross failure of leadership -- for it is not only his duty to make (correct) decisions but also to rally the country 'round his policy, a benchmark that will forever escape him at this point, it seems. This "failure to clear the air" (let alone heed wiser voices counseling a different or significantly altered policy) has poisoned the political atmosphere at home and eroded almost completely any reservoir of trust this man may once have had. In the face of such raw and obtrusive failure, it's the goddamned duty of the Democrats to propose alternatives, to form an opposition, to attempt to add sense and competence to the matter, which is what they are doing, if awkwardly.

[BT]

The dems certainly are ackward in their attempts to stand and deliver.

[Plane]

plane:  <<Are you disapointed in the Al Quieda ?>>

"I said a long time back that al Qaeda had shot its bolt.  It will never come up with a Second Act equal to its first.  Al Qaeda exists mostly now in the imagination of a new generation of Muslims,.........."

So are you disapointed in their performance?