attn: I apologize for this (politics inside)

[draelyc]

Originally posted by Craggin I doubt that anyone sitting in the White House in Sept. 2001 could've prevented the attacks. (In spite of the rumors now that there were warnings that got ignored. I don't know if that is true or not...I'm hoping it isn't.)

Do a little digging around about the things that the Clinton administration actively did vis. terrorism & specific threats -- it's amazing what gets ignored when enough pundits shout, for long enough, "well, Clinton did nothing." Man, they can get people to believe *anything*...

[Craggin]

Originally posted by draelyc Do a little digging around about the things that the Clinton administration actively did vis. terrorism & specific threats -- it's amazing what gets ignored when enough pundits shout, for long enough, "well, Clinton did nothing." Man, they can get people to believe *anything*...

No doubt...actually, the dems are notoriously clandestine scrappers. Check out how many insurgencies were started by us under the Carter administration. That guy was a classic passive/aggressive, cut back on conventional troops, etc., step up spending on clandestine warfare.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by draelyc That's what you said. Seems to me -- especially given the views you've expressed on Kerry in other threads -- that your "hint" is clear. If I misread you, I apologize. I don't *think* that I did, but if I did, I'm sorry. I find it interesting that, at times like this, you *insist* on literal, verbatim readings, ignoring the concept of subtext, insinuation, implication, etc., yet when *I* draw your attention to the literal meanings of words, you attack me personally and deride me in the most hostile way. Hmmm... B]

 

 

Bull{censored} all the way around.

 

*YOU* are the one that attacks people if they misread, or don't understand.

 

 

If you gave a dman...you would have gone back and noted that what I actually DID say is who bin Laden/terrorists "supported" at the time of our elections.

 

 

That is not anywhere NEAR close to what you say I said.

 

 

 

And if you go back...your memory must not be too clear...you attack on a post by post basis....using your own brand of superiority complex.

 

Then when someone else defends themself with the same tactic, you cry.

 

 

 

The error you made was glaring. I've pointed themout to you before, but you manage to smooth it over without actually admitting you {censored}ed it all up.

 

 

"*IF* I did, I am sorry"

 

There's no if.

 

 

You changed what I said to argue and belittle my statements, hence myself.

 

 

The you whine and cry when other people "attack" you.

 

 

The issue I have is that you have different standards fior others than you do yourself.

 

 

 

Taking something "literal" of not has niothing to do with it. YOu didn't read what I wrote, made something up, change the argument to the opposite of what I said...then cry that I attack you and that you never know if I will take your words literal or not.

 

 

All the while admiring yourself on what a fine, wise, informed, educated gentle person you are.

 

While you've managed to impress some people with your zamboniness, I'd say more like a bulldozer. NO regard for what is in the path, just flatten everything to make way for draelycworld.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Some of my biggest problems with the complaints are: 1) This (ass/ego) idea that liberals complaining about this present administration have enough information/intel to accurately judge it. (er, well,...THEY DON'T!)...HINT: liberal media news does NOT qualify as military/national security intel...(liberal arm chair experts.. aaaarrrrggg )

Okay, WHAT liberal media? I'm tired of this bull{censored}, {censored}-assed FICTION! Show me the left-wing Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reilley's! Where is this alleged liberal media, 'cuz I'd really like to tune in and get some refreshing perspective!

Btw, YOU may be comfortable trusting Big Brother's magical "intel," but after what's come out about the "intel" offered to the UN in a B.S. attempt to get international support for the conquest, I am not.

2) This (retarted 'society says' morality) idea that Hezbollah/Al-Quida/terrorists are moral equivalents to Americans/Israelis because we both cause destruction....

So, it's okay for one group to cause carnage and commit atrocities, but not another?

I thought you were opposed to "situational ethics"? C'mon, man -- if something's wrong, then it's wrong for everybody!

3) This erroneous idea (from liberal news ...yet again...)

Where? What stations? PLEASE!?

that our military experts and leaders are ignorant nim-com-poops, waging war because they aren't smart enough to do otherwise...

Well, let's look at the FACTS of the bang-up job being done, for a start! I'm not saying the leadership is incompetent, but they've completely failed in any of their stated missions.... Unless you've got some super-secret magical info-source you're not telling us about...

(as if the critics ARE smart enough to do otherwise )

I don't know how far back the archives on this forum go, but I'll say this (since you've already accused me of ego): every single prediction that I and others (like Corso, et al.) made on this forum before the first shot was fired in Iraq has come true. Every single one.

Meanwhile, every single prediction the rightwingers made (e.g., weapons of mass destruction, etc.) has failed to pan out.

Posterity will judge.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by Craggin No doubt...actually, the dems are notoriously clandestine scrappers. Check out how many insurgencies were started by us under the Carter administration. That guy was a classic passive/aggressive, cut back on conventional troops, etc., step up spending on clandestine warfare.

In some respects, I think that's perhaps how it should be. Not that I condone morally questionable covert actions, but if a matter is really one of "national security," it should probably be handled quietly so as not to compromise said security -- not turned into a raucous political campaign which then defeats its own stated objective.....

Sorry, now *I'm* ranting...

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by draelyc After we told Saddam we wouldn't interfere in his local dispute? Because the leadership then, although every bit as morally bankrupt as now, was not nearly so GALATCIALLY STUPID! You expect to be taken seriously as an adult, and you believe in fairytales like this? Yes, we did -- under completely different leadership paradigms than are in place now. You can hardly credit the *current* leadership with the benevolent efforts of people like Carter & Clinton. And even so, didn't we have something to do with forcefully creating the Israeli state in the first place? My history's a little hazy there -- double check me on that, anyone? Right -- it has NOTHING TO DO WITH US AND OUR BEHAVIOR, it's all on them, yeah?

I never claimed we have no responsibilty in the issue. In fact I have admitted we have.

You once again assume too much for the sake of arguing and trying to prove how right you are.


It's on you to show ME that I even once said this is ALL on the Middle East alone.


Your habit for drawing conclusions or extending the logic chain leads you astray. I don;t know why you INISIST on making imaginary "logical" extensions of what I say. You make them, then argue that that is what *i* say, or what is "naturally" to be inferred (by you superior and concrete "logic")

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by draelyc Okay, WHAT liberal media? I'm tired of this bull{censored}, {censored}-assed FICTION! Show me the left-wing Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reilley's! Where is this alleged liberal media, 'cuz I'd really like to tune in and get some refreshing perspective! Btw, YOU may be comfortable trusting Big Brother's magical "intel," but after what's come out about the "intel" offered to the UN in a B.S. attempt to get international support for the conquest, I am not. So, it's okay for one group to cause carnage and commit atrocities, but not another? I thought you were opposed to "situational ethics"? C'mon, man -- if something's wrong, then it's wrong for everybody! Where? What stations? PLEASE!? Well, let's look at the FACTS of the bang-up job being done, for a start! I'm not saying the leadership is incompetent, but they've completely failed in any of their stated missions.... Unless you've got some super-secret magical info-source you're not telling us about... I don't know how far back the archives on this forum go, but I'll say this (since you've already accused me of ego): every single prediction that I and others (like Corso, et al.) made on this forum before the first shot was fired in Iraq has come true. Every single one. Meanwhile, every single prediction the rightwingers made (e.g., weapons of mass destruction, etc.) has failed to pan out. Posterity will judge.

Jupiter Christmas!...liberal media = CNN, MSN, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times etc...etc...etc....and ALL the other 'SO CALLED' news agencies that parade "ONLY" the BAD/DOWN side off the American envolvement of war...not much about the carnage produced by the terrorists...(if any at all...)

here's an exercise for you:

sit in front of the TV with a notebook (while watching one of these networks..) and write down the 'negative' content and then the 'positive' content concerning American war involvement...Easily....easily it will be 90% or greater demonstrating how America is not doing any good, is not succeeding, woefully inadequate...etc...
then they will carefully 'edit' the statements from the White House only showing weaknesses and errors (verbal mistakes) and NOT the principle or 'body' of the news conference...

simple propaganda...clear.

Where are the interviews with the MILLIONS (yep, millions) of those that are sssoooo THANKFUL!!!! that America is over there doing a GREAT HUMANITARIAN DEED (their words) showing kids getting free meals, medicine, protection? The training of Police and equipping of their military?

Won't see it....WHY? because 90% of media reporters vote Democrat (over 80% of college professors vote dem too...)....and, they don't want to portray ANYTHING this administration does as doing any good. It is called media bias...

gotta go home.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by draelyc Logic has "brands," now. I'm not going to lecture you again about just making up whatever random definitions you want to for any old word that catches your fancy...

So when someone says "by your logic...."


What they are REALLY saying is:

"Logic only comes in a set concrete form"


No...they are sayingn people use various brandsof logic.



Look porfessor, I took a class of Logic at U of T. I know there are rules for text book logic.


But {don't look now Chris...you'll get hioves here} in THE REAL WORLD!...people use "brands" of logic"


IS it misundertsood logic? Is it illogic? IS it "antilogic". IS it intergalacatic or interdimensional or alien logic".


COuld be!


And then you BITCH at me for being all over the map on literal or subjective interpretations? You're just arguing because you *THINK* I don't understand textbook logic....you assume. Simply becuase I say people use various forms of logic" That means I odn;t understand it?





You surely have an excessively high opinion of your campu and classroom. Leaders of industry agree that the campus isn't anywhere NEAR the "real" world...but draelyc says it is and that makes it so.


What? You think that I think your campus exists in some nth dimensionn. That you go through some portal, away from this Earth?


You honestly have no cluse what Imean by "real world" when I say it?



Dude....I honestly don't know what else to say. Other than I start to understand why YOU are just as exsaperated with me as I am with you. Some kind of serious communication problem here.


But since you work on campus, I think I actually DO understand.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Jupiter Christmas!...liberal media = CNN, MSN, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times etc...etc...etc....and ALL the other 'SO CALLED' news agencies that parade "ONLY" the BAD/DOWN side off the American envolvement of war...not much about the carnage produced by the terrorists...(if any at all...) here's an exercise for you: sit in front of the TV with a notebook (while watching one of these networks..) and write down the 'negative' content and then the 'positive' content concerning American war involvement...Easily....easily it will be 90% or greater demonstrating how America is not doing any good, is not succeeding, woefully inadequate...etc... then they will carefully 'edit' the statements from the White House only showing weaknesses and errors (verbal mistakes) and NOT the principle or 'body' of the news conference... simple propaganda...clear. Where are the interviews with the MILLIONS (yep, millions) of those that are sssoooo THANKFUL!!!! that America is over there doing a GREAT HUMANITARIAN DEED (their words) showing kids getting free meals, medicine, protection? The training of Police and equipping of their military? Won't see it....WHY? because 90% of media reporters vote Democrat (over 80% of college professors vote dem too...)....and, they don't want to portray ANYTHING this administration does as doing any good. It is called media bias... gotta go home.

 

 

Y#ah...odd how the media keeps reporting the police are getting blown up.

 

Theykeep reporting it...over and over.

 

 

So...SOMEBODY'S getting in line for interviews. Why would they do that if they know they stand a good chanxce of getting blown up?

 

Becuase they believe in what's going on?

 

 

But don't try to argue. It's draelycworld, and won;tmakeonne bit of difference, no matter what evidence. You could walk an Iraqi right up to Chris' face, have her tell him they truely belive in the good things happening, and he'd have a million reasonsn why it's not true.

 

Give up now, while you still can.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Bull{censored} all the way around.

Are you saying I misread you? If so, are you saying my apology is bull{censored}?

Hmm, I don't know how to respond to that. So much for being up front and sincere with you.

*YOU* are the one that attacks people if they misread, or don't understand.

I offered you quoted evidece of what you said and what it was to which I responded. Would you do me the same courtesy?

If you gave a dman...you would have gone back and noted that what I actually DID say is who bin Laden/terrorists "supported" at the time of our elections.

Um, I *did* that, dOooOd. Did you not see where I quoted you?

That is not anywhere NEAR close to what you say I said.

See, now you're doing EXACTLY what I said you do in my reply to you: you're picking and choosing when to be literal and when to be open to hints and implications.

Listen, pal -- you can't have it both ways: if you're going to insist that I stick only to the surface, literal interpretation of your posts, YOU'LL HAVE TO DO THE SAME WITH MINE, else thy name be HYPOCRITE. Get it?

And if you go back...your memory must not be too clear...you attack on a post by post basis....using your own brand of superiority complex.

These words strung together in this order = NONSENSE. C'mon, make a clear, sensible sentence, will ya?

Oh, nice personal attack to avoid the MATTER AT HAND, btw.

Then when someone else defends themself with the same tactic, you cry.

Again, show me the evidence? Where and when did I do this?

The error you made was glaring. I've pointed themout to you before, but you manage to smooth it over without actually admitting you {censored}ed it all up.

Your grammar is confusing me -- was it one error or more than one (singular or plural)? If plural, you're going to have to go back over these alleged errors of mine, because I didn't see you point anything out to me except the bit about Kerry, where you implied that he'd be kind to terrorists...

"*IF* I did, I am sorry" There's no if.

Then why this mile-long, whining post? Why not just say "You did misunderstand me -- here's what I intended to say......" ... in which case, I'd have reiterated my sincere apology and we could move on like grown folks?

Why do you prefer this temper-tatrum, Romper-Room drama?

You changed what I said

No, dammit, I DIDN'T. I followed your words to an apparent conclusion. When you asked about it, I pointed out the thought process that leads directly from your stated words to their implied conclusion. I THEN said, quite sincerely, that if that thought process had led me to an erroneous conclusion, then I was sorry.

Based on things you've said many times in the past, I don't think the conclusion was erroneous, but if you say that's not what you meant, I believe you.

But that DOESN'T mean that the words you posted could not possibly be taken that way, so GET OVER YOURSELF.

to argue and belittle my statements, hence myself.

This is why you seem like a kindergartener: you never seem to be emotionally stable enough to separate a criticism of your "argument" from a criticism of "you as a person."

Dude, you can say something that's GALACTICALLY stupid without being a stupid person all around. If I, for instance, point out that something you said was stupid, THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING -- that the THING SAID is stupid.

If you want to take it as a slight against your SELF, then you're not mature enough to have these kinds of talks! (And that *is* a criticism of you as a person, I'm sorry to say.)

The you whine and cry when other people "attack" you.

Pointing it out is the same as "whining and crying" about it?

You're mixed up, mang.

The issue I have is that you have different standards fior others than you do yourself.

Untrue. I defy you to produce one shred of evidence that -- undoctored by you -- even remotely supports that assertion.

You can't do it, because it's flatly untrue.

Conversely, you get QUITE irrate when I apply to you the very same standards to which I hold myself.

Taking something "literal" of not has niothing to do with it. YOu didn't read what I wrote, made something up, change the argument to the opposite of what I said...then cry that I attack you and that you never know if I will take your words literal or not.

Now you're just plainly LYING, as anyone else who's reading this thread can see.

All the while admiring yourself on what a fine, wise, informed, educated gentle person you are.

I defy you to produce a single shred of evidence that even remotely supports the claim that I admire myself as fine, wise, informed, or gentle.

Go ahead -- you quote me a post that shows me adoring myself as you accuse me of doing. See if one exists, outside your narrow, insecure, easily threatened ego.

While you've managed to impress some people with your zamboniness, I'd say more like a bulldozer. NO regard for what is in the path, just flatten everything to make way for draelycworld.

Ah, now you're back to fantasizing like a child. Well, have fun tilting at shadows of windmills in the maze that must be your mind. I'll stay out here in the real world, thank you.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes I never claimed we have no responsibilty in the issue. In fact I have admitted we have.

Sigh. Okay, now you're on your literalistic kick. Okay, let's play it that way. You said:

Originally posted by 17 Tubes If the Middle East extremists were truely interested in peace and benevelonce...it would have happened by now.

Taking that statement literally, you are placing ALL RESPONSIBILITY for peace upon "the Middle East extremists," because you identify their alleged lack of true interest as the ONLY obstacle to peace.

Do you mention any other obstacles? NO. Ergo, literally, you're claiming that we have no responsibility in that arena. END OF STORY.

You once again assume too much for the sake of arguing and trying to prove how right you are.

A) I'm not assuming; I'M GOING BY WHAT YOU WROTE!!!
B) It's not about my being right -- I'm not even part of the conversation. We're not talking about me; we're talking about the debacle in the middle east.

The fact that YOU *want* to make it all about me indicates that your opinions about the middle east are sorely devoid of support, even in your own eyes. If you thought your arguments had weight, you'd focus on the arguments and not on ME.

It's on you to show ME that I even once said this is ALL on the Middle East alone.

Done and done. See above.

Your habit for drawing conclusions or extending the logic chain leads you astray. I don;t know why you INISIST on making imaginary "logical" extensions of what I say. You make them, then argue that that is what *i* say, or what is "naturally" to be inferred (by you superior and concrete "logic")

You have serious linguistic impairment, as we've discovered in the past, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain to you AGAIN how language works. This time I'm just taking things completely at their literal face-value. Hope yer happy, Hoss!

[draelyc]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Jupiter Christmas!...liberal media = CNN, MSN, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times etc...etc...etc....and ALL the other 'SO CALLED' news agencies that parade "ONLY" the BAD/DOWN side off the American envolvement of war...not much about the carnage produced by the terrorists...(if any at all...)

OMG!1!!! THERE ALL OUT 2 GIT ME!!!11!11!!ONE

Conspiracy-theorize, much?



When you grow up, do some research into the research that's been done to investigate the allegation of a liberal bias in the media. If you look to reputable (i.e., not politically affiliated) sources, you'll be surprised.

here's an exercise for you: sit in front of the TV with a notebook (while watching one of these networks..) and write down the 'negative' content and then the 'positive' content concerning American war involvement...Easily....easily it will be 90% or greater demonstrating how America is not doing any good, is not succeeding, woefully inadequate...etc... then they will carefully 'edit' the statements from the White House only showing weaknesses and errors (verbal mistakes) and NOT the principle or 'body' of the news conference... simple propaganda...clear.

Could be propaganda ... or it could be the FACT that things are BAD over there, and getting worse!

You can't call it propaganda just because it inconveniences your ideology & shakey worldview....

Where are the interviews with the MILLIONS (yep, millions) of those that are sssoooo THANKFUL!!!! that America is over there doing a GREAT HUMANITARIAN DEED (their words) showing kids getting free meals, medicine, protection? The training of Police and equipping of their military?

Where are these thankful millions? Where are these millions who are eternally grateful to us for BLOWING UP THEIR COUNTRY?

Show me some evidence of them, if you've got any.

Won't see it....WHY? because 90% of media reporters vote Democrat (over 80% of college professors vote dem too...)....and, they don't want to portray ANYTHING this administration does as doing any good. It is called media bias...

Or, perhaps we don't see it because it isn't there, or because what is there is so overshadowed by the BAD stuff that's really there.

You know, a reasonable man would look at the fact that so many highly informed and educated people look at this situation and see colossal screw-ups on the part of the administration as a strong suggestion that the administration colossally screwed up. But you see conspiracy theories. Hmm, that begs an important question: why do you hate America? If you loved America, you'd want her government to be held acountable, to act responsibly, and to work to enhace our security. On all points, *this* government has failed miserably, yet you sing its praises. Why do you hate America so?

gotta go home.

Be glad you have one. Millions of Iraqis don't.

[17 Tubes]

Draelyc....

I am not going to bother. Why would I?

If I answer your questrions, I'm babbling.

If I point out YOUR errors, I am whining.

You may think your quoted point-for-point arguments make everything orderly and neat, but it actually makes it more difficult FOR me, because I can't see what you're responding to when I quote your post. MAybe you got the trick down that's cool.


No, I think I'll stop here.


I am clearly the biggest {censored}ing retarded idiot on the planet....


So have a great day.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes So when someone says "by your logic...." What they are REALLY saying is: "Logic only comes in a set concrete form" No...they are sayingn people use various brandsof logic.

More made-up terms. Sigh...

Look porfessor, I took a class of Logic at U of T. I know there are rules for text book logic.

Your instructor must be so proud.

But {don't look now Chris...you'll get hioves here} in THE REAL WORLD!...people use "brands" of logic"

You keep referring to the "real world," but making completely fantastic assertions. That's very confusing.

IS it misundertsood logic? Is it illogic? IS it "antilogic". IS it intergalacatic or interdimensional or alien logic".

And it doesn't help people understand you when you just make up words willy-nilly.

COuld be! And then you BITCH at me for being all over the map on literal or subjective interpretations?

You're the one who always, without fail, avoids responding to any point I make by attacking my alleged arrogance or my alleged self-worship. You started all this, long ago, by first bitching at me for taking you too literally, and now bitching at me for following your statements to their logical conclusion.

I say again, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS WITHOUT BEING A HYPOCRITE.

If you want to be a hypocrite, go ahead, but at least admit it & be honest.

You're just arguing because you *THINK* I don't understand textbook logic....you assume.

No, and this is what you're not getting. I don't assume. I GO BY WHAT YOU POST!!! Based on your posts, you do NOT understand logic. That's it. No assumptions. Just an inevitable conclusion from incontrovertible evidence.

Simply becuase I say people use various forms of logic" That means I odn;t understand it?

It indicates that you think there are different forms of logic, does it not? Tell me another way to read that statement?

You surely have an excessively high opinion of your campu and classroom.

Oh, now it's not only myself that I worship, but my campu[sic] and classroom?

I should smile at your consistency, at least.

Once again, I defy you to show me any evidence that I have this alleged overwhelming love for myself and all things me. Come on -- I dare you.

Leaders of industry agree that the campus isn't anywhere NEAR the "real" world

A) What leaders -- give me sources for that. Otherwise, I'll be forced to ASSUME (gasp) that you're just making up "facts" to bolster your own egotism

B) Leaders of industry are considered authorities on what is real? What do CEOs know about metaphysics, as a rule?

C) When are you going to define this shadowing "real world" term you love to throw around?

Are you seriously suggesting that classrooms exist in some fantasy dimension that isn't a part of the terrestrial sphere? That's BULL{censored}, plain and simple. Classes are taught by real people who've studied real things in the real world, or else they're not accredited and the degrees they grant are worthless.

You think science teachers just fantasize and "make up" what's in the science textbooks? You think historians all individually just make up their own fantastical histories? Again, that's BULL{censored}, and if you have half the clue you claim to, Mr. Logic Studyin' Man, you'd know that.

...but draelyc says it is and that makes it so.

No, dammit, you've got it backwards again. It is so; that's why I said it.

What? You think that I think your campus exists in some nth dimensionn. That you go through some portal, away from this Earth?

That's what you apparently think. I'm trying to correct you and disabuse you of that error.

You honestly have no cluse what Imean by "real world" when I say it?

I don't think *you* know what you mean when you say it.

Dude....I honestly don't know what else to say. Other than I start to understand why YOU are just as exsaperated with me as I am with you. Some kind of serious communication problem here.

On that, we can heartily agree!

But since you work on campus, I think I actually DO understand.

I think that, if that's what you think, you're a long way from actually understanding anything. Sad.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Draelyc.... I am not going to bother. Why would I?

You're not going to "bother," because you can't. You've got nothing. I asked for proof that I do the things you accuse me of, and there is no proof because I don't do those things. So be melodramatic if you like, but it won't hide the fact that you've got NO ground to stand upon.

If I answer your questrions, I'm babbling.

I never said that. I only point out babbling when I see it. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you're capable of answering a question without babbling. In fact, I emplore you to.

If I point out YOUR errors, I am whining.

No, it's the WAY you go about it that makes it whining. Don't make me quote the definition of "to whine."

You may think your quoted point-for-point arguments make everything orderly and neat, but it actually makes it more difficult FOR me, because I can't see what you're responding to when I quote your post.

So it's my fault if you're too lazy to go back and look at the post to which I'm responding? Noice!

MAybe you got the trick down that's cool.

I can't even translate this one...

No, I think I'll stop here. I am clearly the biggest {censored}ing retarded idiot on the planet....

Once again, when you can't say something sensible *and* on the point, you rush to play the martyr. How many times have you bemoaned your own crucifixion on here? Doesn't the drama get old, in your head?

So have a great day.

I wish the same for you, sincerely.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by draelyc OMG!1!!! THERE ALL OUT 2 GIT ME!!!11!11!!ONE Conspiracy-theorize, much? When you grow up, do some research into the research that's been done to investigate the allegation of a liberal bias in the media. If you look to reputable (i.e., not politically affiliated) sources, you'll be surprised. Could be propaganda ... or it could be the FACT that things are BAD over there, and getting worse! You can't call it propaganda just because it inconveniences your ideology & shakey worldview.... Where are these thankful millions? Where are these millions who are eternally grateful to us for BLOWING UP THEIR COUNTRY? Show me some evidence of them, if you've got any. Or, perhaps we don't see it because it isn't there, or because what is there is so overshadowed by the BAD stuff that's really there. You know, a reasonable man would look at the fact that so many highly informed and educated people look at this situation and see colossal screw-ups on the part of the administration as a strong suggestion that the administration colossally screwed up. But you see conspiracy theories. Hmm, that begs an important question: why do you hate America? If you loved America, you'd want her government to be held acountable, to act responsibly, and to work to enhace our security. On all points, *this* government has failed miserably, yet you sing its praises. Why do you hate America so? Be glad you have one. Millions of Iraqis don't.

I'm all growed-up I'm 46. I am not a conspiracy theorist, deal in facts only (note that facts DO NOT = perception)...

and I appreciate the attempt to 'reverse the burden of proof' onto me and 'attempt' to put me on the defensive (hehe...nice try!) I know tactics of argumentation and am aware of most of the liberal tricks you emply...(I'm sure you catch most in these traps...)

America is accountable to it's citizens only. Not world opinion or bastardized left-wing perception games. We have leadership in place to address national security...we should support the good being done to protect us citizens. Can it be done better? You and I do not have access to pertinent information/intel that would fuel our ability to come to any conclusions here (only speculation...)...so why do you consistently 'speculate' the perception of negativity???? and not attempt to acknowledge the good????

If you had access to the full disclosure of intel and used the data to inform me of your conclusions I would totally respect your opinion. (at least understand it...)

otherwise: your just another left-wing cry baby complainer self-righteously and hypocritically judging American leadership...

[Corso2]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi Let me sum up: You have people on one side (let's call them conservative) agreeing with actions by the US administration - meaning the use of force and, to a degree, state building (see Iraq and Afghanistan). They are clear that this is the proper course of action. Then, on the other side, you have a group of people (let's call them liberals) who disagree with the US administration and are pointing out all the flaws in "the plan." My observation: At least the "conservatives" have a plan. The liberals just seem to be floundering and attacking the plan and not the problem. Liberals: It's clear you don't agree with the plan, what is YOUR plan then?

 

 

 

Well, the last time we had an intractable enemy financed by petro dollars, once the price of oil dropped to an all time low(following the energy crisis and institution of efficiency standards) they collapsed. I'm speakin about the USSR, f course. When their economy collapsed, oil was at about $10bbl in todays dollars.

 

We are financing both sides of this war. When we pay taxes, we are financing our side. When we buy gas, we are financing their side. Republicans are screwing the US coming and going. They object to financing our side(taxes) and they object to reducing our enemies' financing(a new energy policy). It's almost as if they want us to lose..we get deeper and deeper in debt, and the assholes who want to kill us are richer then they have ever been.

 

 

Conservatives don't want to hear that they have to sacrifice for this county. I can't think of anything less patriotic. The bravest, most patriotic thing any american leader could do right now is tell the wealthiest 1% that they need to give back to the country that made their success possible during her hour of need, and get the price of oil back down to $20 a barrel with a prohibitive gas tax so people use less. Get this country flush again, weaken our enemies, and win this thing for real.

 

The day after you announced that policy, Osama would be delivered to the White House steps with a card that said "With Love, the Saudis(10% off oil with this coupon)". Nothing will make our enemies quake in their boots more than you jerkoffs using half the gas you use now, supporting green politicians who want to get us off the juice, and showing willingness to sacrifice for the cause. Remember, they have assholes lining up to blow themselves up and take our boys with them. Our {censored}in' millionaires, and the Republican party, think that taxes are a BURDEN, rather than a patriotic contribution to this great country. They think that conservation is for liberal do-gooders, when it is in fact at this moment a patriot's duty. Green is the new Red White and Blue, baby. I read an article that because we are such dumbasses, the leading edge in stem cell research is in Singapore. Unless we get our heads out of our asses, the leader in clean energy technology will be India during the next century. We took over the world by being first and best at everything. Now, the douchebag Republicans won't even ask people to scale back from an F-350 to a 150.

 

 

Conservatives that don't want to sacrifice in such a manner for victory need to look a grieving military family in the eye and explain to them why the war, and this country isn't worth it.

[Corso2]

(crickets) Yeah. Thought so.

[la0tsu]

This wasn't addressed to me, but there were some things that I had to respond to.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe America is accountable to it's citizens only.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Not world opinion

I agree, though it should be noted that we would be wise to consider world opinion as a part of our decision making process. After all, the problem is the people who hate us. We should try to minimize the amount of additional hate we incur.

or bastardized left-wing perception games.

You lost me here.

We have leadership in place to address national security...

True.

we should support the good being done to protect us citizens.

We should definitely support the good that's being or could be done. We should also resist the bad that is being or could be done. It's not an either/or situation, after all.

Can it be done better?

I would say yes, but we'll get to that in a bit.

You and I do not have access to pertinent information/intel that would fuel our ability to come to any conclusions here (only speculation...)

First of all, not all intel is inaccessible. Second of all, as has been pointed out, there have been a number of military and intelligence leaders who have said that the Bush administration has mishandled the situation. Third of all, you don't need intel to know that there is near daily violence in Iraq. Or ongoing terrorist acts throughout the world. Or a potential protracted ground confrontation on the east end of the Mediterranean. Or rising violent crime rates in the US. Or a skyrocketing national debt, which very definitely is a security issue.

... If you had access to the full disclosure of intel and used the data to inform me of your conclusions I would totally respect your opinion.

Remember that first point you made? That the US government is accountable to only its citizens? What happened to that accountability? You've just let them off the hook. If you don't have the intel you can't draw a conclusion, so you can't hold them accountable. That is the problem. Fortunately, as I stated above, there is plenty of information from which one can draw a conclusion, so we can hold them accountable.

otherwise: your just another left-wing cry baby complainer self-righteously and hypocritically judging American leadership...

I had thought better of you than this. You've called the guy a cry baby because he had the nerve to state an opinion about the leadership of his country. That's just plain crap.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by la0tsu I had thought better of you than this. You've called the guy a cry baby because he had the nerve to state an opinion about the leadership of his country. That's just plain crap.

 

 

I disagree (with plenty of emphasis...) with your assumption that you or the public have access to pertinent National Security Intel (ie: Top Secret...and level grades higher...).

 

1) My best friend works at a Military supplier and is high level top secret clearance...the intel stuff available to the public (according to him..) is tabloid in comparison. He regularly briefs with Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon (once or twice a month..).

 

My wife and I have AeroSpace background and have worked regularly with military personnel. My wife's security clearance was higher than Admirals and Generals (whom she regularly briefed). We are most aware of the way our Military and Government run secret/national security sensitive materials. What is available to the public is not 'pertinent' and definitely not close to full disclosure (news reporters are driven crazy here...) so, much speculation is pandered about (as I read here...hahahaha) as if it were 'fact'...not so.

 

My 'cry baby' jab was to make a point: "if you think you have sufficient intel/information in order to indict or convict this administration of anything is nothing short of humorous (hahahaha, excuse the laughter...) that's why I said that..... making assumptions based on 'cartoon' intel and then building a whole 'I hate Bush, we are doing things wrong etc...' attitude is amazing to me.... it simply implies what I know absolutely IS NOT TRUE! and that, again is: YOU DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INTEL/INFORMATION TO BASE YOUR COMPLAINTS ON! simple...the news programs would love to have you continue to believe they are feeding you the goods (as it were..) but you guys (that believe you know ANYTHING pertinent) are just dupes! plain and simple...

[la0tsu]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I disagree (with plenty of emphasis...) with your assumption that you or the public have access to pertinent National Security Intel (ie: Top Secret...and level grades higher...). 1) My best friend works at a Military supplier and is high level top secret clearance...the intel stuff available to the public (according to him..) is tabloid in comparison. He regularly briefs with Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon (once or twice a month..). My wife and I have AeroSpace background and have worked regularly with military personnel. My wife's security clearance was higher than Admirals and Generals (whom she regularly briefed). We are most aware of the way our Military and Government run secret/national security sensitive materials. What is available to the public is not 'pertinent' and definitely not close to full disclosure (news reporters are driven crazy here...) so, much speculation is pandered about (as I read here...hahahaha) as if it were 'fact'...not so. My 'cry baby' jab was to make a point: "if you think you have sufficient intel/information in order to indict or convict this administration of anything is nothing short of humorous (hahahaha, excuse the laughter...) that's why I said that..... making assumptions based on 'cartoon' intel and then building a whole 'I hate Bush, we are doing things wrong etc...' attitude is amazing to me.... it simply implies what I know absolutely IS NOT TRUE! and that, again is: YOU DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INTEL/INFORMATION TO BASE YOUR COMPLAINTS ON! simple...the news programs would love to have you continue to believe they are feeding you the goods (as it were..) but you guys (that believe you know ANYTHING pertinent) are just dupes! plain and simple...

 

 

Let me reiterate:

 

 

 

Originally posted by la0tsu First of all, not all intel is inaccessible. Second of all, as has been pointed out, there have been a number of military and intelligence leaders who have said that the Bush administration has mishandled the situation. Third of all, you don't need intel to know that there is near daily violence in Iraq. Or ongoing terrorist acts throughout the world. Or a potential protracted ground confrontation on the east end of the Mediterranean. Or rising violent crime rates in the US. Or a skyrocketing national debt, which very definitely is a security issue.

 

 

Your assumption that you need to have access to top security intel in order to have enough information to criticize is 100%, unadulterated, pure, plain and simple BULL {censored}. Don't you see that the natural upshot of this is that citizens do not have the knowledge necessary to select our own leaders?

 

Listen, mister. Your position undermines democracy, and is an insult to the millions who have given their lives, livelihoods, time, and knowledge to see that, in the words of a far better man than myself, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." It is a thumb in the eye of everything our nation stands for.

[Hawkeye17]

I'm sorry but anyone who has really been paying attention the last 5 years and thinks that Bush is anything but incompetent is either blind or stupid. Historians are already talking about Bush in terms of a disaster and he has 2 years left(god help us). People in his own party are avoiding him like he's got Bird Flu even in an election year. He also has people in his own party ready to sue him for violating the Constitution he swore to protect. Bush is a disgrace and the sooner the 30%'s realize it, the better off we'll all be.

[Corso2]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I disagree (with plenty of emphasis...) with your assumption that you or the public have access to pertinent National Security Intel (ie: Top Secret...and level grades higher...). 1) My best friend works at a Military supplier and is high level top secret clearance...the intel stuff available to the public (according to him..) is tabloid in comparison. He regularly briefs with Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon (once or twice a month..). My wife and I have AeroSpace background and have worked regularly with military personnel. My wife's security clearance was higher than Admirals and Generals (whom she regularly briefed). We are most aware of the way our Military and Government run secret/national security sensitive materials. What is available to the public is not 'pertinent' and definitely not close to full disclosure (news reporters are driven crazy here...) so, much speculation is pandered about (as I read here...hahahaha) as if it were 'fact'...not so. My 'cry baby' jab was to make a point: "if you think you have sufficient intel/information in order to indict or convict this administration of anything is nothing short of humorous (hahahaha, excuse the laughter...) that's why I said that..... making assumptions based on 'cartoon' intel and then building a whole 'I hate Bush, we are doing things wrong etc...' attitude is amazing to me.... it simply implies what I know absolutely IS NOT TRUE! and that, again is: YOU DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INTEL/INFORMATION TO BASE YOUR COMPLAINTS ON! simple...the news programs would love to have you continue to believe they are feeding you the goods (as it were..) but you guys (that believe you know ANYTHING pertinent) are just dupes! plain and simple...

 

 

 

If this guy has an aerospace background, I'm never getting on another plane again.

 

 

The only concern that Rumsfeld has regarding intelligence is making sure people don't know too much about what he and his friends in the Diet Nazi Party have been up to for the last 40 years.

 

Let me tell you what sealed the deal for me on Rummy. Henry Kissinger called him, "The single most ruthless man I have ever known". HENRY KISSINGER said that.

 

That's like Hitler calling someone a meanie.

 

Hey, next time your bloodsucking leech of a military contractor friend visits Rummy(before or after the blowjob, I don't care) have him ask for any helpful hints for getting blood off of money.

[496dart]

"I don't think we are in Iraq because "[Hussein] wasn't cooperating in finding Bin Laden". We are in Iraq to secure our continued flow of oil. Blood for oil. BTW, I think the shirt is a bit off basis, while Bush seemingly disregards Muslims, the real motivation for the current war is one of economics. It's sad that many Americans still feel this war was ever justified."


exactly--OIL IS LIFE-- Think about it--this country would crumble instantly if we were cut off by our " friends" in the middle east. ITS ALL ABOUT OIL--------OIL RUNS OUR LIFE.

Oh yea, i forgot to mention-- 9/11 was an inside job --a new Pearl harbor if you will--to dupe THE SHEEP into thinking its ok to invade the middle east---

Hows that working out for ya Dubya ??? :mad:

[MTDP8350]

Sales are sales are sales.