"Anti-War" Idiocy

[muscle_geek]

First of all, I believe almost everyone is "anti-war." People that are supporting military action in Iraq believe this is a just war. I've heard and observed some of the most ridiculous shit from the left this weekend.

1. There are people saying that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction while Iraq stated this weekend that they would unleash their weapons of mass destruction on our troops if they attacked us. Huh?

2. There was an "anti-war" leader on Fox this weekend saying that we need to be careful with our treatment of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed because we might piss off al-Qaida which would lead to more attacks. Huh?

3. The "anti-war" human shields left Iraq because Sadaam wouldn't let them protect schools and hospitals, etc.. Rather they were to be used to protect power plants and such. IDIOTS!

Say what you want about the administration's Iraq policy. But it can't be denied that intellect resides on the side of Bush and not with these moronic "anti-war" people. Its time to take care of business and that requires a risk that Bush, myself and most American's are willing to take.

Just look at Stalin, the exectutions in Cambodia and many other world attrocities and its clear the when good people do nothing that evil will prevail. Its time for everyone to sack up and take action. North Korea comes next. It is clear now that when Bush made his axis of evil speech that he meant to take these countries down. Any country that poses even a remote threat to us will be taken out and we will be safer. Terrorist cells do no operate well on the run and they are hiding in fear and basically can't communicate through email, cell or many other forms of communication without the fear of getting caught. Since 9/11 hundreds of terrorists have been jailed if not thousands. We haven't caught Osama yet, but does anyone doubt that he will be captured or dead soon. More power to Bush. Its time to use our stong hand to show the world once again not to fuck with us. I think the world forgot that during the Clinton administration when he basically kicked the can to the Bush admin. I think Clinton basically deferred problems so that they didn't happen on his watch. I think Bush doesn't give a shit how the public perceives him or his legacy. He's doing what is right.

I'm waiting on the "Bush sucks cock" and other stupid responses from bleeding hearts.

 

[musclebrains]

Lovely fictions, grand propaganda. Just for starters, opposing the invasion of Iraq does not mean one opposes the effort to jail terrorists. In other words one may despise both Saddam and Mohammed but the latter has posed an authentic risk to our security whereas the risk posed by the former remains undemonstrated.

Where was the announcement made that Iraq would use WMD on us? I believe Saddam has said from the outset we will be subject to a mighty jihad but I don't recall his threat to use biological or chemical weapons. Could you cite that please? What the Iraqis did say, and even Ari called it a Catch 22 today, is that if America doesn't demonstrate in some way that it won't override the UN and launch a unilateral invasion, it would be stupid to destroy its missles.

There have not been hundreds of jailings of terrorists. A couple thousand people have been detained since 9/11. The number who have been brought to trial, even formally indicted, is miniscule. Thanks to the courts, most of these people have been freed, John Ashcroft nothwithstanding.

Your fantasy about history is intriguing though, were it true, America would have long ago passed into definition as an axis-of-evil type power itself. Remember? We supported bin Laden and Saddam, even when the latter and the TAliban were committing atrocities. Good thing nobody powerful rose up against us. Or maybe that's what 9/11 is partly about.

 

[ariolanine]

First of all, I believe almost everyone is "anti-war." People that are supporting military action in Iraq believe this is a just war. I've heard and observed some of the most ridiculous shit from the left this weekend.

1. There are people saying that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction while Iraq stated this weekend that they would unleash their weapons of mass destruction on our troops if they attacked us. Huh?

2. There was an "anti-war" leader on Fox this weekend saying that we need to be careful with our treatment of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed because we might piss off al-Qaida which would lead to more attacks. Huh?

3. The "anti-war" human shields left Iraq because Sadaam wouldn't let them protect schools and hospitals, etc.. Rather they were to be used to protect power plants and such. IDIOTS!

Say what you want about the administration's Iraq policy. But it can't be denied that intellect resides on the side of Bush and not with these moronic "anti-war" people. Its time to take care of business and that requires a risk that Bush, myself and most American's are willing to take.

Just look at Stalin, the exectutions in Cambodia and many other world attrocities and its clear the when good people do nothing that evil will prevail. Its time for everyone to sack up and take action. North Korea comes next. It is clear now that when Bush made his axis of evil speech that he meant to take these countries down. Any country that poses even a remote threat to us will be taken out and we will be safer. Terrorist cells do no operate well on the run and they are hiding in fear and basically can't communicate through email, cell or many other forms of communication without the fear of getting caught. Since 9/11 hundreds of terrorists have been jailed if not thousands. We haven't caught Osama yet, but does anyone doubt that he will be captured or dead soon. More power to Bush. Its time to use our stong hand to show the world once again not to fuck with us. I think the world forgot that during the Clinton administration when he basically kicked the can to the Bush admin. I think Clinton basically deferred problems so that they didn't happen on his watch. I think Bush doesn't give a shit how the public perceives him or his legacy. He's doing what is right.

I'm waiting on the "Bush sucks cock" and other stupid responses from bleeding hearts.

Karma to you.

 

[muscle_geek]

Your fantasy about history is intriguing though, were it true, America would have long ago passed into definition as an axis-of-evil type power itself. Remember? We supported bin Laden and Saddam, even when the latter and the TAliban were committing atrocities. Good thing nobody powerful rose up against us. Or maybe that's what 9/11 is partly about. [/B][/QUOTE]

I understand completely that the US has made foreign policy blunders like you mentioned. However we would never be defined as an axis of evil because our attempts (and sometimes they have failed) are to primarily protect the US and to promote peace in the world. Is this the goal of Sadaam, N. Korea, Hitler, Stalin, etc... Evil is evil. We have the power to dominate, yet we haven't. Here we are imposing our will because there is a clear threat to world stability if Iraq and N. Korea continue to gain more power in their regions.

 

[musclebrains]

Your fantasy about history is intriguing though, were it true, America would have long ago passed into definition as an axis-of-evil type power itself. Remember? We supported bin Laden and Saddam, even when the latter and the TAliban were committing atrocities. Good thing nobody powerful rose up against us. Or maybe that's what 9/11 is partly about.

I understand completely that the US has made foreign policy blunders like you mentioned. However we would never be defined as an axis of evil because our attempts (and sometimes they have failed) are to primarily protect the US and to promote peace in the world. Is this the goal of Sadaam, N. Korea, Hitler, Stalin, etc... Evil is evil. We have the power to dominate, yet we haven't. Here we are imposing our will because there is a clear threat to world stability if Iraq and N. Korea continue to gain more power in their regions.

WE promote peace in the world?

It may surprise you to learn that the US has conducted over 200 unilaterial offensive military actions since the middle of the last century. (These have been carefully recorded by the Federation of American Scientists and do not even include our nation's frequent support, via the CIA, of murderous dictators -- like Hussein and bin Laden. I presume you are saying that this is okay if it "protects" the US, right?) These are not "blunders." They are calcluated efforts to impose power and treat the rest of the world like our personal resource.

The only thing the US is "protecting" in its invasion of Iraq is its interest in controlling the oil economy.

Did you know...

That the Bush family made its original fortune by financing the company that developed the Nazi death camps, that George Sr.'s father's fortunes were seized by the US Congress under the Trading with the Enemies Act?

Things don't change so much. Both lviing Georges have been deeply involved with companies that represented the bin Laden family.

Did you know that the Japanese made many attempts to surrender before Truman decided to nuke them and that it is well documented that his real agenda was to sacrifice the Japanese in order to terrorize Stalin? (They won't teach you this in school, boys! But ask your professors, the ones not teaching you directly out of cozy textbooks.)

Did you know that it was the US, not Stalinist Russia, that withdrew from Yalta and Potsdam and pushed for the creation of a western German state? Russia, like the rest of Europe, opposed it. Of course, we are taught that it was Stalin, not Truman who abandoned all of our wartime agreements. You may read the surprisingly honest memoirs of Dean Acheson, Truman's sec. of state, to learn more about the way the rhetoric of the cold war was intended to whip Americans into a panic to support military dominance. "...we did make our points clearer than truth," Acheson wrote to excuse the same lie we hear now: that our national security is at risk in Iraq.

As for the business about N. Korea -- terrifying that they have the bomb, isn't it? But until America and the other "nuclear powers" cease entertaining the delusion that they, sitting on their arsenals, can insist that other nations disarm themselves, we can expect further proliferation. Hitler's rumore bomb begat America's bomb, which begat Russia's which begat China's, which begat India's, which begat Pakistan's. Israel is sitting on an arsenal and that, as we see, has inspired Iran. The policy of "deterrence" only insures continued proliferation.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Some people get it some people don't! All this geo political bs peacenik and warmonger fighting doesnt mean jack! You are misguided and uninformed! People of the world are mostly "Sheeple" they don't know any better! They don't know what the fuck is going on! And those that do are very powerful and the others are fighting for that power!

 

[ariolanine]

That the Bush family made its original fortune by financing the company that developed the Nazi death camps, that George Sr.'s father's fortunes were seized by the US Congress under the Trading with the Enemies Act?

Things don't change so much. Both lviing Georges have been deeply involved with companies that represented the bin Laden family.

Did you know that the Japanese made many attempts to surrender before Truman decided to nuke them and that it is well documented that his real agenda was to sacrifice the Japanese in order to terrorize Stalin? (They won't teach you this in school, boys! But ask your professors, the ones not teaching you directly out of cozy textbooks.)

Your statements about the Bush familiy's history are unsubstantiated internet rumors. The statement about the Japs is absolutely ridiculous. If you insist that it is true, please provide sources. As for "asking your professors," that is hilarious. The last person I would expect to profess the truth is a college professor.

 

[muscle_geek]

I understand completely that the US has made foreign policy blunders like you mentioned. However we would never be defined as an axis of evil because our attempts (and sometimes they have failed) are to primarily protect the US and to promote peace in the world. Is this the goal of Sadaam, N. Korea, Hitler, Stalin, etc... Evil is evil. We have the power to dominate, yet we haven't. Here we are imposing our will because there is a clear threat to world stability if Iraq and N. Korea continue to gain more power in their regions.

WE promote peace in the world?

It may surprise you to learn that the US has conducted over 200 unilaterial offensive military actions since the middle of the last century. (These have been carefully recorded by the Federation of American Scientists and do not even include our nation's frequent support, via the CIA, of murderous dictators -- like Hussein and bin Laden. I presume you are saying that this is okay if it "protects" the US, right?) These are not "blunders." They are calcluated efforts to impose power and treat the rest of the world like our personal resource.

The only thing the US is "protecting" in its invasion of Iraq is its interest in controlling the oil economy.

Did you know...

That the Bush family made its original fortune by financing the company that developed the Nazi death camps, that George Sr.'s father's fortunes were seized by the US Congress under the Trading with the Enemies Act?

Things don't change so much. Both lviing Georges have been deeply involved with companies that represented the bin Laden family.

Did you know that the Japanese made many attempts to surrender before Truman decided to nuke them and that it is well documented that his real agenda was to sacrifice the Japanese in order to terrorize Stalin? (They won't teach you this in school, boys! But ask your professors, the ones not teaching you directly out of cozy textbooks.)

Did you know that it was the US, not Stalinist Russia, that withdrew from Yalta and Potsdam and pushed for the creation of a western German state? Russia, like the rest of Europe, opposed it. Of course, we are taught that it was Stalin, not Truman who abandoned all of our wartime agreements. You may read the surprisingly honest memoirs of Dean Acheson, Truman's sec. of state, to learn more about the way the rhetoric of the cold war was intended to whip Americans into a panic to support military dominance. "...we did make our points clearer than truth," Acheson wrote to excuse the same lie we hear now: that our national security is at risk in Iraq.

As for the business about N. Korea -- terrifying that they have the bomb, isn't it? But until America and the other "nuclear powers" cease entertaining the delusion that they, sitting on their arsenals, can insist that other nations disarm themselves, we can expect further proliferation. Hitler's rumore bomb begat America's bomb, which begat Russia's which begat China's, which begat India's, which begat Pakistan's. Israel is sitting on an arsenal and that, as we see, has inspired Iran. The policy of "deterrence" only insures continued proliferation. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are obviously intelligent. I'll give you that. But you might be too smart. Your views of the Bush family are almost like the six stages of Kevin Bacon. You're trying real hard to tie them together. You are wrong. Do you think the press protects Bush? They have looked for every shred of dirt they could find on him and they didn't get much past the fact that he was an alcoholic and wouldn't answer the drug question. There was never a tie to Nazism and I would say that there are not many people of power that would come out as clean as Bush did by intense media scrutiny.

Further, you continually bash America for her actions in the past. We're not a perfect nation by any stretch of the imagination, but we've made ourselves into the only superpower by our actions and countries fear us. No nation can even begin to think of taking us on militarily. We might have made some mistakes in aiding dicatators and then regretting it. I think our intentions were solid even if they were wrong. And this spans throughout the entire history of our nation. Also remember we do more to feed the world than any other country in history. The only real threat to us is terrorism. I think you would agree that terrorists are on the run. Developing a major plot with the pressure we're putting on them will be almost impossible.

We are doing what is right in Iraq. The Iraqi people think we are as does the rest of the world (unless they have business ties to Iraq and Sadaam). All will be proved when we effect a change of regime and the world becomes a little safer.

 

[musclebrains]

Your statements about the Bush familiy's history are unsubstantiated internet rumors. The statement about the Japs is absolutely ridiculous. If you insist that it is true, please provide sources. As for "asking your professors," that is hilarious. The last person I would expect to profess the truth is a college professor.

Vidal's "The Golden Age" summarizes a large body of work that alleges that FDR provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to arouse the isolation-minded American public (60-80 percent opposed war)and that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were motivated as I described.

You may also consult any number of books that mention Admiral Nimitz, in the Pacific, and Dwight Eisenhower in this regard. Both opposed the nuclear bombings because, as they argued, the Japanese had already lost the war and were attempting to negotiate a surrender following the May '45 bombing of Tokyo. Eisenhower also opposed the bombings on humanitarian grounds.

You can also read Joseph C. Grew's memoir, "Turblent Era..." He was ambassador to Japan...You can read Truman's admission that the Emperor wrote him July 18, 1945, "looking for peace," in Truman's words. (Too late!)

Somehow I suspect these references will not impress you.

 

[2Thick]

Somehow I suspect these references will not impress you.

They look at your posts like a dog looks at a toilet. With awe, fear and confusion.

 

[ariolanine]

Vidal's "The Golden Age" summarizes a large body of work that alleges that FDR provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to arouse the isolation-minded American public (60-80 percent opposed war)and that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were motivated as I described.

You may also consult any number of books that mention Admiral Nimitz, in the Pacific, and Dwight Eisenhower in this regard. Both opposed the nuclear bombings because, as they argued, the Japanese had already lost the war and were attempting to negotiate a surrender following the May '45 bombing of Tokyo. Eisenhower also opposed the bombings on humanitarian grounds.

You can also read Joseph C. Grew's memoir, "Turblent Era..." He was ambassador to Japan...You can read Truman's admission that the Emperor wrote him July 18, 1945, "looking for peace," in Truman's words. (Too late!)

Somehow I suspect these references will not impress you.

I have never read anything by Grew but I suspect he is a worthless source. This is because he is listed after Gore Vidal, an admitted leftist nut with an intense deep hatred for everything Bush. You lefties really make me laugh. Your main argument is based on the psycho babble of someone who hates our country. I guess that shows where you stand. By the way, Ike never mentions in his biography that he was against the atomic bomb. You people love to revise history. So please tell me about the alien cover up and the bilderburgers. Are the X-Files true? Hitler was really a terminator sent back in time by Dubya, right?

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"I understand completely that the US has made foreign policy blunders like you mentioned. However we would never be defined as an axis of evil because our attempts (and sometimes they have failed) are to primarily protect the US and to promote peace in the world. Is this the goal of Sadaam, N. Korea, Hitler, Stalin, etc... Evil is evil. We have the power to dominate, yet we haven't. Here we are imposing our will because there is a clear threat to world stability if Iraq and N. Korea continue to gain more power in their regions."

I would be VERY careful in defining U.S. intentions as "good" versus evil. Remember, U.S. history is rife with less than good intentions. Consider that removal of native americans was official U.S. policy, hence the term "wars of indian removal." It was also official policy to deplete the buffalo to starve the Indians onto reservations and steal their land. It was also official U.S. policy to trade small pox infected blankets with the Indians, knowing well that it was a deadly plague to them. This makes the U.S. one of the "pioneers" of biological warfare although we are not the first or only nation to do so. And I suspose in your good versus evil thinking, we were doing a favor to the indians by having committed an official policy and act of genocide. And I might mention, we were FAR more successful at it than the Germans who murdered seven million European Jews, leftists, gypsies and homosexuals in their notorious death camps. Not to mention the six million jews the Russians murdered in pograms under Stalin (of course we seldom hear about this). The U.S., at least so far, is the only nation to drop, not just one but two nuclear bombs on anyone. But I guess in your line of reasoning, "the end justifies the means." We also interred Japanese Americans under inhumane conditions in the extreme desert heat in "detention camps"--little more than American concentration camps out of fear of sympathizing for Japan. Many of these "Japanese Americans" were actually born here. Their property and businesses were confiscated as well and until very recently, they were never compensated. The survivors got some paltry amount of cash in repayment for this just a couple of years ago. It seems that now we are following the same course of strategy. This has nothing to do with right or wrong or installing democracy in Iraq or saving the Iraqi people from another third rate despot that we helped in the first place. Like Afghanistan shows, we have no interest in what happens to the people there. We removed the Taliban which we indirectly helped gain power. The so called "northern alliance" was the party that was ousted. Just prior to 9/11 the U.S. embassador along with an oil company rep interested in building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to be able to access Caspian Sea oil from Russia told the Taliban if they didn't get onboard and approve the building of the pipeline, they will have a war on their hands. And guess what? Now we have reinstalled the "northern alliance" and guess what else? Under the Taliban, Afghanistan which was the world's foremost grower of opium poppies for heroin, was forced to shut down all production. The Taliban agressively enforced this as it was against thier beliefs. Now that the "Northern Alliance" is back in power, opium production is returning to pre Taliban levels. So much for the war on drugs! And now Afghansitan has returned to its traditional state of tribal warfare and slaughtering each other the way that Afghanis have always done. So what did we do to make it better? Did we even try to make a difference? Or did we just forget about things once we got what we wanted? The Iraqi situation is just another typical power grab/struggle and all kinds of evils are perpetrated in these sorts of control issues. Most people are WAY too clueless to get it and fall for the typical good versus evil propaganda. And yes, the mainstream media might just as well be an arm of an official Bush administration propoganda ministry. I have never seen in my life and attempt to whitewash a president like what is going on right now. If you choose to read such "radical" journalism as the "London Times" or any of the European or Australian press, you will see quite a different story and learn many things that you NEVER hear reported by the U.S. Corporate owned media. Just like the Creel commission in the first World War trying to whip the Americans into war fever in a largely pascifist and isolationist populations that saw no reason to get involved in another European war. After recruiting the media to promote the image of German "Huns" commiting all kinds of atrocities like blowing off the arms of Belgain infants, not like the other side wasn't doing the same, afterall it WAS a war and this happens regardless of what they want you to believe, the American public finally came around. Even president Wilson, at the time, admitted that "every schoolboy knows that wars are fought for economics and markets" in other words for power and control.

I get the usual saturation of the mainstream "conservative" media as does everyone else. What differentiates a social liberal from a conservative is that a conservative accepts the propaganda and follows the goose stepping marching orders. A liberal tends to put a question mark after everything and tries to find out what is REALLY going on. And frankly, it is WAY uglier than you seem to realize. I suggest that you read www.salon.com for another view point. Afterall, I read conservative articles too to try to understand where they are coming from. I also respect that we live in a somewhat free country and at least for a little while longer, we are all entitled to have our opinions and we don't have to agree and that actually is OK.

As for the Bush family involvement, Senator Prescott Bush, George W.'s grandfather did in fact have the profits that congress could demonstrate that he made seized from his sale of contriband to the NAZI's. He was a U.S. Senator from Connecticut at the time. Anywone else would have been convicted for high treason, but not the Bush family. They have never played by the rules. Just like Noel Bush in Florida, Jeb's drug addictied daughter. She got rehab rather than prosecuted under Florida's mandatory drug sentancing laws which would have put her away in prison for twenty years mandatory for her first offense. No one else has the option of rehab but goes right to prison and that would include use/possession of some of the drugs that guys/women on this site MIGHT be using or have in their possession. Which also brings me to the point that it was George Bush senior who signed into law making anabolic drugs schedule III and thus criminalizing their use/possession. This was in opposition of the entire panel of experts from the FDA and the DEA that unanimously testified AGAINST making them schedule III at the time. Something else to consider as to how the Bush family has improved the quality of YOUR life. It is often said that the apple does not fall far from the tree. Think about it.

And if you feel so strongly that the war is justified, why don't you voluteer for military duty and put your money where your mouth is? I volunteered for military duty and served two times around and have TWO honorable discharges and yeah, I have been SHOT at and damn near hit on several occasions. So what have you done for the cause?

 

[muscle_geek]

Somehow I suspect these references will not impress you. [/B][/QUOTE]

Nope. Not impressed. You're basing your position upon only references that support your opinion. It seems like you believe every conspiracy theory ever written.

 

[2Thick]

"I understand completely that the US has made foreign policy blunders like you mentioned. However we would never be defined as an axis of evil because our attempts (and sometimes they have failed) are to primarily protect the US and to promote peace in the world. Is this the goal of Sadaam, N. Korea, Hitler, Stalin, etc... Evil is evil. We have the power to dominate, yet we haven't. Here we are imposing our will because there is a clear threat to world stability if Iraq and N. Korea continue to gain more power in their regions."

I would be VERY careful in defining U.S. intentions as "good" versus evil. Remember, U.S. history is rife with less than good intentions. Consider that removal of native americans was official U.S. policy, hence the term "wars of indian removal." It was also official policy to deplete the buffalo to starve the Indians onto reservations and steal their land. It was also official U.S. policy to trade small pox infected blankets with the Indians, knowing well that it was a deadly plague to them. This makes the U.S. one of the "pioneers" of biological warfare although we are not the first or only nation to do so. And I suspose in your good versus evil thinking, we were doing a favor to the indians by having committed an official policy and act of genocide. And I might mention, we were FAR more successful at it than the Germans who murdered seven million European Jews, leftists, gypsies and homosexuals in their notorious death camps. Not to mention the six million jews the Russians murdered in pograms under Stalin (of course we seldom hear about this). The U.S., at least so far, is the only nation to drop, not just one but two nuclear bombs on anyone. But I guess in your line of reasoning, "the end justifies the means." We also interred Japanese Americans under inhumane conditions in the extreme desert heat in "detention camps"--little more than American concentration camps out of fear of sympathizing for Japan. Many of these "Japanese Americans" were actually born here. Their property and businesses were confiscated as well and until very recently, they were never compensated. The survivors got some paltry amount of cash in repayment for this just a couple of years ago. It seems that now we are following the same course of strategy. This has nothing to do with right or wrong or installing democracy in Iraq or saving the Iraqi people from another third rate despot that we helped in the first place. Like Afghanistan shows, we have no interest in what happens to the people there. We removed the Taliban which we indirectly helped gain power. The so called "northern alliance" was the party that was ousted. Just prior to 9/11 the U.S. embassador along with an oil company rep interested in building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to be able to access Caspian Sea oil from Russia told the Taliban if they didn't get onboard and approve the building of the pipeline, they will have a war on their hands. And guess what? Now we have reinstalled the "northern alliance" and guess what else? Under the Taliban, Afghanistan which was the world's foremost grower of opium poppies for heroin, was forced to shut down all production. The Taliban agressively enforced this as it was against thier beliefs. Now that the "Northern Alliance" is back in power, opium production is returning to pre Taliban levels. So much for the war on drugs! And now Afghansitan has returned to its traditional state of tribal warfare and slaughtering each other the way that Afghanis have always done. So what did we do to make it better? Did we even try to make a difference? Or did we just forget about things once we got what we wanted? The Iraqi situation is just another typical power grab/struggle and all kinds of evils are perpetrated in these sorts of control issues. Most people are WAY too clueless to get it and fall for the typical good versus evil propaganda. And yes, the mainstream media might just as well be an arm of an official Bush administration propoganda ministry. I have never seen in my life and attempt to whitewash a president like what is going on right now. If you choose to read such "radical" journalism as the "London Times" or any of the European or Australian press, you will see quite a different story and learn many things that you NEVER hear reported by the U.S. Corporate owned media. Just like the Creel commission in the first World War trying to whip the Americans into war fever in a largely pascifist and isolationist populations that saw no reason to get involved in another European war. After recruiting the media to promote the image of German "Huns" commiting all kinds of atrocities like blowing off the arms of Belgain infants, not like the other side wasn't doing the same, afterall it WAS a war and this happens regardless of what they want you to believe, the American public finally came around. Even president Wilson, at the time, admitted that "every schoolboy knows that wars are fought for economics and markets" in other words for power and control.

I get the usual saturation of the mainstream "conservative" media as does everyone else. What differentiates a social liberal from a conservative is that a conservative accepts the propaganda and follows the goose stepping marching orders. A liberal tends to put a question mark after everything and tries to find out what is REALLY going on. And frankly, it is WAY uglier than you seem to realize. I suggest that you read www.salon.com for another view point. Afterall, I read conservative articles too to try to understand where they are coming from. I also respect that we live in a somewhat free country and at least for a little while longer, we are all entitled to have our opinions and we don't have to agree and that actually is OK.

As for the Bush family involvement, Senator Prescott Bush, George W.'s grandfather did in fact have the profits that congress could demonstrate that he made seized from his sale of contriband to the NAZI's. He was a U.S. Senator from Connecticut at the time. Anywone else would have been convicted for high treason, but not the Bush family. They have never played by the rules. Just like Noel Bush in Florida, Jeb's drug addictied daughter. She got rehab rather than prosecuted under Florida's mandatory drug sentancing laws which would have put her away in prison for twenty years mandatory for her first offense. No one else has the option of rehab but goes right to prison and that would include use/possession of some of the drugs that guys/women on this site MIGHT be using or have in their possession. Which also brings me to the point that it was George Bush senior who signed into law making anabolic drugs schedule III and thus criminalizing their use/possession. This was in opposition of the entire panel of experts from the FDA and the DEA that unanimously testified AGAINST making them schedule III at the time. Something else to consider as to how the Bush family has improved the quality of YOUR life. It is often said that the apple does not fall far from the tree. Think about it.

And if you feel so strongly that the war is justified, why don't you voluteer for military duty and put your money where your mouth is? I volunteered for military duty and served two times around and have TWO honorable discharges and yeah, I have been SHOT at and damn near hit on several occasions. So what have you done for the cause?

KARMA for YOU

 

[ariolanine]

"

I get the usual saturation of the mainstream "conservative" media as does everyone else. What differentiates a social liberal from a conservative is that a conservative accepts the propaganda and follows the goose stepping marching orders. A liberal tends to put a question mark after everything and tries to find out what is REALLY going on.

That is without a doubt the funniest thing I have read in a long time. You believe the exact opposite of what is true and accepted as fact. You are clearly dillusional.

 

[muscle_geek]

[And if you feel so strongly that the war is justified, why don't you voluteer for military duty and put your money where your mouth is? I volunteered for military duty and served two times around and have TWO honorable discharges and yeah, I have been SHOT at and damn near hit on several occasions. So what have you done for the cause? [/B][/QUOTE]

I served six years as Ranger in the Army during the Gulf War. If you look at my previous posts I talk about my experiences. I wasn't shot, but don't question what I have done.

I think we need to come up with a definition of evil. Throughout this thread there have been many statements that America is historically evil. If you are right, then I contend that every country in the world is evil. And if everyone is evil. then no one is evil. Like I said before we are not a perfect nation, but we are the most just, worthy superpower nation (or empire) that has ever existed. I don't remember other nations going to the humanitarian level that we do around the world. We could conquer the world with our power but we don't. So whatever we've done, bad or good, that made us a superpower was a good thing because we're the only country in the world that can handle this burden.

All this Bush stuff is simply bullshit. If you can tie Bush to the Nazi's in anyway, its a stretch. Unless you're going to continue these conspiracy theories and say the Geroge Bush Sr. is a Nazi. I guess Bush Jr. is an alien, or maybe he shot JFK. Who gives a shit if his kids got in trouble with drugs or alcohol. I'm a parent and every parent in here knows that they can't completely control their kids no matter how well you raised them.

 

[2Thick]

I think we need to come up with a definition of evil. Throughout this thread there have been many statements that America is historically evil. If you are right, then I contend that every country in the world is evil. And if everyone is evil. then no one is evil. Like I said before we are not a perfect nation, but we are the most just, worthy superpower nation (or empire) that has ever existed. I don't remember other nations going to the humanitarian level that we do around the world. We could conquer the world with our power but we don't. So whatever we've done, bad or good, that made us a superpower was a good thing because we're the only country in the world that can handle this burden.

All this Bush stuff is simply bullshit. If you can tie Bush to the Nazi's in anyway, its a stretch. Unless you're going to continue these conspiracy theories and say the Geroge Bush Sr. is a Nazi. I guess Bush Jr. is an alien, or maybe he shot JFK. Who gives a shit if his kids got in trouble with drugs or alcohol. I'm a parent and every parent in here knows that they can't completely control their kids no matter how well you raised them.

Welcome to my ignore list.

By ignoring the whole message because some of it goes against what you think, you are officially not worth reading anymore.

 

[muscle_geek]

Welcome to my ignore list.

By ignoring the whole message because some of it goes against what you think, you are officially not worth reading anymore.

I didn't ignore the post. I do agree with the part that references what we did to Native Americans. Its was a truly genocidal act. I was just trying to stay at least on the post-civil war era. But ignore me if you like. Most of this thread has been open debate without name calling or other absurdities. But if you think that I'm ignoring because I don't yell "Eureka" by some rather weak arguments, then ignore me and continue on with your conspiracy theories.

 

[FreakMonster]

BUSH SUCKS COCK!!!

Now where's my karma Bitches? LOL

 

[gymtime]

I didn't ignore the post. I do agree with the part that references what we did to Native Americans. Its was a truly genocidal act. I was just trying to stay at least on the post-civil war era. But ignore me if you like. Most of this thread has been open debate without name calling or other absurdities. But if you think that I'm ignoring because I don't yell "Eureka" by some rather weak arguments, then ignore me and continue on with your conspiracy theories.

Weak arguements? At least they were were better thought out than your "that's bullshit" defense. The idea that any country, any entity is pure evil or pure good is asinine. If I had to pick a country to hold the biggest stick, I'd pick the US. But I also know that we act in our own interests first, for the benefit of the rest of the world second.

 

[atlantabiolab]

But I also know that we act in our own interests first, for the benefit of the rest of the world second.

Do not try and correlate me to the pro-Bushies, but please explain why we should act against OUR interests? What valid argument could you give to act contrary to OUR interests? This argument continues to be repeated and because of its irrational nature, demands explanation.

 

[gymtime]

Do not try and correlate me to the pro-Bushies, but please explain why we should act against OUR interests? What valid argument could you give to act contrary to OUR interests? This argument continues to be repeated and because of its irrational nature, demands explanation.

You miss my point. It never occurred to me that such a statement would be taken so painfully literally, but fine.

Who said anything about acting against our own interests? All countries, all people act in their own interests, even often when doing seemingly selfless work. The point was that the US is not always the great saint we purport to be. We will crack a few heads to get what we want, and sometimes those heads belong to people who will fight back.

I'm not making any judgements toward anyone. NO ONE comes out of this clean. The idea that the US is all benevolent and kind, and that Iraq is pure evil is ludicrous.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"That is without a doubt the funniest thing I have read in a long time. You believe the exact opposite of what is true and accepted as fact. You are clearly dillusional. "

How is the concept of a "liberal media" true? Let's have some facts here. Name some specifics to justify your point subsequent to around 1980 to present (very recent would be the most preferred)? Seems they tear every Democrat from limb to limb but when a republican does something there is barely a whisper. Seems to me that they ripped Clinton apart for smoking a joint. However, Bush snorted cocaine and got busted and had to do one year of community service in Houston, Texas for it but they didn't seem to mind THAT. And the ragged about the fact that Clinton protested against the Vietnam War and took a legal college deferrment (honestly, which would you have done, gone to serve in a war you disagreed with and were a conscientious objector against or taken a Rhodes Scholarship and gotten an education) and the media branded him as a draft dodger. However, NONE of Bush's sons (there's more than just Jeb and George, in case you didn't know) served in Vietnam even though they were ALL of the correct age to serve and NONE were conscientious objectors either. Let's see when George pulled politically strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard while the waiting list was over a year long of guys trying to avoid Vietnam and get in (they were at 115% strength) he got right in. And even better, they spent $1 million of taxpayers money to train him on a plane that was being phased out at THAT time so there was NO chance that he could possibly be sent ANYWHERE. On top of it, he went AWOL for more than a year and couldn't even fulfill that minimal of an obligation when it was silver spoon fed to him and consequently discharged without ANY form of punishment under the UCMJ for being AWOL or deserting his post, etc. This makes George W. a draft dodger in the truist sense of the word but the media? Hardly a rumble. It just got dropped like all the other "dirt" in his life. Did you know that Laura Bush was CONVICTED of vehicular homocide for running over her ex boyfriend with her SUV? Where is the media on that? I don't hear anything. If Hilllary had done it, we would NEVER hear the end of it. And so why is the concept of a "liberal media" accepted as fact? Is it because republican propogandists like the notorious draft evader, Rush Limbaugh (he had a "boil" on his butt--Kind of makes you wonder what he actually had and what kind of bizarre sexual act he was doing to get THAT doesn't it?) and Karl Rove, chief strategist and Ari Fleishman, chief propoganda minister for the regime told you so? Or did the all powerful and all knowing "THEY" say so? I think this just points out what I said about conservatives accepting the propoganda and following marching orders in goose stepping lock step. A social liberal tends to put a question mark after everything and investigate to try to find out the FACTS. That is one of the major differences. Conservatives like you, like being told what to do and what to believe so you don't have to think because that requires energy and effort. Liberals tend to read and think and do the homework because they DON'T like being told what to do without understanding the reason why they should do it first and THEN they'll decide for themselves if they will do it. I guess that some people are more individualistic in this regard. But fortunately we are NOT all the same or it would indeed be a pretty dull world!!!

So now let's look at the facts. Motivation can usually be determined by who owns what and why they may be pushing for something (i.e. what's in it for them?). It is well understood that FOX NEWS is admittedly FAR right wing and if you can't figure out something that is THAT obvious, then you are a true fascist, in lock step with all the rest of the spoon fed mindless propoganda and do not have enough of a functioning brain to bother conversing with. Now let's see, NBC is owned by MicroSoft Corporation, which just got off the hook on an ugly anti trust lawsuit started under the Clinton administration with a settlement that gave away the whole farm under the Bush administration. Interestingly, they were talking to the Bush people before the election so what do you think that they might have been talking about? So who do you think that THEY prefered to win the election, they certainly KNEW they were not headed for a "good deal" with the Clinton Administration? And then there is the case of General Electric Corporation. They also own one of the major "big three" networks and I will let you do some research to find out which one because if I told you, that would be too easy. During the Bush campaign, Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric was criticized for ordering his network to firmly back Bush as it was STRONGLY in GE's interest that he win (does the terms defense contracts and corporate tax cuts mean anything to you?). Jack Welch fired a number of editor's and newspeople that were not in lockstep with his prime directive. A direct quote in response to this was "I see nothing wrong with a Corporation marshalling all of its available resources to further its interests" or should we say "special" interests. He also was quoted as saying that "the American people don't need freedom, all they need is a few more video games to keep them amused and we can make them for them." Sort of let's you know your relevance in the scheme of right wing thinking doesn't it? Also sounds a little reminiscent of the so called "patriot act I and II"--if you can't see that connection, you are just WAY too mired in propoganda to educate. Did you know that on the "inside political circles" strategists refer to people that don't question, like you, as the "bewildered herd"--they see you as just a viewpoint to shape through propoganda because most people will not make ANY effort to check things out for themselves--that term applies to what is also referred to as the "inattentive American public." And, I might add, this particular network owned by GE called the race in favor of Bush in Florida LONG before any other networks did and it was later admitted that THAT was deliberate to support Bush and create "momentum."

Interestingly, the media will generally NOT run the advertisements, with a couple of exceptions, that promote SUV's as supporting terrorism and oil consumption, not to mention pollution of the air as they don't even have to comply with Federal Clean Air Standards like cars do (I let me guess, you drive an SUV because it makes you feel "safe" and everyone else be damned). That is because the big automakers don't want them too and they are afraid because of advertising revenues. So if you follow the money flow you can get an idea of who is controlling what and who's really pulling the strings. Money is power--it is a long known fact that is not likely to change anytime soon. So if someone wants to run an advertisement that has a contrary view to the corporate view and the corporations say "no" because they own the media (all of it to speak of), then where is the "freedom of speech" in that? There is none. Only censored "approved" speech that fits in lockstep with the message. This was also a problem when a group that was against the extreme commercialism wanted to air a couple of "buy nothing day" advertisements on TV (ever see the documentary "affluenza?") and couldn't get any network willing to air their "viewpoint" even though they had raised the money to pay for the going rate for the air time. Again, it is not a part of the "approved message."

Just for your edification so you know what Fascism REALLY is since I doubt that you could actually define it and I have generally found that a lot of people can't define it but like to use the word, I will quote a NOTED authority on the subject "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini. And I guess that HE would KNOW now wouldn't he? Sound familiar? Sort of reminds me of the current administration. They sort of didn't like it when the German foreign ministered said that the Bush administration used tactics similar to what the NAZI's did in the 1930's when coming to power. Bush said he would have her job for that (maybe it was hitting too close to home as the Germans of all people OUGHT to know what NAZI tactics are!) and even though Herr Schroeder ran on an anti American platform (Bush's approval rating in Germany is less than 19% in case you even care) there was sufficient arm twisting of the German government to force her to resign. What ever happened to "tolerating" opinions of others. They used to be allowed to have them and even to discuss them. It seems since Bush came to power, there has been a notable lack of freedom of discussion without fear of recourse. This too sounds and feels pretty fascist to me as well. So I guess it wasn't just the German foreign minister that caught the drift.

Be that as it may, I am sure you will just go back to drooling mindlessly in a corner while listening to Rush Limbaugh and all his Fascist diatribes. So it really doesn't make any difference what I say or what sources or references that I quote, you, like most others, will continue to believe the propoganda machine and their mindless mantras like "liberal media" and go on being part of the "bewildered herd." The unfortunate thing is that you drag the rest of us along unwillingly.

 

[ariolanine]

"That is without a doubt the funniest thing I have read in a long time. You believe the exact opposite of what is true and accepted as fact. You are clearly dillusional. "

How is the concept of a "liberal media" true? Let's have some facts here. Name some specifics to justify your point subsequent to around 1980 to present (very recent would be the most preferred)? Seems they tear every Democrat from limb to limb but when a republican does something there is barely a whisper. Seems to me that they ripped Clinton apart for smoking a joint. However, Bush snorted cocaine and got busted and had to do one year of community service in Houston, Texas for it but they didn't seem to mind THAT. And the ragged about the fact that Clinton protested against the Vietnam War and took a legal college deferrment (honestly, which would you have done, gone to serve in a war you disagreed with and were a conscientious objector against or taken a Rhodes Scholarship and gotten an education) and the media branded him as a draft dodger. However, NONE of Bush's sons (there's more than just Jeb and George, in case you didn't know) served in Vietnam even though they were ALL of the correct age to serve and NONE were conscientious objectors either. Let's see when George pulled politically strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard while the waiting list was over a year long of guys trying to avoid Vietnam and get in (they were at 115% strength) he got right in. And even better, they spent $1 million of taxpayers money to train him on a plane that was being phased out at THAT time so there was NO chance that he could possibly be sent ANYWHERE. On top of it, he went AWOL for more than a year and couldn't even fulfill that minimal of an obligation when it was silver spoon fed to him and consequently discharged without ANY form of punishment under the UCMJ for being AWOL or deserting his post, etc. This makes George W. a draft dodger in the truist sense of the word but the media? Hardly a rumble. It just got dropped like all the other "dirt" in his life. Did you know that Laura Bush was CONVICTED of vehicular homocide for running over her ex boyfriend with her SUV? Where is the media on that? I don't hear anything. If Hilllary had done it, we would NEVER hear the end of it. And so why is the concept of a "liberal media" accepted as fact? Is it because republican propogandists like the notorious draft evader, Rush Limbaugh (he had a "boil" on his butt--Kind of makes you wonder what he actually had and what kind of bizarre sexual act he was doing to get THAT doesn't it?) and Karl Rove, chief strategist and Ari Fleishman, chief propoganda minister for the regime told you so? Or did the all powerful and all knowing "THEY" say so? I think this just points out what I said about conservatives accepting the propoganda and following marching orders in goose stepping lock step. A social liberal tends to put a question mark after everything and investigate to try to find out the FACTS. That is one of the major differences. Conservatives like you, like being told what to do and what to believe so you don't have to think because that requires energy and effort. Liberals tend to read and think and do the homework because they DON'T like being told what to do without understanding the reason why they should do it first and THEN they'll decide for themselves if they will do it. I guess that some people are more individualistic in this regard. But fortunately we are NOT all the same or it would indeed be a pretty dull world!!!

So now let's look at the facts. Motivation can usually be determined by who owns what and why they may be pushing for something (i.e. what's in it for them?). It is well understood that FOX NEWS is admittedly FAR right wing and if you can't figure out something that is THAT obvious, then you are a true fascist, in lock step with all the rest of the spoon fed mindless propoganda and do not have enough of a functioning brain to bother conversing with. Now let's see, NBC is owned by MicroSoft Corporation, which just got off the hook on an ugly anti trust lawsuit started under the Clinton administration with a settlement that gave away the whole farm under the Bush administration. Interestingly, they were talking to the Bush people before the election so what do you think that they might have been talking about? So who do you think that THEY prefered to win the election, they certainly KNEW they were not headed for a "good deal" with the Clinton Administration? And then there is the case of General Electric Corporation. They also own one of the major "big three" networks and I will let you do some research to find out which one because if I told you, that would be too easy. During the Bush campaign, Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric was criticized for ordering his network to firmly back Bush as it was STRONGLY in GE's interest that he win (does the terms defense contracts and corporate tax cuts mean anything to you?). Jack Welch fired a number of editor's and newspeople that were not in lockstep with his prime directive. A direct quote in response to this was "I see nothing wrong with a Corporation marshalling all of its available resources to further its interests" or should we say "special" interests. He also was quoted as saying that "the American people don't need freedom, all they need is a few more video games to keep them amused and we can make them for them." Sort of let's you know your relevance in the scheme of right wing thinking doesn't it? Also sounds a little reminiscent of the so called "patriot act I and II"--if you can't see that connection, you are just WAY too mired in propoganda to educate. Did you know that on the "inside political circles" strategists refer to people that don't question, like you, as the "bewildered herd"--they see you as just a viewpoint to shape through propoganda because most people will not make ANY effort to check things out for themselves--that term applies to what is also referred to as the "inattentive American public." And, I might add, this particular network owned by GE called the race in favor of Bush in Florida LONG before any other networks did and it was later admitted that THAT was deliberate to support Bush and create "momentum."

Interestingly, the media will generally NOT run the advertisements, with a couple of exceptions, that promote SUV's as supporting terrorism and oil consumption, not to mention pollution of the air as they don't even have to comply with Federal Clean Air Standards like cars do (I let me guess, you drive an SUV because it makes you feel "safe" and everyone else be damned). That is because the big automakers don't want them too and they are afraid because of advertising revenues. So if you follow the money flow you can get an idea of who is controlling what and who's really pulling the strings. Money is power--it is a long known fact that is not likely to change anytime soon. So if someone wants to run an advertisement that has a contrary view to the corporate view and the corporations say "no" because they own the media (all of it to speak of), then where is the "freedom of speech" in that? There is none. Only censored "approved" speech that fits in lockstep with the message. This was also a problem when a group that was against the extreme commercialism wanted to air a couple of "buy nothing day" advertisements on TV (ever see the documentary "affluenza?") and couldn't get any network willing to air their "viewpoint" even though they had raised the money to pay for the going rate for the air time. Again, it is not a part of the "approved message."

Just for your edification so you know what Fascism REALLY is since I doubt that you could actually define it and I have generally found that a lot of people can't define it but like to use the word, I will quote a NOTED authority on the subject "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini. And I guess that HE would KNOW now wouldn't he? Sound familiar? Sort of reminds me of the current administration. They sort of didn't like it when the German foreign ministered said that the Bush administration used tactics similar to what the NAZI's did in the 1930's when coming to power. Bush said he would have her job for that (maybe it was hitting too close to home as the Germans of all people OUGHT to know what NAZI tactics are!) and even though Herr Schroeder ran on an anti American platform (Bush's approval rating in Germany is less than 19% in case you even care) there was sufficient arm twisting of the German government to force her to resign. What ever happened to "tolerating" opinions of others. They used to be allowed to have them and even to discuss them. It seems since Bush came to power, there has been a notable lack of freedom of discussion without fear of recourse. This too sounds and feels pretty fascist to me as well. So I guess it wasn't just the German foreign minister that caught the drift.

Be that as it may, I am sure you will just go back to drooling mindlessly in a corner while listening to Rush Limbaugh and all his Fascist diatribes. So it really doesn't make any difference what I say or what sources or references that I quote, you, like most others, will continue to believe the propoganda machine and their mindless mantras like "liberal media" and go on being part of the "bewildered herd." The unfortunate thing is that you drag the rest of us along unwillingly.

Your first paragraph is dillusional. Your zeal for falsehoods is simply amazing. What are you? 15 years old?

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"I served six years as Ranger in the Army during the Gulf War. If you look at my previous posts I talk about my experiences. I wasn't shot, but don't question what I have done."

My hat is off to you. At least you did your part. I stand corrected and am not afraid to admit it. I am used to people being hawkish that have never served. Mostly, I don't want to hear from them as I think they are hypocrits and have no standing. It is easy to send someone else to do the dirty work when there is no danger of actually having to go for ones self. This is particularly epidemic among the hawkish republicans (George Bush senior being a notable exception as he served as a pilot in Vietnam and we all know the story--so I give him that).

"I think we need to come up with a definition of evil. Throughout this thread there have been many statements that America is historically evil. "

It seems that you, like Bush are the ones framing things as good versus evil. I merely said I would be VERY careful about going there. I do not consider the U.S. an evil country anymore than anyone else. Nor do I naively believe that our intentions are all that good most of the time. There is a HUGE part of self interest in what the U.S. does to be honest. Sometimes U.S. interests actually align with what is good for others but this is rarely the prime motivator of any action. I don't always agree with everything the U.S. does but I don't have too. I think when the issues obviously surround power, control and money, all kinds of aggriegious things tend to occur. This is the history of the world and is certainly NOT unique to the U.S. ALL countries look out for their own parochial interests first and foremost. I only pointed out some dark skeletons in our closet as a reminder that we are NO different than anyone else. I do think it is our responsibility as Americans to vote our beliefs and voice our opinions and be open to discussion and sometimes maybe even change our opinions in light of new information. I also think it is our responsibility to write, protest if necessary and contact our elected representatives when we strongly disagree with an action or direction things are taking.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"I didn't ignore the post. I do agree with the part that references what we did to Native Americans. Its was a truly genocidal act. I was just trying to stay at least on the post-civil war era. "

Actually, the genocide of native Americans continued long post civil war era. The last band of free locato sioux where removed from the plains in 1876. Other tribes where removed from the U.S. later than this. Many agreigious things have continued to this day against the survivors of the genocide. I only used this as one example. There are many. But like I said, all countries act out of self interest first and rarely the motivation to "do good" is the true motivator of an action but might just happen to work out that way. That is why I would not frame the debate as good versus evil. No country, the U.S. can be considered purely good or purely evil but, like the people that make it up, are neither or a combination of the two. Things tend to operate in shades of grey and rarely are absolutes in terms of black and white. If things were so absolutely clear cut in every instance, then there would not likely be much difference of opinion other than maybe how to accomplish the the agreed upon goal in terms of method.

 

[gymtime]

You first paragraph is dillusional. You zeal for falsehoods is simply amazing. What are you? 15 years old?

What an insightful comeback. I can easily tell which one of you looks like a teenager about now.

 

[ariolanine]

What an insightful comeback. I can easily tell which one of you looks like a teenager about now.

You can't reason with people who believe in things that are completely false. Why bother?

For example:

"Liberals tend to read and think and do the homework because they DON'T like being told what to do without understanding the reason why they should do it first and THEN they'll decide for themselves if they will do it. I guess that some people are more individualistic in this regard. But fortunately we are NOT all the same or it would indeed be a pretty dull world!!!"

How can you seriously respond to such an idiotic statement? I don't even think most liberals would say something this dumb.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"Your first paragraph is dillusional. Your zeal for falsehoods is simply amazing. What are you? 15 years old?"

"You can't reason with people who believe in things that are completely false. Why bother?"

Exactly the point. You just proved it. Couldn't even come up with any examples because you just believe "the liberal media" is the truth because the all knowing and powerful "THEY" have said it so many times, it must be true.

Historical quote: "Tell a big enough lie enough times, people will believe it"--Herr Goebels, propaganda minister for the Third Reich. Reiterated by Karl Rove, chief strategist for the republican party, put in everyday pratice by Ari Fleischer, minister for misinformation, Believed by YOU--hook line and sinker. Can't argue with the mindless masses. Seems to me that you are the dillusional one, all you offer are two-second word bytes with no thought or insight or facts or references or examples to justify your position. Well you are the archtypical republican. Enjoy your oblivion! And I still suspect that you drive an SUV!

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

ariolanine said:
"Your first paragraph is dillusional. Your zeal for falsehoods is simply amazing. What are you? 15 years old?"
ariolanine also said:
"How can you seriously respond to such an idiotic statement? I don't even think most liberals would say something this dumb."

What could you possibly know about what a liberal would say? You only listen to media that is obviously (obvious except to the brain dead--which are unfortunately quite numerous in this country) "conservative" in nature and you can't seem to rise above it enough to realize it. You state that the "liberal media is an accepted fact"--fact? Says who? The only time frame in American history that I am aware of in recent times that the media could even remotely be considered Liberal was during the Vietnam War Era and the immediate aftermath of the mid 1970's. Even Donahugh was thrilled that he was finally getting a show back after a LONG stretch that a "liberal" media/talk show host couldn't get any work because the Liberals were not espousing the "approved corporate message" and he is already off the air again. And if you think the media is so Liberal, then why is NBC putting so much pressure on Martin Sheen for his anti war views which are not part of the "approved corporate message" to support the Bush War on Terrorism? This is NOT what a Liberal media would do, is it? In fact they would applaud his efforts and give him LOTS of air time which is just the opposite and why is that? But you are in good company in your denial. The German population in the 1930's didn't "get it" either for the most part. They also just mindlessly believed what they were told. Did you ever wonder why in pseudo news/talk shows like Firing Line and others, they take a conservative to argue the opinion of the "Liberal left" when there are plenty of REAL liberals around to argue it? Maybe it is a set up to have a person half heartedly argue the point (one in which they don't really agree with) so in effect it makes the conservative look more convincing in comparison and thereby "win" the debate and help "shape" public opinion (propaganda). But this is probably WAY over your head. I suspect that you will never have a bright future in such careers as political strategy, advertising, public information or marketing strategies either. And I would seriously avoid any career that requires you to think or write more than one or two sentences.

Oh, and since when did the term "left" get affixed to the term "Liberal?" I think that you will particularly find that it happened around the time frame of the regime of Bush I when he very perjuritively described the term "Liberal" as the "L" word as if it were something to be ashamed of. This again is called propaganda or also referred to as "yellow journalism" since the media picked it up and continues to use the terms "L word" and "Liberal left" to this day. But I am sure that you really don't understand the concept of "yellow journalism" either. And the FACTS are that on the political spectrum Communist is extreme left, and Socialist is left but I suppose you don't really know what the difference between socialism and communism is either. Liberal is left of center by today's standards but at one time was considered "centrist" (circa the 1960's and 1970's but you obviously wouldn't remember this) and moderate used to be considered right of center but is now considered "centrist" and conservative is right wing. The ONLY thing right of a conservative is a fascist/NAZI (essentially the same thing). Maybe you need to take political science 101 if you don't even get this notion. So by definition, a conservative is as far to the right as a socialist is to the left with moderate and liberal completing out the right and left of center (i.e. "centrist"). This is by convention and accepted definition. So by definition, a conservative is MUCH closer to being a fascist than a liberal--DUH!!!! Got it? And Fascists are far more likely to just follow orders and not question things. I think history pretty well demonstrates that one. So you think it is dumb that I think that liberals tend to be more questioning than conservatives? But as you can see, there actually is SOME basis for me to make that statement looking at history.

And speaking of dumb and dumber, your retorts to any of my or anyone else's positions are typical of how republicans and conservatives deal with things that they disagree with--one liner sound bytes that sound good but lack any substance but are full of diminutives. If you need an example, just check out Rush Limbaugh's recent demeaning comments about Barbara Streisand and her lack of patriotism. Since when did it become unpatriotic to disagree and voice your First Amendment Rights when a person strongly disagrees with something the government is doing? It seems to me to be a patriotic duty to protest a wrong and try to persuade the powers that be to change things. I suppose that soon, she, like all people that disagree with the "approved message" will soon be declared a terrorist (i.e. "enemy of the state") and carted away in the night and "detained" in a military prison, stripped of U.S. citizenship and the rights such as the right to not being held without formal charges, denied the right to an attorney or the right to due process and no limit on how long the person can be held for like we are already doing for some now under the ruse of the "Patriot Act." Like other republicans, lacking any substance, you just try to ridicule and demean. It goes something like this giggle giggle, "your first paragraph", giggle giggle "is dillusional" (notice this is an unsupported opinion designed to ridicule but where is the substance or the reasoning behind it?) and goes on Giggle giggle, "your zeal for falsehoods is simply amazing" giggle giggle giggle" (again unsubstantiated opinion showing no ability to even reason or think). Then you go on to say giggle giggle "What are you? 15 years old?" More idiotic opinions from you, who has shown no insight, stated no facts, no sources and even believes that the Bush family's (specifically George W.'s grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush) ties to the NAZI's are unsubstantiated internet rumours when, in fact, it is a well documented matter of public record and you could look it up if you weren't so lazy and mindless. But this is to be expected. Fascist do what fascists are told and believe what they are told to believe. They accept it because they are told to. And they take as "fact" stuff that they have heard enough times that "it just must be true" without even checking other sources or records to see if there is even any basis in fact at all or even listen to what is being said to see if it even makes any sense at all. As I previously quoted Hermann Goering, Hitler's minister of propaganda said "tell a big enough lie enough times and people will believe it." Get it? DUH!!! What do you think is going on? Do you think there might be a reason why the ENTIRE rest of the world is NOT onboard with the U.S. on this whole Iraqi invasion thing? Maybe WE are the ones that are misinformed and not the entire rest of the world including our closest and most traditional allies? Maybe you should try reading or listening to the Irish Times, the London Times, the Sydney Times, the BBC or other major newspapers/news media of our allies to see why they might feel this way? Did you know that the U.S. has been spying and illegally wire tapping the telephones and communications of the U.N. diplomats of our closest allies in order to come up with "blackmail" that the Bush administration could use to force them to get "onboard" the "approved message?" This was found out through a leaked administration official memo. You probably didn't even hear of this in the "mainstream media" did you? But if you check today's Eurpean press it is the MAJOR story of today. If our media is SO liberal and anti Bush and the republicans, why do you think that they wouldn't be ALL over this one? Could it be that they are part of the conservative propaganda machine and don't want the American public to know about this either? Think about that for a minute if you can.

Remember historically, there were numerous other "accepted facts" determined by the authorities at the time, most notably the Church. Facts like "the earth is flat" even though mariner's clearly KNEW that this was NOT the case but could not speak out against this FACT. Or the indisputable and "accepted fact" that the sun revolved around the earth. Maybe YOU still believe that crap? Now you tell me that it is "accepted fact" that the media is liberal and don't say anything to support your position but rather try to demean and ridicule my position with your one liners. Just what I would expect from a mindless fascist!

And don't for a minute give me the idiotic "other" republican defense that liberals hate the U.S. This is simply another falsehood that the Bush propaganda machine wants you to believe. My family happened to help found this country, my last name is on the Declaration of Independence in fairly LARGE script and I won't tell you which one it is but I am directly descended from this "founder of the U.S." He was a member of the Pennsylvania delegation and he was the deciding vote cast for independence which broke what was up to that point a tie. So if you know your history, you can figure it out. My family has had intimate involvement with this country for several hundred years and are in the history books on numerous accounts. I also VOLUNTEERED for military duty, unlike SOME notable republicans and hawks like George Bush II and Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush and Rush Limbaugh and John Wayne and Ronald Reagan to name a few. So don't EVER give me THAT crap about not loving the U.S. Where the hell where they when the shooting started? And the republican baloney "We must support the troops" --what exactly does that mean? How can we NOT support OUR troops? It is an obvious intimidation tactic on the part of the Bush administration to squelch public opinion that is not part of the "approved message." It sounds like if you disagree with anything, then you are not "patriotic" which is bull. Maybe the way we support our troops is to avoid sending them into stupid wars to get shot at so that some rich republican draft dodger can make some extra corporate profits at their and our expense. And believe me, in my tax bracket, I do well more than my part in supporting the troops!

 

[ariolanine]

I would respond in detail, but like all true liberals won't argue the issue. Look at exactly what I said in repsonse to your posts. I doubt you even read it.

 

[FreakMonster]

I would respond in detail, but like all true liberals won't argue the issue. Look at exactly what I said in repsonse to your posts. I doubt you even read it.

You won't respond to him because you CAN'T argue with him. Just admit it, YOU GOT OWNED!!!!

 

[ariolanine]

You won't respond to him because you CAN'T argue with him. Just admit it, YOU GOT OWNED!!!!

Sorry G,
A person like myself who thinks with logic can NEVER lose to a person who thinks with emotion. On the other hand, I can't argue on fiction. I can only argue on facts. If you read some of the quotes I highlighted you will see that only a liberal can converse with this guy. I am not capable of talking with the insane. Nobody has every "owned" me. If homey wants to argue the facts then bring it.

 

[SUST-MAN]

Great.....hehe....another war thread.
We should start our own political message board.

Aside from www.straitdope.com , i cant find any.

I wish there was one with elite's format....but only based on politics.

 

[the nature boy]

ariolanine said:

And don't for a minute give me the idiotic "other" republican defense that liberals hate the U.S. This is simply another falsehood that the Bush propaganda machine wants you to believe. My family happened to help found this country, my last name is on the Declaration of Independence in fairly LARGE script and I won't tell you which one it is but I am directly descended from this "founder of the U.S." He was a member of the Pennsylvania delegation and he was the deciding vote cast for independence which broke what was up to that point a tie. So if you know your history, you can figure it out. My family has had intimate involvement with this country for several hundred years and are in the history books on numerous accounts. I also VOLUNTEERED for military duty, unlike SOME notable republicans and hawks like George Bush II and Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush and Rush Limbaugh and John Wayne and Ronald Reagan to name a few. So don't EVER give me THAT crap about not loving the U.S. Where the hell where they when the shooting started? And the republican baloney "We must support the troops" --what exactly does that mean? How can we NOT support OUR troops? It is an obvious intimidation tactic on the part of the Bush administration to squelch public opinion that is not part of the "approved message." It sounds like if you disagree with anything, then you are not "patriotic" which is bull. Maybe the way we support our troops is to avoid sending them into stupid wars to get shot at so that some rich republican draft dodger can make some extra corporate profits at their and our expense. And believe me, in my tax bracket, I do well more than my part in supporting the troops!

zing

 

[FreakMonster]

Sorry G,
A person like myself who thinks with logic can NEVER lose to a person who thinks with emotion. On the other hand, I can't argue on fiction. I can only argue on facts. If you read some of the quotes I highlighted you will see that only a liberal can converse with this guy. I am not capable of talking with the insane. Nobody has every "owned" me. If homey wants to argue the facts then bring it.

I'm sure if you had facts you would post them to refure NorCal but you don't. Your just making excuses.

 

[ariolanine]

I'm sure if you had facts you would post them to refure NorCal but you don't. Your just making excuses.

Ok FreakMonster, give me some time and I will post it.

 

[musclebrains]

I have never read anything by Grew but I suspect he is a worthless source. This is because he is listed after Gore Vidal, an admitted leftist nut with an intense deep hatred for everything Bush. You lefties really make me laugh. Your main argument is based on the psycho babble of someone who hates our country. I guess that shows where you stand. By the way, Ike never mentions in his biography that he was against the atomic bomb. You people love to revise history. So please tell me about the alien cover up and the bilderburgers. Are the X-Files true? Hitler was really a terminator sent back in time by Dubya, right?

LOL. Right. And I guess you know that Mr. Vidal also despises his own relative, Al Gore, right? Vidal is a "republican" in the original sense of the word. Funny how you folks on the right conclude everyone who opposes Bush favors the opposite -- and everything that doesn't fit your high school history textbook is "revisionism" in the Maoist sense.

We lefties love to revise history? In this case "revise" is perhaps correct in the sense that it revises the received wisdom filling your textbooks. Or at least it gives good reason to question it. Eisenhower is widely quoted for breaking rank with Truman although he did not do so publicly until after the war. For a full account of recent research on why Truman chose to drop the bombs when the Japanese were seeking peace read Gar Alperovitz's "The Decision to Use the ATomic Bob and the Architecture of an American Myth." It's a better documented sequel to an earlier book he wrote in the 70s, since new gov't documents were opened. You could also read Takaki's: "Hiroshima: Why America dropped the bomb." This is hardly a new subject of debate.There are plenty of books that examine the usual explanation that it was a necessary action to end the war with Japan and they're not all written, as you'd like to think, by anti-American nutcases. It is possible in the adult world to question received wisdom and conventional values without opposing the idealistic project of democracy, ya know.

Your effort to cast me as an X Files conspiracy theorist and psychobabbler are amusing but I'm afraid if you actually educate yourself you might end up feeling less sure of what you've been taught and represent here as the indubitable truth. But it is hard to live in a world when things are not as black and white as you'd like, ain't it?

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

ariolanine
"I would respond in detail, but like all true liberals won't argue the issue. Look at exactly what I said in repsonse to your posts. I doubt you even read it."

I read every word you said. Problem is that you haven't said anything. Just one line sound bytes without substance. But you still don't get it and obviously never will. You say nothing logical and just use the old tried and true republicaNAZI ploys as I stated. You just dismiss and demean but have nothing of substance to say. I'll bet you didn't even get off your butt to see if what I said about what the European media was reporting all over the front pages yesterday about the illegal "monitoring" of the U.N. diplomats of our allies was even true. You probably just ASSUMED that I was being dillusional. Or that maybe the entire rest of the world is also dillusional because they don't see this with your TOTAL clarity--NOT!!! Funny how the rest of the world that does not listen to the U.S. "mainstream media" sees this differently than you and your fascist Bush friends. But then what can I expect from a person that has a (?) after their gender? If you can't even figure that one out, you really ARE a hopeless piece of work! And I still bet you drive an SUV. You certainly fit the profile that Detroit's marketing research is looking for to a "t."

 

[ariolanine]

"What could you possibly know about what a liberal would say? "

Because I am alive and alert and most leftists have diarrhea of the mouth.

"You only listen to media that is obviously (obvious except to the brain dead--which are unfortunately quite numerous in this country) "conservative" in nature and you can't seem to rise above it enough to realize it. You state that the "liberal media is an accepted fact"--fact? Says who? The only time frame in American history that I am aware of in recent times that the media could even remotely be considered Liberal was during the Vietnam War Era and the immediate aftermath of the mid 1970's. Even Donahugh was thrilled that he was finally getting a show back after a LONG stretch that a "liberal" media/talk show host couldn't get any work because the Liberals were not espousing the "approved corporate message" and he is already off the air again."

In the past three years Fox news has taken over and the other networks have noticed. Now CNN and MSNBC are jumping on the bandwagon. But when you consider the “media” as a whole it is most definitely leftist. All of the big newspapers are leftist. Leftists host all the nightly news on CBS, NBC, and ABC. Leftists host the morning talk shows on those networks. So I would say that cable news is turning conservative, talk radio is conservative, everything else is leftist.

" And if you think the media is so Liberal, then why is NBC putting so much pressure on Martin Sheen for his anti war views which are not part of the "approved corporate message" to support the Bush War on Terrorism? This is NOT what a Liberal media would do, is it? In fact they would applaud his efforts and give him LOTS of airtime, which is just the opposite and why is that? But you are in good company in your denial. "

Leftists value money above all else. If you hit them in the wallet they will shut up. The West Wing is a leftist show, created by leftist Aaron Sorkin, starring leftist Martin Sheen. If NBC were conservative, this piece of shit show would never air.

"The German population in the 1930's didn't "get it" either for the most part. They also just mindlessly believed what they were told. Did you ever wonder why in pseudo news/talk shows like Firing Line and others, they take a conservative to argue the opinion of the "Liberal left" when there are plenty of REAL liberals around to argue it? Maybe it is a set up to have a person half heartedly argue the point (one in which they don't really agree with) so in effect it makes the conservative look more convincing in comparison and thereby "win" the debate and help "shape" public opinion (propaganda)."

Nope, it is done that way to present a fair and balanced argument. Since a true leftist would lose the argument every time, they try and give them a fighting chance.

"Oh, and since when did the term "left" get affixed to the term "Liberal?" I think that you will particularly find that it happened around the time frame of the regime of Bush I when he very perjuritively described the term "Liberal" as the "L" word as if it were something to be ashamed of. This again is called propaganda or also referred to as "yellow journalism" since the media picked it up and continues to use the terms "L word" and "Liberal left" to this day. But I am sure that you really don't understand the concept of "yellow journalism" either. And the FACTS are that on the political spectrum Communist is extreme left, and Socialist is left but I suppose you don't really know what the difference between socialism and communism is either. Liberal is left of center by today's standards but at one time was considered "centrist" (circa the 1960's and 1970's but you obviously wouldn't remember this) and moderate used to be considered right of center but is now considered "centrist" and conservative is right wing. The ONLY thing right of a conservative is a fascist/NAZI (essentially the same thing). Maybe you need to take political science 101 if you don't even get this notion. So by definition, a conservative is as far to the right as a socialist is to the left with moderate and liberal completing out the right and left of center (i.e. "centrist"). This is by convention and accepted definition. So by definition, a conservative is MUCH closer to being a fascist than a liberal--DUH!!!! Got it? And Fascists are far more likely to just follow orders and not question things. I think history pretty well demonstrates that one. So you think it is dumb that I think that liberals tend to be more questioning than conservatives? But as you can see, there actually is SOME basis for me to make that statement looking at history. "

I agree that the terms liberal and conservative have been used incorrectly. I use them because it is what most people understand. A true liberal is not a bad person, as they believe in personal liberty. I am a libertarian. As far as political spectrum is concerned, you are wrong. Nazis are socialists, hence the name National Socialist Party. I think that leftists are NOT as questioning. Isn’t that the point? Communists and Socialists want you to accept the propaganda. Conservatives are the ones who question authority. No leftists questioned Clinton. You didn’t hear a fucking thing from them while he banged sluts in the Oval Office. You didn’t hear anything from them when he bombed Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Iraq. Only conservatives questioned that. Conservatives are also questioning Bush. The leftists are just doing it because he is a republican. Did you ever think that maybe you are a conservative?

"And speaking of dumb and dumber, your retorts to any of my or anyone else's positions are typical of how republicans and conservatives deal with things that they disagree with--one liner sound bytes that sound good but lack any substance but are full of diminutives. If you need an example, just check out Rush Limbaugh's recent demeaning comments about Barbara Streisand and her lack of patriotism. "

Most times you only need one line to get the point across since we are right. So here you go:

If you take anything she says seriously you are an idiot.

"Since when did it become unpatriotic to disagree and voice your First Amendment Rights when a person strongly disagrees with something the government is doing?"

She just hates Bush. She didn’t give a fuck that Clinton killed thousands with his bombs. She is anything buy objective.

" It seems to me to be a patriotic duty to protest a wrong and try to persuade the powers that be to change things."

Absolutely. Just make sure you do it all the time and not only when the “opposition” is in office.

"More idiotic opinions from you, who has shown no insight, stated no facts, no sources and even believes that the Bush family's (specifically George W.'s grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush) ties to the NAZI's are unsubstantiated internet rumours when, in fact, it is a well documented matter of public record and you could look it up if you weren't so lazy and mindless. But this is to be expected."

He has a distant tie at best. Since someone in my family owned slaves, I am guilty of it too? What dead people have done is irrelevant.

"Do you think there might be a reason why the ENTIRE rest of the world is NOT onboard with the U.S. on this whole Iraqi invasion thing?"

Yes, they are American hating pussies. That is obvious. And as an American I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT PEOPLE IN EUROPE THINK.

"Maybe WE are the ones that are misinformed and not the entire rest of the world including our closest and most traditional allies? Maybe you should try reading or listening to the Irish Times, the London Times, the Sydney Times, the BBC or other major newspapers/news media of our allies to see why they might feel this way?"

Because they are leftist propaganda machines.

"Did yu know that the U.S. has been spying and illegally wire tapping the telephones and communications of the U.N. diplomats of our closest allies in order to come up with "blackmail" that the Bush administration could use to force them to get "onboard" the "approved message?" This was found out through a leaked administration official memo. You probably didn't even hear of this in the "mainstream media" did you? But if you check today's Eurpean press it is the MAJOR story of today. If our media is SO liberal and anti Bush and the republicans, why do you think that they wouldn't be ALL over this one? Could it be that they are part of the conservative propaganda machine and don't want the American public to know about this either? Think about that for a minute if you can."

That is only printed in leftist european media, but if it’s true then I’m cool with it.

"emember historically, there were numerous other "accepted facts" determined by the authorities at the time, most notably the Church. Facts like "the earth is flat" even though mariner's clearly KNEW that this was NOT the case but could not speak out against this FACT. Or the indisputable and "accepted fact" that the sun revolved around the earth. Maybe YOU still believe that crap? Now you tell me that it is "accepted fact" that the media is liberal and don't say anything to support your position but rather try to demean and ridicule my position with your one liners. Just what I would expect from a mindless fascist! "

I have already proved you wrong.

"And don't for a minute give me the idiotic "other" republican defense that liberals hate the U.S. This is simply another falsehood that the Bush propaganda machine wants you to believe. My family happened to help found this country, my last name is on the Declaration of Independence in fairly LARGE script and I won't tell you which one it is but I am directly descended from this "founder of the U.S." He was a member of the Pennsylvania delegation and he was the deciding vote cast for independence, which broke what was up to that point a tie. So if you know your history, you can figure it out. My family has had intimate involvement with this country for several hundred years and are in the history books on numerous accounts. I also VOLUNTEERED for military duty, unlike SOME notable republicans and hawks like George Bush II and Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush and Rush Limbaugh and John Wayne and Ronald Reagan to name a few. So don't EVER give me THAT crap about not loving the U.S. Where the hell where they when the shooting started? And the republican baloney "We must support the troops" --what exactly does that mean? How can we NOT support OUR troops? It is an obvious intimidation tactic on the part of the Bush administration to squelch public opinion that is not part of the "approved message." It sounds like if you disagree with anything, then you are not "patriotic" which is bull. Maybe the way we support our troops is to avoid sending them into stupid wars to get shot at so that some rich republican draft dodger can make some extra corporate profits at their and our expense. And believe me, in my tax bracket, I do well more than my part in supporting the troops!"

I too am Mayflower material, nice to meet you. My family has deep military and historical roots. I like how you name a few Republicans that didn’t serve, when you can’t name one leftist who did. Your heroes (leftists) Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, George Clooney, etc.. do hate our country. That is fact beatch. Support our troops means exactly that. Most people in the military are stoked to get some action, so support them!! Protesting against our government is not supporting them. Protesting against Saddam is. But no true leftist would ever dream of doing that. You say that you love the US, etc… Then how can you be anything but conservative? Our country is a Republic, not a socialist or communist state as you wish it to be. Your ancestor is rolling over in his grave. Shame on you.

 

[ariolanine]

ariolanine
"I would respond in detail, but like all true liberals won't argue the issue. Look at exactly what I said in repsonse to your posts. I doubt you even read it."

I read every word you said. Problem is that you haven't said anything. Just one line sound bytes without substance. But you still don't get it and obviously never will. You say nothing logical and just use the old tried and true republicaNAZI ploys as I stated. You just dismiss and demean but have nothing of substance to say. I'll bet you didn't even get off your butt to see if what I said about what the European media was reporting all over the front pages yesterday about the illegal "monitoring" of the U.N. diplomats of our allies was even true. You probably just ASSUMED that I was being dillusional. Or that maybe the entire rest of the world is also dillusional because they don't see this with your TOTAL clarity--NOT!!! Funny how the rest of the world that does not listen to the U.S. "mainstream media" sees this differently than you and your fascist Bush friends. But then what can I expect from a person that has a (?) after their gender? If you can't even figure that one out, you really ARE a hopeless piece of work! And I still bet you drive an SUV. You certainly fit the profile that Detroit's marketing research is looking for to a "t."

You've just proved my point. Republicans have conservative "right" values. Nazis are national socialists "leftists." You don't even know basic facts of history. I dismiss and demean you because you are a leftist zombie. Once again, I don't care about Europe. You bet I drive an SUV. I have two actually. A 1980 CJ7 and a 1977 Bronco. Both have built V-8's, and 1-ton running gear. They get less than 10 miles per gallon and I wouldn't have it any other way. But if it makes you feel any better, I also have a Lexus and an Accord, but my other car, a 65 Mustang is also a gas guzzler. I do recycle though, can I have a cookie. As for gender, why do you care? You don't have enough balls to get it up either way.

 

[musclebrains]

"What could you possibly know about what a liberal would say? "

Because I am alive and alert and most leftists have diarrhea of the mouth.

. I like how you name a few Republicans that didn’t serve, when you can’t name one leftist who did.

AT least you demonstrate that the first statement can equally be applied to those on the right.

Republican chickenhawks, to name a few. Only a blind person could fail to notice how the most war-hungry politicians tend to be those who haven't served:

GEorge W. Bush (awol)
Trent Lott
Ted Olson
Asa Hutchinson
Spencer Abraham
John Ashcroft
Karl Rove
Clarence Thomas
Rush Limbaugh
Ronald Reagan
Dick Cheney
Tom Delaney
Roy Blunt
Jeb Bush
Dennis Hastert
Newt Gingrich
Jack Kemp

 

[ariolanine]

AT least you demonstrate that the first statement can equally be applied to those on the right.

ROTFLMFAO. You are so funny



Wow, what a huge list. I had no idea that all of those people were sooooo war hungry. I guess your point is that only people who have served in the military should be able to choose whether or not we go to war. I agree completely. Lets give unbridled control of our armed forces to the joint chiefs of staff. Works for me.

 

[atlantabiolab]

AT least you demonstrate that the first statement can equally be applied to those on the right.

Republican chickenhawks, to name a few. Only a blind person could fail to notice how the most war-hungry politicians tend to be those who haven't served:

GEorge W. Bush (awol)
Trent Lott
Ted Olson
Asa Hutchinson
Spencer Abraham
John Ashcroft
Karl Rove
Clarence Thomas
Rush Limbaugh
Ronald Reagan
Dick Cheney
Tom Delaney
Roy Blunt
Jeb Bush
Dennis Hastert
Newt Gingrich
Jack Kemp

This argument is false, since it implies that without experience in a situation, one cannot reason that it is worthy or has value. Simply because these men did not "serve", which has no meaning, since "serving" does not equate to "battle", does not mean that the "idea" of this war is wrong. War is sometimes justified, and is not conditional to having experience in war.

My disagreement does not in anyway mean that I support this war, but that I totally disagree with this false idea that reality is conditional to experience. Something is true because it is true. Reality is a tautology.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"You've just proved my point. Republicans have conservative "right" values. Nazis are national socialists. You don't even know basic facts of history. I dismiss and demean you because you are a leftist zombie. Once again, I don't care about Europe. You bet I drive an SUV. I have two actually. A 1980 CJ7 and a 1977 Bronco. Both have built V-8's, and 1-ton running gear. They get less than 10 miles per gallon and I wouldn't have it any other way. But if it makes you feel any better, I also have a Lexus and an Accord, but my other car, a 65 Mustang is also a gas guzzler. I do recycle though, can I have a cookie."

Actually you just proved my point. You don't know anything. NAZI's were called "National Socialists" but were completely OPPOSITE to Socialists that most people think of which are left wing. The extreme left extolles Government control over everything supposedly for the "good of the people" although this is a total farce. Socialism is a lesser degree of government control, allowing private control as well typically under varying degrees of government oversight depending on how far to the left they are. National Socialism is the German version of Fascism which is the merger of corporate and government power in essence, the government is subordinate to the corporate power and is the "legal" system through which the corporates maintain total control and the population is again subjugated much like its political opposite, communism as practiced (I am not talking about "theoretical communsism" since that has never existed nor is likely too since it fails to deal with the primary motivation of people which is self interest). In other words, communism and socialism, which is extolle government control over corporate and private control, are the diametrical opposite of Fascism and National Socialism which extolle corporate control over the government. Get it? Socialism and Communism = Government supreme, corporate subjugated or nonexistent. Fascism and National Socialism = Corporate control supreme and government control subjugated. The distinctions are VERY clear and I certainly did not make them up. This is typical of how conservatives like you completely misunderstand the facts because you can't read past the headline, i.e. National Socialism, oh, duh, so I get it, ahhh it must be like socialsim because the word socialism is used in the name--NOT! Following your logic, the "Democratic Peoples Republic of China" must be a democracy because the word is in the title. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes labels are misleading? Conservatives in this country are in favor of less government control (moving away from the "left" of Communism or Socialism and towards the right of more corporate control hence towards Fascism or National Socialism). These are NOT traditional American values. The founding fathers were quite concerned about business exerting undue influence over the government by the way. But I am sure that they didn't teach you that in your history class either as it is apparent that you didn't learn much of anything. It is interesting to note that conservatives also believe in that the government should exercise a high level of control over people's personal lives just like the fascists and NAZIs believed and did. For example, John Ashcroft stated that "if it were up to me, the ONLY thing that government would regulate IS morality." In other words, free reign and control for the corporates and the government is reduced to the "legal" task of "controlling" the masses and force total conformity to the "approved message." Personally, the last people that want to hear about morality from is from ANY politicians or corporations for that matter. The republicans claim they believe in states rights until a state votes for something THEY think is immoral. Then they go to direct Federal control/enforcement. The "right to assisted suicide law" in Oregon and the medical mariuana laws in California and seven other states come immediately to mind as examples. Once again, they show their true colors and intolerance. Even for the use of schedule III anabolic drugs which SOME people on this board MAY use or have in their possession, the republicans believe it is "morally wrong" so it was not just enough to require a prescription to get them but they criminalized them so you can go and spend time in jail and think about how your removal from the streets for your own personal use is such a HAZARD to the society at large that warrants your imprisonment. This is yet another example along with the stupid mandatory drug sentences like Florida has or the idiotic "sodomy" laws that only apply to homosexuals like Texas does--what are they going to look through your window from the night sky via satellite and tap your phone to catch you--if it is up to John Ashcroft, you bet!!! And Virginia law says that you better do it in the "missionary position" or else!!! All of those violations carry jail sentances. I never realized that having sex in other than the missionary position posed such an enormous danger to society. I use harsh terms like fascists and NAZIs to describe republicans because I call it like I see it.......if it walks like a duck and so forth. And in the last twenty years, the republicans have been moving more and more towards the extreme right, i.e. true fascism. But you are so clueless you can't even get THAT. You probably didn't know that it was the republican party that instituted the Federal income tax in the first place.....duh!!!! And THAT happened in the 1900's after the country managed for over a century without one. So I think the truth is that YOU are the mindless autotron zombie. And let me guess, you probably live in one of the states that attempted to leave the Union in 1861.........

 

[ariolanine]

"You've just proved my point. Republicans have conservative "right" values. Nazis are national socialists. You don't even know basic facts of history. I dismiss and demean you because you are a leftist zombie. Once again, I don't care about Europe. You bet I drive an SUV. I have two actually. A 1980 CJ7 and a 1977 Bronco. Both have built V-8's, and 1-ton running gear. They get less than 10 miles per gallon and I wouldn't have it any other way. But if it makes you feel any better, I also have a Lexus and an Accord, but my other car, a 65 Mustang is also a gas guzzler. I do recycle though, can I have a cookie."

Actually you just proved my point. You don't know anything. NAZI's were called "National Socialists" but were completely OPPOSITE to Socialists that most people think of which are left wing. The extreme left extolles Government control over everything supposedly for the "good of the people" although this is a total farce. Socialism is a lesser degree of government control, allowing private control as well typically under varying degrees of government oversight depending on how far to the left they are. National Socialism is the German version of Fascism which is the merger of corporate and government power in essence, the government is subordinate to the corporate power and is the "legal" system through which the corporates maintain total control and the population is again subjugated much like its political opposite, communism as practiced (I am not talking about "theoretical communsism" since that has never existed nor is likely too since it fails to deal with the primary motivation of people which is self interest). In other words, communism and socialism, which is extolle government control over corporate and private control, are the diametrical opposite of Fascism and National Socialism which extolle corporate control over the government. Get it? Socialism and Communism = Government supreme, corporate subjugated or nonexistent. Fascism and National Socialism = Corporate control supreme and government control subjugated. The distinctions are VERY clear and I certainly did not make them up. This is typical of how conservatives like you completely misunderstand the facts because you can't read past the headline, i.e. National Socialism, oh, duh, so I get it, ahhh it must be like socialsim because the word socialism is used in the name--NOT! Following your logic, the "Democratic Peoples Republic of China" must be a democracy because the word is in the title. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes labels are misleading? Conservatives in this country are in favor of less government control (moving away from the "left" of Communism or Socialism and towards the right of more corporate control hence towards Fascism or National Socialism). These are NOT traditional American values. The founding fathers were quite concerned about business exerting undue influence over the government by the way. But I am sure that they didn't teach you that in your history class either as it is apparent that you didn't learn much of anything. It is interesting to note that conservatives also believe in that the government should exercise a high level of control over people's personal lives just like the fascists and NAZIs believed and did. For example, John Ashcroft stated that "if it were up to me, the ONLY thing that government would regulate IS morality." In other words, free reign and control for the corporates and the government is reduced to the "legal" task of "controlling" the masses and force total conformity to the "approved message." Personally, the last people that want to hear about morality from is from ANY politicians or corporations for that matter. The republicans claim they believe in states rights until a state votes for something THEY think is immoral. Then they go to direct Federal control/enforcement. The "right to assisted suicide law" in Oregon and the medical mariuana laws in California and seven other states come immediately to mind as examples. Once again, they show their true colors and intolerance. Even for the use of schedule III anabolic drugs which SOME people on this board MAY use or have in their possession, the republicans believe it is "morally wrong" so it was not just enough to require a prescription to get them but they criminalized them so you can go and spend time in jail and think about how your removal from the streets for your own personal use is such a HAZARD to the society at large that warrants your imprisonment. This is yet another example along with the stupid mandatory drug sentences like Florida has or the idiotic "sodomy" laws that only apply to homosexuals like Texas does--what are they going to look through your window from the night sky via satellite and tap your phone to catch you--if it is up to John Ashcroft, you bet!!! And Virginia law says that you better do it in the "missionary position" or else!!! All of those violations carry jail sentances. I never realized that having sex in other than the missionary position posed such an enormous danger to society. I use harsh terms like fascists and NAZIs to describe republicans because I call it like I see it.......if it walks like a duck and so forth. And in the last twenty years, the republicans have been moving more and more towards the extreme right, i.e. true fascism. But you are so clueless you can't even get THAT. You probably didn't know that it was the republican party that instituted the Federal income tax in the first place.....duh!!!! And THAT happened in the 1900's after the country managed for over a century without one. So I think the truth is that YOU are the mindless autotron zombie. And let me guess, you probably live in one of the states that attempted to leave the Union in 1861.........

I agree with some of your points. Although John Ashcroft is someone I trust as attorney general, he is scary. You use the term Nazi for shock value. Nazis were a combination of ideologies, that's why they get their own name. But they were on the left of the political spectrum in every way except capitalism. They allowed some competition and free markets, but they controlled everything else about the german people. Conservatives don't burn books or believe in national health care. This puts them together with communists and fascists. But nobody is really that cut and dry. You obviously hate republicans. I obviously hate demoncrats. Both of them suck in one way or another. I just see republicans as the lesser of two evils. You say that you think for yourself. If that is true then why do you defend the left so much? You can't possibly believe that all of society's ills are the fault of the republican party?

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"I agree with some of your points. Although John Ashcroft is someone I trust as attorney general, he is scary. You use the term Nazi for shock value. Nazis were a combination of ideologies, that's why they get their own name. But they were on the left of the political spectrum in every way except capitalism. They allowed some competition and free markets, but they controlled everything else about the german people. Conservatives don't burn books or believe in national health care. This puts them together with communists and fascists. But nobody is really that cut and dry. You obviously hate republicans. I obviously hate demoncrats. Both of them suck in one way or another. I just see republicans as the lesser of two evils. You say that you think for yourself. If that is true then why do you defend the left so much? You can't possibly believe that all of society's ills are the fault of the republican party?"

Not True. Conservatives have set up "committees in Texas, one of the two largest buyers of school textbooks in the U.S., California being the largest to monitor and censor ideas "contrary" to their conservative and fundimentalist christian values. So when a history book says something like "the resurrection of Jesus was not a central belief held by early first century christians (a true statement-the idea came later)" the committees found it offensive as it is VERY central to modern fundimentalist and other christian beliefs. So those texts were banned from Texas. Also, they have been pushing to have any references to evolution removed, etc. This is akin to book burning. Censorship accomplishes exactly the same thing. I see no problem with ideas being put forth for discussion, even ones that a person may not agree with, and then they can make up their own mind about it. But at least they have heard it.

I do not have a love of the Democrats either, by the way. I see the republicans as by far the worst of the two evils. This is based on my own beliefs that the government should get OUT of people's personal lives and should not be concerned with who sleeps with who and how or what things they put in their own bodies as long as they aren't stealing from someone else to pay for it or driving under the influence of something and causing an accident. We have WAY too many laws that simply should not be on the books and more ways than you can imagine for ending up in prison. I served on a jury recently and managed to swing the whole jury around to acquit a man who was facing a jail sentence for carrying literally a "stick" for protection in the front seat of his pickup truck. A man had molested his two teenage daughters and when he went to confront the guy, the guy beat the crap out of him and swore if he ever saw him again he would kill him. The defendant was not a very big guy and the stress of the whole thing caused him to be separated from his wife who was freaking out over the whole thing. As the guy who beat him up was 6'6" tall and weighed 265 lbs the guy was VERY afraid for his life. So he took a small sledge hammer handle and put it by his seat in the truck in case he were attacked he would have a way to defend himself. During a routine search by a Yolo County, California deputy because he thought the guy's tag was expired (he had the renewal paperwork with him so it was ok), the deputy saw the "stick" and arrested him and hauled him off for carrying a "billy" i.e. billy club. When persuading the jury, I said, since when are we so fascist that a person cannot even defend themselves against an illegal attack on their person? Does carrying a set of car keys, knowing that you might scratch a person's eyes out make you a felon? And how does putting this man in prison make society better? I am firmly against imprisoning ANYONE without good cause because they are a threat to society. If they are a threat, I have no issue with putting them away, even for good. But unfortunately, it is the Republicans that seem to want to make everything a CRIMINAL offense and it is the republicans that want to dictate every facet of your behavior and morality and force total conformity to their way of thinking or ELSE! Therefore I consider them more of a danger to the republic and what it stands for than the democrats. It is also the republicans that are happily spending your tax money into oblivion WAY beyond the democrats. 90% of the total national debt is due to three republican presidents. Some day, someone will have to pay the bill. This is NOT a free ticket! And it is TOTALLY fiscally irresponsible! So they are bankrupting us and trying to dictate our personal freedoms down to nothing and force their view of the world on everyone.

As for who questions what I would disagree. The extreme left accepts the dogma, hook line and sinker. The extreme right does the same thing. It is the "centrists"--i.e. Liberals and moderates that are the ones that question things. I never said left wing people are questioning. I said Liberals are questioning. Conservatives are CLEARLY more similar to the NAZIs than any other group at this point in time as so well phrased by John Ashcroft, "if it were up to me, the ONLY thing government would regulate IS morality"--get it? No government control or regulation of business, corporate free reign. Government used to subjugate the masses into accepting the propaganda and into total compliance OR ELSE! This is EXACTLY what fascism is all about. What is interesting is that both extremes do have similarities in that the public losses BIG time both ways. That is why the middle road is the safest. There needs to be a very careful but not overly oppressive amount of government regulations just to try to keep things a little more on a level field. Too much is bad and too little, things tend to run amuck as greed goes unchecked and the public losses. So does the economy ultimately as well.

And not shame on me. I have never advocated ANYTHING other than a Republic. I do NOT extoll communism any more than I favor fascism. Both are repugnant to me. I believe that people should have the maximum amount of personal liberty possible until it infringes on the rights of others. Than a compromise needs to happen to allow the most freedom for both sides. This is hardly a communist or fascist viewpoint but is VERY consistent with the traditional values that the republic was founded on. Unfortunately, modern conservatives seem to have lost sight of this and become more and more fascist each year. The bottom line is that I am HIGHLY opposed to ANY faction that intends or acts to restrict personal freedoms and wants to force TOTAL conformity. This is clearly the republican party at this moment in time.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

I said:
Did you ever wonder why in pseudo news/talk shows like Firing Line and others, they take a conservative to argue the opinion of the "Liberal left" when there are plenty of REAL liberals around to argue it? Maybe it is a set up to have a person half heartedly argue the point (one in which they don't really agree with) so in effect it makes the conservative look more convincing in comparison and thereby "win" the debate and help "shape" public opinion (propaganda)."
You said:
Nope, it is done that way to present a fair and balanced argument. Since a true leftist would lose the argument every time, they try and give them a fighting chance.


PURE BS. Not logical. Anyway, I am not defending the left (meaning communists, etc.) I am talking about Liberals.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

This argument is false, since it implies that without experience in a situation, one cannot reason that it is worthy or has value. Simply because these men did not "serve", which has no meaning, since "serving" does not equate to "battle", does not mean that the "idea" of this war is wrong. War is sometimes justified, and is not conditional to having experience in war.

My disagreement does not in anyway mean that I support this war, but that I totally disagree with this false idea that reality is conditional to experience. Something is true because it is true. Reality is a tautology.

My point in pointing out that MANY of the hawkish republicans dodged the draft is that I find it hypocritical that they should be hawkish and willing to send other peoples kids to die in a war when they were too chicken sh*t to put their money where their mouth is. I don't want to hear from draft dodgers. If they sincerely disagreed with a war and were a bonifide conscientious objector, I can accept that. But if they didn't disagree with the war, which is clearly the case with the people listed and were just too chicken to face it, then they have no standing with me and are akin to traitors. Who needs them? They'd stab the country in the back for a dollar.

 

[ariolanine]

"Not True. Conservatives have set up "committees in Texas, one of the two largest buyers of school textbooks in the U.S., California being the largest to monitor and censor ideas "contrary" to their conservative and fundimentalist christian values. So when a history book says something like "the resurrection of Jesus was not a central belief held by early first century christians (a true statement-the idea came later)" the committees found it offensive as it is VERY central to modern fundimentalist and other christian beliefs. So those texts were banned from Texas. Also, they have been pushing to have any references to evolution removed, etc. This is akin to book burning. Censorship accomplishes exactly the same thing. I see no problem with ideas being put forth for discussion, even ones that a person may not agree with, and then they can make up their own mind about it. But at least they have heard it."

The fucking Democrats have been re-writing history books for the past 30 years or did you not go to school in America? So what if a few crazy chrisitians are editing books? This pales in comparison to what the Dems have done in our public schools and universities. Rosa Parks and Gloria Steinem are mentioned more in the average American History textbook than Thomas Jefferson.

"I do not have a love of the Democrats either, by the way. I see the republicans as by far the worst of the two evils. This is based on my own beliefs that the government should get OUT of people's personal lives and should not be concerned with who sleeps with who and how or what things they put in their own bodies as long as they aren't stealing from someone else to pay for it or driving under the influence of something and causing an accident. "

I agree with you totally, but the Republicans are not trying to enact laws about who you bang. They are not trying to legislate your behavior. The dems are... Democrats are the ones who want to put you away for calling someone a "faggot." Republicans aren't trying to make being gay or calling someone a faggot illegal. Democrats are the ones who demanded the "explicit lyrics" sticker be put on "offensive" cd's. I live in Oregon which is almost entirely demoncrat controlled and they are the ones trying to shut down the strip clubs. They are the ones who enacted and continue to tout the OLCC which controls liquor sales in the state. They are the ones that have made it illegal to pump our own gas. Democrats are the ones who want people to stop smoking so bad that they tax tobacco. Name one law that republicans are responsible for that legislates behavior. Please don't say something about an 1840's law that makes sodomy punishable by death.

"We have WAY too many laws that simply should not be on the books and more ways than you can imagine for ending up in prison. "

Absolutely. Both parties have enacted ridiculous laws about drug use, etc..

"I served on a jury recently and managed to swing the whole jury around to acquit a man who was facing a jail sentence for carrying literally a "stick" for protection in the front seat of his pickup truck. A man had molested his two teenage daughters and when he went to confront the guy, the guy beat the crap out of him and swore if he ever saw him again he would kill him. The defendant was not a very big guy and the stress of the whole thing caused him to be separated from his wife who was freaking out over the whole thing. As the guy who beat him up was 6'6" tall and weighed 265 lbs the guy was VERY afraid for his life. So he took a small sledge hammer handle and put it by his seat in the truck in case he were attacked he would have a way to defend himself. During a routine search by a Yolo County, California deputy because he thought the guy's tag was expired (he had the renewal paperwork with him so it was ok), the deputy saw the "stick" and arrested him and hauled him off for carrying a "billy" i.e. billy club. When persuading the jury, I said, since when are we so fascist that a person cannot even defend themselves against an illegal attack on their person? Does carrying a set of car keys, knowing that you might scratch a person's eyes out make you a felon? And how does putting this man in prison make society better? I am firmly against imprisoning ANYONE without good cause because they are a threat to society. If they are a threat, I have no issue with putting them away, even for good. "

That guy is lucky you were there. I am glad that people like you serve on juries.

"But unfortunately, it is the Republicans that seem to want to make everything a CRIMINAL offense and it is the republicans that want to dictate every facet of your behavior and morality and force total conformity to their way of thinking or ELSE! "

You have got to be kidding me. The Dems are the ones who want to put you in jail for not being "sensitive" to minorities and other such bullshit. Both parties want to dictate morality.

" Therefore I consider them more of a danger to the republic and what it stands for than the democrats. "

They are both dangerous.

" It is also the republicans that are happily spending your tax money into oblivion WAY beyond the democrats. "

The republicans are giving us a tax cut. Democrats spend way more on more frivolous bullshit. At least Bush is protecting the nation.

" 90% of the total national debt is due to three republican presidents. "

And three Democrat controlled Congresses.

" Some day, someone will have to pay the bill. This is NOT a free ticket! And it is TOTALLY fiscally irresponsible! "

Thank both parties for giving 130 billion dollars a year to welfare recipients. Thank both parties for a huge, bloated government.

" So they are bankrupting us and trying to dictate our personal freedoms down to nothing and force their view of the world on everyone."

Both parties are trying to do this. Dems more so then republicans.

"As for who questions what I would disagree. The extreme left accepts the dogma, hook line and sinker. The extreme right does the same thing. It is the "centrists"--i.e. Liberals and moderates that are the ones that question things."

Tru dat. As long as you are referring to true liberals and not the illiberals like Hillary.

" I never said left wing people are questioning. I said Liberals are questioning. Conservatives are CLEARLY more similar to the NAZIs than any other group at this point in time as so well phrased by John Ashcroft, "if it were up to me, the ONLY thing government would regulate IS morality"--get it? "

So John Ashcroft represents all conservatives? Last time I checked he was an appointed official, not an elected one. You actually believe that no Dems think the exact same thing?

" No government control or regulation of business, corporate free reign. Government used to subjugate the masses into accepting the propaganda and into total compliance OR ELSE! This is EXACTLY what fascism is all about."

Yup.

" What is interesting is that both extremes do have similarities in that the public losses BIG time both ways. "

The public loses everything in communism. Only dissenters lose in fascism.

" That is why the middle road is the safest. There needs to be a very careful but not overly oppressive amount of government regulations just to try to keep things a little more on a level field. Too much is bad and too little, things tend to run amuck as greed goes unchecked and the public losses. So does the economy ultimately as well."

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

"And not shame on me. I have never advocated ANYTHING other than a Republic. I do NOT extoll communism any more than I favor fascism. Both are repugnant to me. I believe that people should have the maximum amount of personal liberty possible until it infringes on the rights of others. Than a compromise needs to happen to allow the most freedom for both sides. This is hardly a communist or fascist viewpoint but is VERY consistent with the traditional values that the republic was founded on. "

Absolutely. Glad to hear it.

" Unfortunately, modern conservatives seem to have lost sight of this and become more and more fascist each year. The bottom line is that I am HIGHLY opposed to ANY faction that intends or acts to restrict personal freedoms and wants to force TOTAL conformity. This is clearly the republican party at this moment in time. "

This is also the Democratic party at this time. Modern Democrats slip further and further to the left every day. Your average demoncrat today has nothing in common with the democrats of the past. If JFK were alive today, he would be a republican.

So basically we agree on everything except which party is worse.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Some people get it some people don't! All this geo political bs peacenik and warmonger fighting doesnt mean jack! You are misguided and uninformed! People of the world are mostly "Sheeple" they don't know any better! They don't know what the fuck is going on! And those that do are very powerful and the others are fighting for that power! -DcupSheepNipples

Your all blind!

 

[musclebrains]

AT least you demonstrate that the first statement can equally be applied to those on the right.

ROTFLMFAO. You are so funny



Wow, what a huge list. I had no idea that all of those people were sooooo war hungry. I guess your point is that only people who have served in the military should be able to choose whether or not we go to war. I agree completely. Lets give unbridled control of our armed forces to the joint chiefs of staff. Works for me.

Obviously you don't know how many in the military have expressed reservations about Mr. Bush's military follies. The problem is, of course, that they have to do what the chimp-in-chief commands. Exactly the point Eisenhower made after the war about Nagasaki. I would happily, however, wrest from Mr. Bush and give to Colin Powell the decision about Iraq. YOu will recall he was quite resistant to the invasion, was marginalized by Condoleeza and finally decided to toe the line -- to the extent he was compelled to present phony evidence to the UN.

Giving "unbridled control of our armed forces to the joint chiefs of staff" is hardly the same as inviting more measured input about the propriety of war by experienced people. But in your usual fashion, you've managed to boil things down to an either/or proposition.

I'm sure it never impressed you that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger.

 

[musclebrains]

This argument is false, since it implies that without experience in a situation, one cannot reason that it is worthy or has value. Simply because these men did not "serve", which has no meaning, since "serving" does not equate to "battle", does not mean that the "idea" of this war is wrong. War is sometimes justified, and is not conditional to having experience in war.

It suggests no such thing. It simply notices that some of the most hawkish Republicans around have avoided serving in the military. (I especially love Delay's explanation that he tried to volunteer but all the positions were taken by minorities.)

That so many Republicans in positions of recent power turn out to have avoided military service and now advocate war may be a complete coincidence. Just as Republicans charitably called it a coincidence that Bill Clinton was soft on defense because he was a draft dodger.

 

[ariolanine]

"Obviously you don't know how many in the military have expressed reservations about Mr. Bush's military follies."

Yeah, SOME of the people in service don't want to do it. The average soldier is more than happy to invade Iraq. Obviously you only listen to one side. If you had any soldiers as friends, you'd understand.

" The problem is, of course, that they have to do what the chimp-in-chief commands. Exactly the point Eisenhower made after the war about Nagasaki."

What does that prove? McCarthur wanted to nuke North Korea before the war began.

" I would happily, however, wrest from Mr. Bush and give to Colin Powell the decision about Iraq. YOu will recall he was quite resistant to the invasion, was marginalized by Condoleeza and finally decided to toe the line -- to the extent he was compelled to present phony evidence to the UN."

I would rather have Colin Powell as president than Dubya.

"Giving "unbridled control of our armed forces to the joint chiefs of staff" is hardly the same as inviting more measured input about the propriety of war by experienced people. But in your usual fashion, you've managed to boil things down to an either/or proposition."

So you've noticed me before? I'm so touched.

"I'm sure it never impressed you that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger. "

Guess our sense of sarcasm is different. Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[atlantabiolab]

It suggests no such thing. It simply notices that some of the most hawkish Republicans around have avoided serving in the military. (I especially love Delay's explanation that he tried to volunteer but all the positions were taken by minorities.)

That so many Republicans in positions of recent power turn out to have avoided military service and now advocate war may be a complete coincidence. Just as Republicans charitably called it a coincidence that Bill Clinton was soft on defense because he was a draft dodger.

But it does insinuate that very thing, since there is no correlation to draft dodging and political party, but there is a good correlate to draft dodging and affluence; the latter being a near requirement for political service. Since both parties derive their members from affluence and nepatism, this aspect of military service is apparent on both sides, and is thus a non-issue, even if it could somehow how be a real issue, which it cannot.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"The republicans are giving us a tax cut. Democrats spend way more on more frivolous bullshit. At least Bush is protecting the nation.

And three Democrat controlled Congresses. "

Seems last time I checked, Both houses of congress were in the hands of the Republicans during the Bush II administration with the brief hiatus of the senator from Vermont going independent. The House has been continuously in republican hands since the later Reagan era. The dems have not had control of both houses of congress since Jimmy Carter and early Reagan.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"I agree with you totally, but the Republicans are not trying to enact laws about who you bang. They are not trying to legislate your behavior. "

You show me any law in the country that puts you in jail for being politically incorrect!

The republicans, however, in Texas recently enacted the sodomy law to include exclusively homosexuals. I would call that legislating morality. And you can go to jail for it. The republicans over rode Oregon's "right to assisted suicide law"--I would call that legislating morality. Any doctor that attempts this will loose their license! The Feds made that Absolutely clear! And since when do they own something as personal as your own life? I think if a person wants to off themselves, let them. It is no business of the Feds to tell them they have to run up huge medical bills and suffer a few more months of misery for what? The republican administration showed us whose boss when it comes to the morality issue of medical marijuana and put a grower in prison recently who was licensed by the City of Oakland California to grow it for their medical marijuana program. If they don't like medical marijuana back in D.C. or Virginia, that is their decision but who the hell ask the fascist, John Ashcroft to come all the way out here and dictate his fascist christian morality to us? Most of us don't want to hear from him.

As for cigarettes and tobacco, therein lies the hypocrasy of both parties. They are both in collusion on that one. Frankly, I could care less if anyone smokes, just don't do it around me or at least do it down wind of me. They all see it as an easy mark to grab some more money as it is a "morality tax." Overall, the republicans are WAY more in your face with all this fundimentalist christian morality sh*t than anyone that I can remember. Getting really tired of hearing from ALL of them. Oh, and dont' forget that it was the Republicans using the threat of Federal highway funds that twisted the arms of all fifty states to raise the drinking age back up to 21. They used "highway deaths from alcohol" to tie the two together. And it was George Bush I that supported and signed into law the morality law of making anabolic drugs schedule III and therefore a felony punishable by prison for possession. It was the republicans in Florida that pushed for and passed the mandatory drug sentencing laws that are among the most severe in the country. For as little as a single joint, you can be sent to prison for twenty years MANDATORY. The judge has NO leeway. They can also confiscate your home and property under the same law if you have enough on hand to constitute a "dealer" AND the same law allows that if it is someone in your home and you didn't even know about it, you are just as guilty and you ALL go to jail. That is the republican solution for everything under the sun regarding THEIR morality. Do as we dictate or go to JAIL!!!

 

[musclebrains]

You may be right, Bio, but I can't find a list of Democratic draft dodgers period, even on the loony right sites -- much less Demo draft dodgers who are hawks. And it's certainly true that Clinton was continually attacked by those on the right for evading military service. It is interesting to see how irrelevant evasion has become now that a party led by draft dodgers who are also militaristic is in control.

Following is a list of some recent Republican draft dodgers and their explanations. (From http://www.webguild.com/sentinel/draft_dodgers.htm. )

I guess some of these guys must have been happy when Pres. Carter, who did serve, decided to pardon Vietnam-era draft dodgers.

Elliott Abrams - Sought deferment for bad back.
Richard Armey - Sought college deferment, too smart to die.
Bill Bennett - Sought graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Pat Buchanan - Sought deferment for bad knee.
George W. Bush - Daddy got him in the Texas National Guard and then he was missing for the last two years of his service.
Dick Cheney - Sought graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Tom DeLay - - Sought college deferment, too smart to die.
Newt Gingrich - Sought graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Phil Gramm - Sought marriage deferment, too loved to die.
Jack Kemp - Sought medical deferment while in the NFL.
Rush Limbaugh - Sought deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass.
Trent Lott - Sought deferment, didn't want to muss his hair.
P.J. O'Rourke - Sought deferment, too stoned.
Dan Quayle - Family got him into the Reserves.
Pat Robertson - Father pulled him out of Korea as soon as the shooting began.
Kenneth Starr Sought deferment for psoriasis.

Goddam hippies, every last one of them!!!

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"You may be right, Bio, but I can't find a list of Democratic draft dodgers period, even on the loony right sites -- much less Demo draft dodgers who are hawks. And it's certainly true that Clinton was continually attacked by those on the right for evading military service. It is interesting to see how irrelevant evasion has become now that a party led by draft dodgers who are also militaristic is in control. "

I didn't want to say it because I am sure that most people here think I am WAY out there anyway but the truth is that I can't think of a single democrat that has not served AND is a HAWK. Therein lies the republican hypocrasy. Now that the draft dodger/chickenhawks are in power, the "conservative news media" doesn't want to talk about draft evasion anymore. If they really were the "Liberal Media" don't you think we would never hear the end of it like Clinton's blow job? And concerning THAT, who gaves a rat's behind if some whore sucks his cock in the white house? Wouldn't be the first time or the last time. And what man ever turned down a blow job?

As for Clinton's draft dodging as portrayed by the "conservative media" the facts are that he was a consciencious objector and was on a LEGAL college deferment. Unlike Bush, he was NOT pro Vietnam so why should he serve IN LIEU of going to college? To serve in a war he is a legal consciencious objector of? Get real folks! I don't consider this draft dodging as he was AGAINST IT. I consider it draft dodging if a person is NOT against it AND then is too chicken sh*t to serve. Especially when they then think that everyone else OTHER than them should lay their lives down for their country.